Search results

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000). That, under the provisions of article 58

Appeal considered that Article 96 GDPR does not provide a time limit for the validity of international agreements concluded prior GDPR and that a ban on some

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted when

following chronology of events: FIRST: PROMOFARMA, on August 6, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., was aware of a news item published in a foreign media regarding an

from the Accounting Act, with more detailed reasons for the decision. Article 5 (1) (e) of the General Data Protection Regulation provides for restrictions

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

ruling and the GDPR; breach of Article 28 GDPR (the choice of a the processor does not provide sufficient guarantees); breach of Article 32 GDPR (lack of appropriate

include the elements listed in this methodology. 6.2.5. In accordance with Article 30 of the GDPR, the data controller maintains, within the register of

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

infringement of article 5.1(b), as defined in Article 83(5)(a) and considered for the purposes of the statute of limitations in Article 72(1)(a), a fine

(2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 101a and Article 103 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on personal data protection (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and

is part of the confidentiality and professional secrecy established in article 5 of the code of ethics of the Spanish Lawyers, not having violated the right

minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the lack of transparent information, as per Article 12 GDPR. The decision is the consequence

purposes and means of such activity, by virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. For its part, article 5.1.c) of the GDPR regulates the “principles relating to processing”

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

accordance with the provisions of Article 37.2 of the LOPD, in the wording given by Article 82 of Law 62/2003, of 30 December, on fiscal, administrative

violation of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

not under a legal obligation to process these data. Article 29 of the Croatian Labour Act and Article 5(4) of the Labour Law Rulebook (Official Gazette, no

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD.FIFTH: On 06/22/20, this Agency received

the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On October

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

Articles 6(1)(b), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) deemed itself competent under Article 58(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 47 of the Spanish

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR SAW The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD implies the commission of the violations typified in article 83.5 of the

of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR further elaborated in article 32, paragraph 2, subaenk, VIS Regulation. 2.5AccessrightstoNVISandstaffprofiles 2.5.1Legal

under Article 77(1) GDPR and subsequently the right of judicial remedy against the supervisory authority under Article 78(1) GDPR. Article 79 (1) GDPR provides

of the GDPR: art. 5.1 a, 12.1, 13, 14, 6, 7, 5.1.c in conjunction with 25, 5.2, 28.3, 31, 37 and 38 AVG. 63. With regard to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR, the defendant

limitation under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) and the obligation (principle) of accountability under Article 5(1)(b). 2 of the GDPR, that is to say

municipalities has not complied with Article 28 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (3) (f), cf. Article 32, as the company has not implemented

complainant had a right to object to processing for marketing purposes under Article 21 GDPR. Despite no further contact being made the company, the AEPD still fined

according to Article 82 GDPR. The District Court rejected the claim of the data subject. It held that the controller did not violate Article 15(1) GDPR. It found

violation of article 28.2 typified in Article 83.4 a) GDPR. SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS (€60,000) for alleged violation of article 28.3 typified in Article 83.4 a)

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

follows: Article 5(1)(c) , Article 5(1)(e) and Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR The DPC found that Airbnb did not validly rely on Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR as the

has been received. Does the GDPR allow the data controller to ignore a request for erasure? The AEPD found that Article 12 GDPR does not allow the data controller

the protection of legally relevant interests in accordance with Article 5-bis" (Article 5, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree no. 33/2013). In relation to the

the terms required by article 22.2. ”, which may be sanctioned nothing with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

basis to process data subject’s phone number, and violated Article 5 and Article 6 GDPR. Second, the DPA found that data subject was insufficiently informed

remind you not in vain, (...)". SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of

this the AZOP held that the controller acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. Moreover, the AZOP reiterated the fact that the pictures

Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/5set forth in article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision of the Law29/1998,

be personal data per Article 4 GDPR. The CNIL then assessed whether the transfers of the data to the US comply with Article 44 GDPR. It considered whether

of Innsbruck held that the right to compensation in accordance with article 82(1) GDPR is subject to two cumulative conditions. They must be met by the data

data security when processing personal data in accordance with Art. 32(1)a GDPR. The company had contacted the LfDI on 8 September 2018 with a data breach

for an infractionof article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) and classified as very serious toprescription effects in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

disproportionate pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner- (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond

violation of Article 5(1)(d) of the GPRS, in relation to Article 4(1) of the LOPDGDD, which governs the principle of accuracy of personal data. IV Article 72.1

principle (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the principle of minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR). This follows from both provisions of the GDPR camera surveillance

controller had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, in addition to violating the principle of data minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Concerning the second issue

their employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public

made to the GDPR, it follows that the "consent" provided for in Article 5, paragraph 3, of the "ePrivacy" directive as transposed in article 82 of the "Informatique

the principles of lawfulness and fairness of Article 5 GDPR and without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A bank (the controller) organized prize games

personal data in accordance with the basic principles of Article 5 of the GDPR. Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR states that personal data must be processed in a manner

infringement of the GDPR, articles: -12 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the GDPR and 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, and -5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance

protected (Article 32, Article 24 (1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679). Has the Chief Surveyor of the country appointed a data protection officer (Article 37 of

by Wind Tre a breach of Articles 5, 6 and 24 GDPR? Was the processing by Wind Tre in violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? Was the information provided by

regards to a violation of Article 7 GDPR, for gathering consent in a generic way. To fine the controller €3000 for infringing Article 22(2) LSSI, for installing

pursuant to Article 12(3) of the AVG. If, as in this case, such a decision is taken by an administrative body, then, pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing

complained party, by the alleged infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. EIGHTH: The agreement to initiate this sanctioning

purpose constituted a breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Secondly, the CNIL indicated that the controller breached Article 13 GDPR by failing to include the right

in the terms required by article 22.2. ”, and may be sanctionednothing with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.5(a) of the GDPR. FOURTH: Having been notified of the above-mentioned

with the GDPR. Especially, if the installation of surveillance camera is contrary to the data minimisation principle, under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. First,

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

the data subject's consent in Article 4(11), and the basic principle of legality, reasonableness and transparency in Article 5(1)(a). Furthermore, Datatilsynet

of an infringement of the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of fairness, and infringements of the Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR principles of purpose limitation

data is a form of processing as referred to in the GDPR (article 4 sub 2 GDPR). Article 6 of the GDPR provides that the processing of personal data is only

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605) , typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a penalty of warning, of in accordance with article 77 of

consent, in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Court recalled that Article 31 of the Croatian Law on the Implementation of the GDPR stipulates that the

consequent infringement of the data minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish

criminal proceedings for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. FOURTH:Notified of the abovementioned agreement

subjects infringes Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. The AEPD fined the data processor in an amount of 4,000 Euro for the violation of Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Since the

control authority, and according to the provisions of article 47 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

violation of Article 13 GDPR and issued a warning to the controller. The AEPD took into account the following aggravating factors (Article 83 (2) GDPR) to determine

forseen in Articles 15 to 22 GDPR. Failure to provide this information constitutes a "serious infraction" per Article 83.5 GDPR. However, the DPA held that

this case failed to respect the principle of data minimisation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR since information about these kinds of grants and how they are calculated

the LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On January 23, 2023, DIGI requests a

reprimand to the company for not complying with Article 13 GDPR, since it failed to even mention the GDPR in its Privacy Policy. Share your comments here

the operation of the GDPR, lacks legality and, therefore, I find a violation of Article 6, as well as Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. In the absence of legality

based comply with Article 13 of the GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the facts constituted an infringement for violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, and

it was not possible to rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on

a violation of article 5.1 a) of the RGPD, ofin accordance with article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of APPEARANCE, in accordancewith article 58.2.b) of the

been stated nor has it been proven. 3.11. The GDPR also has a jurisdiction regulation. Article 79(2) of the GDPR provides that proceedings against a controller

(hereinafter, LPA- CAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

processing is based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the consent must meet the requirements of, among others, Article 7 GDPR. The DPA observed deficiencies

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

lack of valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, it imposed VODAFONE a fine of EUR 75,000 under Article 83(5) GDPR, being indecisive whether there

AEPD held that the telecoms company 's actions were a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR. Article 6(1) does not apply here because they failed to prove that they

Moreover, following an infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR, as explained above, under the provisions of Article 83 of the GDPR, I take into account the following

as a data subject under Article 21(1) GDPR had been violated by the PAR. Did Mrs AAA have a right to object under Article 21 GDPR? Had the PAR infringed

Croatian DPA did not explain which specific corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR it used. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

subject's right to lodge a complaint as per Article 77 GDPR, in conjunction with Recital 141, and Article 57(1)(f) GDPR. The Board referenced an earlier decision

where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point a, Article 5 paragraph 2, Article 6 paragraph 1, Article 7 paragraph 3, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

costs that the right to freely request inspection is infringed. 5.3. The argument fails. 5.4. 5.4. [appellant under 1] has also requested compensation for exceeding

wearing a protective mask did not consitute personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR because it was impossible for the average person to identify the individual

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

claimed, by the alleged infringement of article 5.1.d) of the RGPD, article 17 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the aforementioned

2020 en deze voor de conclusie van repliek van de verweerder op 22 mei 2020. 5. Op 25 maart 2020 meldt de verweerder aan de Geschillenkamer een kopie van

security . That Krifa - in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2 - has demonstrated that

finding an infringement by U. Sp. z o.o. with its registered office in G. Article. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d,

either actually or potentially inappropriately disclosed. Section 34(3) 1.5 WMP failed to demonstrate that they have ensured the accuracy and security

Court's request for preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR is published. The data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

subject pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, for a theft of their personal identity and financial data, because it violated Article 32(1) GDPR which led to a data

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

suspension. " 5 Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2)

Authority. II.5.2. Established infringement of Article 5(1)(a) j° Article 6(1)(f) and Article 12(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 17 (1) GDPR. II.5.2.1. Administrative

required by Article 13 of the GDPR GDPR. The form used violated Article 13 of the GDPR conduct that is subsumi- ble under Article 83(5) of the GDPR, which provides:

L. for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR (data privacy policy) and a warning penalty for the infringement of Article 7 GDPR regarding the collection of

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) GDPR. Furthermore, there was no legal basis for these processing operations under Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

of the recognition for internal use is 5 + 5 + 5 years. The normal term is 5 years, which can be extended once by 5 years . Ten years may be too short to

that the letter in question referred to Article 58(1)(a) of the GDPR and Article 5:16 in conjunction with Article 5:17 of the Awb does not make this any different

relation to contraventions of the UK-GDPR, section 168 DPA 2018 provides that "non-material damage" in Article 82 GDPR includes distress. In relation to breaches

until the 5th of the second following or immediate business month. In accordance with the provisions of article 82 of Law 62/2003, of December 30- of fiscal

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

or by a third party. The court used Article 9(2)(f) GDPR to interpret legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as including the establishment, exercise

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

fulfilled the duty of information in accordance with GDPR. The Spanish DPA considered that Article 35 GDPR applies in this case and thus a DPIA is necessary

violated Article 6(1)GDPR, for processing personal data without a legal basis. Hence, the AEPD decided to fine Telefónica for the violation of Article 6(1)GDPR

for an infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction, in in relation to article 74.a) of the LOPDGDD.

violation of the article6.1. of the RGPD, in relation to article 20 e) of the LOPDGDD, typifiedin article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR.2. TO appoint

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 19.1 of the LOPDGDD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

A.U., with NIF A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D. as

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

for by Article 25 GDPR. In view of the above, DPA fined the controller 75.000 euros for violating Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(e), 13, 12(2), 30(1), 8

of the electronic MARIS file with the combined provisions of Article 5(1) and Article 30 GDPR due to the Federal Office failing to produce a complete record

alleged infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the GDPR. FIFTH: On 12/17/2021 the

an article about the alleged harassment, unnecessary and illegal detention of a Turkish Cypriot woman who was on the Police Alert-List. The article revealed

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

is no infringement of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2), Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR 2. there is no infringement of Article 5 of the Act of 21 March

accordance with Article 33 GDPR to the Belgian DPA. Nonetheless, there were suspicions that the controller did not comply with Article 32 GDPR. Especially

subject within 30 days, exempt in cases which it cannot identify the data subject and it shall justify the reasons, as per Article 12(3) GDPR. AEPD stated

restaurant owner lawful in line of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA concluded that there has been a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR because the uploading of

entrepreneur. The DPA found that the controller violated Article 31 GDPR and Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and issued a warning to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur

in Article 6 GDPR. If the information also includes sensitive data specified in Article 9(1) GDPR, there must be a basis for processing in Article 9(2)

Violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR The DPA held that the controller did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

controller under Article 83 GDPR due to the controller’s violations of Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments

personal data under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, and ordered the controller to pay the data subject €579.17 in damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. Share your comments

of the purposes justified collecting location data every 30 seconds, in violation of Article 5(1)(c). Second, as regards the relationship between the controller

Deutsche Wohnen SE € 14,500,000 for violating Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR as the company's archive system was structurally unable to delete unnecessary

security of processing (Article 32 GDPR), the transparency principle (Article 13 GDPR) and its information duties related to cookies (Article 22(2) of the Spanish

communication or access to said data.” III Violation of article 5.1 f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, Principles relating to processing, states the following:

breach of Article 28 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GDPR is clear. 2. On the breach of the obligation to ensure data security 49. According to Article 32 of the

4. [Article 5 GDPR#1f|Article 5(1)(f)]] in conjunction with Article 5(2), i.e. the principles of integrity and confidentiality, and Article 32 GDPR by failing

processing under Article 9 GDPR. Second, the HDPA also found a violation of the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1a) of the GDPR. It found that the

implement Regulation 2016/679 in order to comply with Article 84 and the right / obligation under Article 58 (5) of the Regulation to effectively punish the perpetrators

reasons the Italian DPA, with the power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures

been taken up in Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR under the Principles relating to the processing of personal data (Chapter II). Article 5(1)(b) of the RGPD

Protection Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d, and Article 87, Section 29, subsection

violations of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and of Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. In order

the general rule of Article 15 (1) (a), c) and d) of the GDPR by not giving substantive, specific answers to the request under Article 15 and by sharing

in his e-mail dated 5 July 2019. By doing so, the data subject invokes his right under Article 17 of the AVG. 27. Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) AVG, the data

implementation and specify and supplement the GDPR. § 3(1) mentioned in this case corresponds to Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. In Denmark, the

of Article 6(1)(e) are met. II.2. Article 5 of the GDPR, Article 24(1) of the GDPR and Article 25(1) and (2) of the AVG II.2.1. Article 5 (2) GDPR, Article

under Article 58 of the Regulation carries the administrative fine referred to in Article 83(5)(e) of the Regulation. Under the terms of Article 78 of

observations. Firstly, the right to be forgotten can be found in Article 17 GDPR and Article 93 of the LOPDGDD, the Spanish data protection law. It establishes

under the GDPR and needs to establish a valid legal basis to process personal data. Unsolicited political communication is regulated with Article 11 L. 3471/2006

measures in accordance with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32 (1) and (2) in order to ensure and, in accordance with Article 5 (2), be able to show that the

fairness (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR). Thus by not providing sufficient information, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Additionally

(1) lit. d GDPR. The procedure was also compatible with the principle of purpose limitation within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 lit. b GDPR. In September

Spanish city council for infringing Article 30 GDPR by not maintaining a record of its processing activities, and Article 31 of the Spanish Data Protection

compatibility of § 30 DSG with Article 83 GDPR, to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. This case law has a wide-ranging impact on GDPR-fines in

given the unilateral judgment. Recovery shall be requested in writing within 30 days of the date on which the applicant for recovery is informed of the unilateral

Debtor pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation because its data processing activities violated Article 5 (1) (d) of the General

constitutes sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. The DPA alluded to Article 9(1) GDPR which prohibits the processing of these special categories

certain data to be delete. It brought a legal action based on Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR, read in conjunction with the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet

processing lack any applicable conditions found in Article 9(2) GDPR and was found in breach of Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the Garante reiterated that the

according to €9,500 Art 83 Paragraph 5 Letter b GDPR OJ L 2016/119, p. 1, as amended Article 83, Paragraph 5, Letter b, GDPR OJ L 2016/119, p. 1, as amended

non-compliance with the requirements of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR and non-compliance with the requirements of article 5.1.e) of the GDPR. 10. On February 28, 2020,

violation of Article 6 GDPR, nor of Article 8 GDPR. There was also no violation of Article 9 GDPR, since the exception for explicit consent from Article 9(2)(a)

observations, which, in accordance with Article 54(1)(b), (3) and (4), (4) and (4), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (6). 2 of the Rules of Procedure

EDREAMS, S.L. was ordered for a violation of the Article 44 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, adapt the activity of data processing carried

protection principles in Article 5 GDPR. This includes notifying the data subjects about processing in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 GDPR. The DPA held that

these violations in accordance with Section 30 (1) and (2) DSG in conjunction with Article 83 (5) (a) GDPR. On the other hand, XXXX GmbH filed a complaint

ofcombined provisions of Articles 5, paragraph 1 to 1. c) and article 5, paragraph 1 al. f) with article83, paragraph 5, al. a), the General Data Protection

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

of 15/06/2016, sp. stamp 30 Cdo 3598/2014, dated 15 June 2016, file no. stamp 30 Cdo 5027/2014, or from 28/05/2018, sp. stamp 30 Cdo 4231/2016) that the

under Article 83 GDPR and the question of the compatibility of § 30 Datenschutzgesetz (Austrian Data Protection Act - DSG) with Article 83 GDPR to the

in accordance with article 38.3. GDPR 5. On May 5, 2021, the Litigation Division decides, pursuant to Article 95, § 1, 1° and Article 98 to the ACL, that

violation of: 1. Article 5.1.f) and 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR, Article 25.1 of the GDPR and Articles 32.1 and 32.2 GDPR; 2. Articles 35

referred to in Article 2.3.2 or by virtue of Article 2.3.8, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 or 5.2.5 and necessary for the implementation of Article 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.3.2,

violation of article 6.1. f) of the RGPD, in relation with article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the cited GDPR That by writing

was unlawful for the purposes of Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, and Article 85 GDPR when read in line with domestic legislation

access to an “excessive” request under Article 12(5) GDPR. In particular, the court considered that under that Article nothing suggests that an access request

accordance with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31, due to the security breach , GDPR. According to Article 83 Paragraph 4 Letter a of the GDPR, these two provisions

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, an action that can be subsumed under the sanctioning type of article 83.5 of the RGPD. IV Article 58 of the RGPD

party. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, and Article 130 of the Italian privacy code, since the

these purposes (Article 5 (1) (b) GDPR) and must be limited to what is necessary for the purposes of processing (Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR). The purposes of

request under Article 15 and with the one month deadline under Article 12(3). Was Google Ireland Ltd in breach of its obligations under GDPR Article 15(1) and

derogant rule, based on the interpretation of Article 95 GDPR in the line of the Rec (173) GDPR and Article 1(2) and 15a of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL

Therefore, the DPA confirmed a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and of Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code for having

powers (Article 58, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the GDPR). The DSB is a supervisory authority within the meaning of Article 51 GDPR Article 51, GDPR (see also

controller violated Article 6 GDPR because it had no legal basis to disclose the email addresses. It reasoned that Article 6(1)(a) GDPR was not applicable

The Romanian DPA fined a controller €500 (RON 2,463.30) for violating its obligation to cooperate with the DPA during an investigation by failing to provide

of the GDPR has violated: iv. Article 4.11), Article 5.1.a) and 5.2, Article 6.1.a), as well as Article 7.1 and 7.3 GDPR; v. Article 5, Article 24.1, as

authorisation from the data subject. This breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 157 of the Italian Privacy Code. GFB One s

information duty included in Article 13 GDPR. Is this a violation of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that there had been a violation of Article 13. According to the

correspond would be for the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be

fairness and transparency, as stipulated by Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12(1) GDPR, as well as Article 13(2) GDPR due to the lack of information on the period

infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR (440), and to take into account the additional infringement of the principle of fairness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in its adoption

consequently dismissed by Uber by solely algorithmic means in the sense of Article 22 GDPR. The Uber drivers were represented by the App Drivers & Couriers Union

with the principles of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and of storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Share your comments here! Share blogs or

not necessarily meet the requirements of Article 32 GDPR. To what extent are the provisions in Article 32 GDPR obligatory and thus, not subject to the preferences

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1

Protection Agency to sanction XFERA for infringement of Article 6.1(a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5(a) of the RGPD, with a fine of 60,000 euros. It was

standard B-VG Art133 Para.4 DSG §24 paragraph 1 DSG §24 paragraph 5 GDPR Art12 GDPR Art15 GDPR Art4 VwGVG §28 paragraph 2 WTBG 2017 §80 saying W101 2218962-1/10E

for in Article 17 of the Rules. 3. On the breach of the obligation to implement a register of processing activities 52. Article 30 of the GDPR provides

Parliament and of the Council of May 30, 2018 amending AMLD4 entered into force (AMLD5). The amended article 30 paragraph 5 stipulates that information about

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

means were possible. The controller thus violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(e), 5(2) and Article 6 GDPR. As such, the DPA imposed a fine in the amount

referred to in Article 33(1) of the AVG.15 15 File note 1, Notification of personal data breach 7-2-2019. P 5. 3.4.3 Assessment Article 33(1) of the AVG

service in the terms required by article 22.2.”, and may be sanctioned with a fine of up to €30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned LSSI

anonymized. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) and Article 12(1) GDPR. For the reasons above, the DPA imposed a fine

an infringement of article 32 of the RGPD and article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified, respectively, in article 83.4 and 83.5 of the GDPR. And that HERTZ DE

the GDPR against the controller, the DPA issued a fine of €12.100 in accordance with Article 83(4) GDPR, Article 83(5) GDPR and Article 83(6) GDPR. Both

right to the protection of personal data pursuant to Article 5(5)(a) of the GDPR. 1(f) of the GDPR. β. They have not implemented appropriate data protection

it had found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(e), 13, 22(3), 25, 30(1)(c)(f)(g), 32, 35, 37(7), and 88 of the GDPR. In defensive briefs, UK Roofoods contended

required by Article 15(1)(a)-(h) and 15(2) GDPR via an online function. When Spotify provides a copy of personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR it includes

controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(a)(f) GDPR and imposed a fine of €5,000. The motivation stated that Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(a)(f)

first paragraph of Article 91 of ZVOP 1 and when applying the second paragraph of Article 26 of ZP 1, the first paragraph of Article 21 of ZP 1 and the

6. tölul. Article 3 of the Act and point 7. Article 4 of the Regulation. The Chief Epidemiologist is required according to point 2. Article 5 Epidemiology

even if Article 77 GDPR were considered to be applicable, there would be no incompatibility between Article 24 DSG and Article 77 GDPR: the GDPR does not

grounds., - 3 - Outfittery GmbH has thus violated Article 17(1), Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. III. As a result, we have decided not to take any

norm therefore by article 19 of the LOPD as business data. We consider relevant the legal basis by which, according to the article Article 65 of the LOPD

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

obligation in accordance with Article 5.1a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR has not been fulfilled. 23. In accordance with Article 95, § 2, 3° of the WOG

Chapter 3 of this federal law take precedence 2.3. Art. 5 GDPR reads: 2.3. Article 5, GDPR reads: "Article 5 Principles for the processing of personal data (1)

considering that the controller violated Article 5 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, as well as Article 2-septies(8) of the Italian Privacy Code

decision. Article 4: The State will pay the sum of 3,000 euros to Mr. A ...- C ... under article L. 761-1 of the code of administrative justice. Article 5: this

of State in the Netherlands (RvS) held that a complainant cannot use Article 15 GDPR to find out who reported to the municipality that he may not be entitled

justify it, in breach of Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. Finally, the Italian DPA found a violation of Article 25(1) and (2) GDPR because the controller had not

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

measures, thereby violating Article 32 GDPR and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. In light of Article 83 GDPR and taking all the above

minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and contrary to the obligation to obtain the freely given consent of the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, when refusal

(Garante) held that Foodinho had violated Articles 5(1)(a), (c) and (e), 13, 22, 25, 30, 32, 35 and 37 of the GDPR through its use of algorithms to manage riders

personali” and of Article 9 GDPR as well as the principles of lawfulness, integrity and confidentiality of the processing as per Article 5 GDPR. In fact, according

publication of the judgment breach the GDPR? The AEPD held that the respondent’s actions violated the GDPR Article 5(1)(a) requirement that processing must

the necessary checks in accordance with Article 16 of the Spanish Citizen Safety Law (Ley Orgánica 4/2015, de 30 de marzo, de protección de la seguridad

Schantz, in: BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, 37th Ed., As of May 1st, 2020, Article 5 GDPR, Rn. 5) .27 The collection and processing of the date of birth in the ordering

request from Article 17(3)(e) to Article 6(4) GDPR without properly documenting or demonstrating how purpose compatibility criteria in GDPR are met. The

held that the controller violated Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller had deleted the data

Articles 5, 13, 14 GDPR), also the defendant clearly and in ease language pointed to the default settings, so no breach of Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR

invoked the excessiveness of the request under Article 12(5) GDPR alleging that the data subject uses Article 15 GDPR only to verify the validity of the premium

conformity with the data subject’s rights of information under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR, the hospital should firstly make clear what the legal basis

in the GDPR”, adopted on July 7, 2021. 6 GDPR, Art. 12. 7GDPR, Art. 12.2 and 12.3. 8 GDPR, Art. 12.3. 9 GDPR, art. 12.3. Decision 172/2022 - 5/13 16. In

dati personali - GDPD) found that the controller had violated Article 5 and Article 9 GDPR; it fined the controller €40,000, balancing, among other things

claim was Article 16 GDPR, as § 12 Bundesmeldegesetz (BMG - Federal Registration Act) clarifies. Then, it held that the legal requirements of Article 16 GDPR

procedure under Article 58(2) GDPR. The DPA also invited the controller to provide its defence in writing. The Italian DPA noted that Article 37(7) GDPR not only

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 15 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. Against the initial agreement, no

constitute perosnal data under Article 4(1) GDPR, since the individuals are identifiable and also because under Article 11 GDPR, it is not mandatory that individuals

Are Article 3(5) and (6) and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157, read in conjunction with Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 7767 of 30 November

and (1)(e) of Article 6 GDPR. The violation of Article 2-ter of the Code is a direct consequence of the violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. Finally, the

organization (definition) Article 5.1 : Principles of data processing Article 5.1.a : Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1.b : Principle

complaint with Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. However, Article 58(2)(b) GDPR contains the authority of the DPA to reprimand a controller. Article 58(2)(c) GDPR contains

compliance with Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR (minimization) 30. The Litigation Chamber also recalls that pursuant to Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, personal data

to compliance with transparency obligations (Articles 5.1.a) and 12 to 14 of the GDPR), Article 5 of the draft decree specifies, on the one hand, that data

paragraph of Article 5 of ZKme-11, the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Rulebook on RKG2 and point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Rulebook

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and

2 a) Basic information about Article 15 GDPRa) Basic information about Article 15 GDPR Pursuant to Article 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the data subject has the right

that the Local Health Authority of Romagna violated art. 5(2)(a), 5(2)(f), and 9 of the GDPR because the data processing (the transfer of the personal

out its obligations related to the security of data processing under Article 32 GDPR. Additionally, the Garante held that Hostinger, the third party sub-contracted

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

processing principles under Article 5 GDPR? Did an exception to the prohibition of processing of health data under Article 9(2) GDPR apply? The Icelandic DPA

with a private company without comply with the Article 28 GDPR, Article 5 (1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. The municipality of Modica has concluded an agreement

residents. The Italian DPA issued €2,000 fine for violation of Article 9(1) and (2) GDPR. On 5 August 2021, a condominium manager, acting as the controller

Italian DPA reprimanded a processor for having breached Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR since, following a software update, the platform of a healthcare

deemed liable under Article 5(2) GDPR to be responsible for compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of this article principles regarding

accordance with Article 15 (1) GDPR. They argued that the scope of application of the GDPR is not excluded according to Article 2 (2) because the GDPR should be

violated Articles 5(2), 24 and 25(1) GDPR. At last, the DPA established a violation of Article 5(2), Article 24 and Article 13 GDPR, for failing to provide

processed (Article 5.1.b) and (e) GDPR). 1 11. Indeed, by virtue of the combination of the principles of finality (article 5.1.b) of the GDPR) and limitation

Article 5(2), 6, 7, 13, 28, 29, and 30 GDPR; SESTA IMPRESA was fined €300,000 for violating Articles 5(1)(a), 6, 7, 28, 29, and 32 GDPR as well as Art. 2-quaterdecies

infringed Article 12(3) GDPR, Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR and ordered the controller to deal with the data subject's request within 30 days after

warning in response to violations of Articles 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 13(1)(c) GDPR committed by an employer, who had continued

DPA found that the controller violated the following GDPR provisions: Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7 GDPR for acquiring personal data from a third party for marketing

investigation relates to Article 38.1 of the GDPR so that the explanations of the agent of the controlled under Article 37.2 of the GDPR are not relevant in

(implementing provisions of the “e-Privacy Directive”) and 3 Article 6.1.a. of the GDPR. In accordance with article 61 of the LCA, the Litigation Chamber informs the

and transparency, as outlined in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In the exercise of its authority under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA imposed a ban on the processing

violation of article 15 of the RGPD. V Classification of the violation of article 15 of the GDPR If confirmed, the aforementioned violation of article 15 of the

(Articles 15 and 17 GDPR). The DPA held that the controller breached Articles 12(3) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR by not responding to

and annulled that decision, in so far as it did not award any compensation. 5. 5. [Appellant] claims to be entitled to higher compensation than € 300.00.

nature. As Article 91(2) GDPR explicitly mentions that the specific supervisory authority must fulfill the conditions of Chapter VI of the GDPR, such reference

1 GDPR sets out the general provisions. Article 5 of Chapter I GDPR sets out the principles relating to the processing of personal data. Article 5(1) lists

the basis of consent by the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Hence, pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the court further examined whether processing

Thus, it violated Article 15 GDPR. The Datatilsynet issued an injunction and ordered the company, as foreseen under 58(2)(c) GDPR, to carry out a concrete

violation of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) GDPR, Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - no violation of Article 12 (1) GDPR, Article 13 (1) and

principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It's not a coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (already mentioned above article 5 par. 2 GDPR) in the regulation

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

the Disputes Chamber judges that it is possible Article 5.1.a), Article 5.1.b) and Article 6.1 of the GDPR has been infringed. II.2. The basic principle

accordance with Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 of the GDPR, any processing of personal data have a legal basis. Article 6.1 of the GDPR stipulates that

that the plaintiff violates Article 5, first paragraph under a, jo. Article 6(1) of the GDPR has processed personal data. 5. The documents submitted by

appropriate technical and organisational measures, as required by Article 32(1) GDPR, to ensure the proper administration of welfare. In summer 2021, the

Decision 79/2023 - 5/11 15. Article 16 of the GDPR is closely linked to the principle of correctness enshrined in Article 5.1.d) of the GDPR according to which

B28905784, for an infringement of the article 5.1.d) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, with a fine of 10,000 euros (ten honey

above, the DPA concluded that the processing violated Article 5(1)(a) and (c) as well as Article 9 GDPR, prohibiting the controller to further process the

breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR regarding storage limitation. As a result of the foregoing, Coop Italia was held liable for breach of Article 5(1)(e), Article

exemptions from the applicability of the GDPR for journalistic activity, based on Article 85(2) GDPR. According to Article 2(1) of the Polish Data Protection

further data dissemination on the controller for violating Article 5 GDPR and Article 12 GDPR. The case involves a complaint filed against Edizioni Proposta

of article Article 24.1, and in relation to the obligations referred to in the previous section, The information obligation provided for in Article 5 of

the GDPR and DPA 2018. They are obliged by Article 5(2) of the GDPR to adhere to the data processing principle set out in Article 5(1). 8. Article 5(1)(f)

term "pain and suffering" is not used in Art. 82 GDPR or in the other norms of the GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR only standardizes a “claim for damages” for every

data protection and breached the GDPR (article 5(1)(a) and (c) and 6 GDPR) as well as the Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003 on the "Personal Data

patients with HIV infections can access dental services. Meanwhile, Article 5 GDPR provides that personal data must be processed in a lawful and transparent

violation the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency, and the transparency obligations in Article 13 GDPR. Furthermore

of the controller to cease unlawful treatment, and a fine under the Article 83(1) GDPR. Considering the facts of the case and the changes requested by the

limitation contained in Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. In the case of the principle of integrity and confidentiality of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, it is mandatory to guarantee

the existence of a legal or legitimate interest. According to Article 15(1) of the GDPR, the data subject had the right to request confirmation from the

according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. As for the lawfulness, the ICO considers that there is a legitimate interest according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However

data controller) to exercise her rights provided for from Article 15 GDPR to Article 22 GDPR but did not receive feedback. On 2 March 2023, the Italian

on the merits in accordance with Article 98 ff. WOG , at: - on the basis of Article 58.2, c) GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° WOG, to order the defendant to

"controllers" within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. On the award of damages, the Court pointed out that, under Article 82 GDPR, any assessment of harm must

processing of the personal data (Article 5(1) GDPR). The controller did not demonstrate a contractual relationship (Article 6(1)(b)) with the lawyers concerned

12/21/2022 standard B-VG Art133 Para.4 DSG §1 GDPR Art16 GDPR Art17 GDPR Art18 GDPR Art21 GDPR Art4 GDPR Art5 GDPR Art6 Para.1 litf Trade Regulations 1994 §152

concerned initially presented Article 17 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR in more detail, as well as Article 5 (1) (b) GDPR. She also referred to her

constituted health data under Article 9(1) and Article 4(15) GDPR but the transfer was nevertheless admissible pursuant to Article 9 GDPR, as the strict requirements

contravening Article 6 GDPR and the principle of data minimization outlined in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The alleged justifications under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article

Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Italian DPA ordered the controller to erase personal data and stop the processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) and

2019 Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fifth paragraph, of the GDPR, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

safety for the processing of personal data under Article 32 GDPR, Article 24, Article 5(1)(f) and Article 5(2), as well as § 26(1) of the Personal Data Act

DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and adopted a ban on further processing operations pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. However, the DPA held

arising from Article 5.2 and Article 24 GDPR whereby it is up to the defendant to demonstrate that it also acts in accordance with Article 5.1.f GDPR namely:

elements according to Article 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed a fine in the amount of €18,000 for a violation of Article 5, 9, 32 GPDR and Article 157 of the Italian

constituting a breach of Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR, as well as Article 15 GDPR, Article 17 GDPR and Article 21(2) GDPR. Thus, the calls carried

paragraph 5, as well as paragraph 30, paragraph 5, of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette Part One, No. 165 from 1999, idgF; Article 51, paragraph

duties under Article 13 GDPR, as the information allegedly provided to the data subject lacked the requirements laid down in said Article, and the relevant

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

security, cf. Article 4, no. 12 of the Data Protection Regulation. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the

under Article 4(12) GDPR. Second, the AP found that PVV Overijssel was obliged to notify the data breach to the AP within 72 hours pursuant to Article 33(1)

infringements of Article 5(1)(f), Article 24, and Article 32 GDPR, and to the objection of the IT SA on the possible infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR, the EDPB

Buchner, GDPR BDSG, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 5 GDPR marginal 8). Even if the data is “only” incorrect, the requirements of Article 17 (1) (d) GDPR can be met

additions were complex in fact or in law. - Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR 5.7. Article 47 of the Charter states that the right to

result of the violations of article 5.1 a), article 5.2, article 6.1, article 12.1, article 13.1 c) and d) and article 13.2 b) GDPR. 21. On 17 June 2020, the

court emphasised that some scholars even apply Article 14(5)(b) GDPR analogously to Article 15(1) GDPR even though it did not create an analogy itself

ordered to comply with the access request according to Article 15 GDPR and fined in the amount of €5,000. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

to the Art. 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. With regards to the lawfulness of the request, one of the legal bases listed in Article 6(1) of the GDPR must apply to

lawfulness principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR would be contravened by the disclosure of information, Article 6(1) of the GDPR (lawfulness) is to be

and 12.4 of the GDPR, as well as Article 17.1 of the GDPR, which in this case justifies taking a decision on the basis of Article 95, § 1, 5° of the LCA,

time, which is a violation of the GDPR. As to the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for

court fee of €30. Article 96(1)(1) ZVOP 2 (infringements of the provisions of Article 83(4) GDPR) (1) A fine of between EUR 100 and EUR 5 000 shall be imposed

first paragraph of the same article (principle commonly called “accountability”). 12. Point f) of Article 5.1 of the GDPR more specifically provides that

pecuniary damages under Article 1, in conjunction with Article 2(1) Grundgesetz or for non-pecuniary damages under Article 82 GDPR because of the loss of

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On October 13, 2022, DIGI requests the

complaint lodged under Article 77 of the GDPR, or proceedings based on Article 78(1) of the GDPR, is not precluded by the GDPR or any other provision of

stipulated in Article 5 (1) GDPR. Although Article 5(1) and (2) GDPR are closely related means any violation of the accountability of Article 5 (2) GDPR is not

tried to base the processing on contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) or legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR), the requirement of necessity was not met

controller violated Article 12(3) GDPR, 12(4) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR and ordered it to comply with the erasure request within a timeframe of 30 days from the

transparency from Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Therefore, the controller violated the principle of accountability provided by Article 5(2) and 24 GDPR for the failure

employee of the entity - infringes Article 32. 2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infringement punishable under Article 83.4.a of the GDPR. Assessing the circumstances

6GDPR,Article 5.1.b),Article 5.1.a)j°Article 13andArticle 27 GDPR due to the current processing activities. 23. The purpose of this decision is to inform the

controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. The DPA analysed the requirements under Article 4(7) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, together with the EDPB guidelines

personal data during the promotional phone call. Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1)(a) and Article 7 GDPR, for having carried out promotional telephone calls

consultation. of the Guarantor pursuant to article 36 of the Regulation "(article 110 of the Code, article 9, paragraph 2, letter j) and par. 4 of the

and Article 2(f) of Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Article 2(5) of Directive 2009/136/EC, in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC, if

grounds for processing under Article 6(1) GDPR. Finally, the NAIH held that the controller was in breach of Article 12(2) GDPR for mis-registering the data

constitute a violation of Article 5.1.a and Article 6.1 of the GDPR. - pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° of the LCA, to order

the GDPR, a controller may first assess, in view of the system and the text of that Article, whether the exception in Article 17(3)(e) of the GDPR applies

amount of 30.00 euros based on the first paragraph of Article 143 in relation to the first paragraph of Article 144 and the second paragraph of Article 58 of

assessment and an additional DPIA under Article 35 GDPR, in order to guarantee the adherence to the principles of Article 5 GDPR. First, the Spanish DPA stated

breached Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and ordered all 53 municipalities to bring their processing in line with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR, by ensuring

decision based on Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. The property company filed an application for interim relief against this order. By decision of 30 July 2020, the

requirements of Article 15 of the GDPR. 23. Even assuming that the complaint should be interpreted as a request based on Article 15 of the GDPR (and to which

Litigation under article 62, § 1 of the LCA. er 8. On March 30, 2022, the Litigation Division decides, pursuant to Article 95, § 1, 1° and article 98 of the LCA

000 be set for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR as defined in Article 83(5) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR the Spanish DPA ordered the controller

accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR for adaptation to the application of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court stressed

pursuant to Article 54 of ZVOP-1, points (a), (d) and (f) of Article 58 (2) of the General Regulation, Articles 29 and 32 of the ZIN and Article 221 ZUP,

processing is based on Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. This data processing also complies with the due care requirements set by the GDPR. There is therefore

transparency under Article 12(1) GDPR and Article 14 GDPR, as the controller had failed to fulfill the informational obligations under Article 14 GDPR. The municipality

Italian DPA concluded that the controller breached Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 9 GDPR and Articles 2-ter as well as 2-septies (8) of the

defendant is Article 159(2)(4) of the Polish Telecommunications Law, in conjunction with Article 30, Article 32(2), Article 42(1) and Article 45(1) of the

and disadvantaged individuals on social media in violation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) GDPR. Mr. Cateno De Luca, current Mayor of the City of Messina, posts

introduction) the GDPR. 14.5. Article 11.7a Tw has been in force since 5 June 2012 (and amended in 2013, 2015 and 2018). Previously, Article 4.1 of the Decree

processing principles of Article 5 GDPR and with a weighing of interests in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 lit. f GDPR is a fundamentally irreversible

powers granted by Article 58(2) GDPR, Article 166 Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali, and in line with Article 83(5) GDPR, it imposed a €4000

place per Article 46(2) GDPR. For these violations, the DPA reprimanded the controller and ordered it to comply with the GDPR (specifically Article 46 GDPR)

breach of the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 33(5) GDPR. Article 5(2) GDPR establishes the principle of accountability which

legality (article 5.1.a and 6.1 GDPR) as well as the principle of minimization (article 5.1.c GDPR). II.1. Basis of lawfulness of processing (Article 5.1.a and

invitation to comply, breaching Article 12 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 16 GDPR, Article 17 GDPR and Article 18 GDPR. Thus, due to the aformentioned

June 2023. The Belgian DPA found a violation of Article 21(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR. Firstly, Article 21(2) establishes the right for a data subject

the principles of purpose limitation under Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the controller must change the angles of

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

administrative fine Under Article 58, second paragraph, preamble below i, the AP is read in conjunction with Article 83 of the GDPR, authorized to impose an

required by Article 13 GDPR. As a result, the processing activity carried out through the use of the video surveillance system violated Article 5(1)(a) and

therefore of the opinion that no breach of Article 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR and Article 33 of the GDPR can be established. - As regards the

indeed a right of access under Article 15 GDPR in all taxation matters despite not being a natural person, in accordance with §2a(5) of the Abgabenordnung (national

received a response to access and deletion requests under Article 15 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR respectively, which were forwarded to Studio Colli Aniene

identification of the persons being inspected. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Act on Access to Public Information, the right to public information

advertising purposes on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, to be effective one week after notification

included in Article 15.1 AVG. As a result, the controller has acted in violation of Articles 12.3 and 12.4 1 2 GDPR , as well as Article 15.1 GDPR . 3 5. Specifically

before the GDPR came into effect. Therefore, GDPR should not had applied. The Spanish National High Court (AN) analysed Recital 171 GDPR and noted that

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

violation of Article 6 GDPR and Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (lawfulness) as it lacked a legal basis for processing. The Municipality sought to rely on Article 6(1)(e)

personal data and to restrict processing in accordance with Article 45 DSG and Article 16 GDPR and any other conceivable legal basis. The incorrect data

redress. Therefore, the DPA declared an infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR. Additionally, the DPA held that the controller, whether

collected for other purposes which would be incompatible with Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(4) GDPR. The CE dismissed that claimed by recalling that both

definition of "personal data" in Article 4(1) GDPR. The DPA reminded the controller that, as defined in Recital 26 GDPR, pseudonymisation is a mere technical

the Austrian DPA pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR. However, the DPA further considered the exception of Article 55(2) GDPR which states that local DPA's

transmission as a precautionary measure under Article 21 GDPR and requested a restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. Additionally, the data subject complained

97). Decision 32/2024 – 5/7 The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the WOG, to order the

set out in Articles 5(1)(f) and 9 GDPR. Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83(5) GDPR, the DPA issued an administrative sanction of €5,000. Considering that

controller of the initiation of sanctioning proceedings pursuant to Article 166(5) of the Personal Data Protection Code (Codice in materia di protezione

aforementioned principles of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR but also a breach of the principle of integrity and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Moreover, there had

personality (Article 2 (in conjunction with Article 1 (1) of the Basic Law). ), or in his fundamental right to freedom of expression (Article 5(1) sentence

violation of the GDPR, in particular Articles 12 and 15. Pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, and in accordance with Article 83 GDPR, they imposed

judicial remedy (Article 12(4) GDPR). Accordingly, as they failed to respond in such a way, the authority had infringed Articles 12 and 15 GDPR. With regard

breach of Article 80(3) ZVOP-2 The DPA, therefore, reprimanded the controller for violations of Article 76(4) ZVOP-2, Article 78(1) ZVOP-2 and Article 80(3)

newsletter within the 30-day period indicated in Article 12(3) GDPR. Consequently, the Italian DPA did not find a breach of Article 21 GDPR. Second, the DPA

the processing was lawful within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. According to Article 88 GDPR, the GDPR is applicable without prejudice to more protective

of consent under Article 3(15) Regulation 2018/1725, nor did they meet the requirements of Article 37 Regulation 2018/1725 and Article 5(3) ePrivacy Directive

PESEL number was in breach of the principle of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The Voivode also found that the City Council, which is not the

infringement of Article 5.1.b), c) and e) GDPR and Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 GDPR; - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the

meeting of 22 August 2018, 5 - the minutes of the board meeting of 18 September 2018 and 6 - the auditor's report dated 30 August 2018 ("Statement on extended

violated the right to be forgotten under Article 17. While the DPA did not charge the controller under Article 12(4) GDPR, they reminded the controller that

administrative fine under Article 83 GDPR. That question is exhaustively regulated by Article 58(2) and Article 83(1) to (6) GDPR. Thus the concept of an

Italian Dpa fined, under articles 19 and 20 d.lgs. 30 giugno 2003 n. 196 (before the implementation of GDPR), the "Ministero degli Interni" for having communicated

by art. 83, par. 5 of the Regulation. For the purposes of quantifying the administrative sanction, the aforementioned art. 83, par. 5, in setting the maximum

provided for in article 83.5.a), in relation to article 5.1.f); and, another infringement provided for in Article 83.4.a), in relation to Article 35; all of

month as per Article 12(3) GDPR. Second, the Council of State held that the right to rectification of personal data pursuant to Article 16 GDPR only applies

relief neither on the KUG nor on the GDPR because the comprehensive weighing required by both Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and §§ 22, 23 KUG led to the same result

Articles 17 and 6(1) GDPR. Pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, and in accordance with Article 83 GDPR, it imposed an administrative fine of €10

sense of Article 4(1) GDPR. Moreover, OLG Celle also held that a singular access request can never be excessive for the purposes of Article 12(5) GDPR as the

obligations related to the processing operations pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 14(5)(b) GDPR. In that case, the DPA recommended that the information

(“the GDPR”): regulation 8(2) of the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Article 4(11)

and teachers. As per Article 8 Section 4 of the Act on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR, it is the controller's

done to meet the requirements of collecting valid consent under the GDPR and Article 5(3) ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, as well as the following three additional

pursuant to Article 166(5) of the Code, the alleged violations of the Regulation found with reference to Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 13, Article 24 as well

The DPA found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(f), 9, 25(1)(2) and issued a fine of 25,000 euros under Article 83. An advertising billboard depicted

violation of the principle of integrity and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR on behalf of the controller, since it is responsible for processing

Articles 5 (1)(a) and 13 GDPR. The DPA stated that the processing of personal data must always comply with the general principles of Article 5, in particular

of the GDPR, the processing of the applicant's personal data by the bank took place on the basis of Article 6 (1)(b) GDPR and Article 6 (1)(c) GDPR. The

relating to the treatment of the data collected in the article are complied with. Article 5 of the GDPR. A circumstance that in this case has not occurred

data constituted a breach of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR. Additionally, the controller violated Article 25(1) GDPR because it failed to implement a secure

The claimant has submitted a request on the basis of Article 58 of the AVG . Pursuant to this article, the defendant may - prior to taking enforcement action

violating the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR, which supposes the commission of an infraction typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which provides the following:

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

processing violated Article 7(2) GDPR, Article 7(4) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller was fined 2,000,000 HUF (approx. €5,080). In determining

principle of accountability, Article 5(2) GDPR because the controllers could not provide their compliance with Article 5(1) GDPR. In particular, the controllers

notion of personal data as defined in Article 4.1) GDPR, which are processed within the meaning of Article 2. 1 GDPR. Not just any whole or in part automated

freedom (Article 2.2 sentence 2 of the Basic Law) and her general right of personality (Article 2.1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the

The DPA fined INAIL €50,000 for violating Article 5(1)(a) and (f), Article 6(1)(e), Article 9(2)(g) and Article 32, as well as articles 2-ter and 2-sexies

these reasons, the DPA found violations of Article 5(1)(c) and (e) and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) and 32(2) GDPR, imposing a fine of €240,000. Share your comments

concluded a prima facie breach of Article 15 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR in combination with Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR, because the controller did

Chamber, in accordance with Article 62, § 1, WOG. The complainant will be informed of this at 30 September 2019 pursuant to Article 61 WOG.

to comply with the request (Article 12(3) GDPR) or not (Article 12(4) GDPR). Without addressing a potential breach of the GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller

According to the DPA, the accountability principle provided for by Article 5(2) GDPR implies that the controller must be proactive and constantly monitor

controller to be in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and started a procedure to adopt

after the end of employment constituted a breach of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. At that time, the controller lacked an appropriate legal

provided for in Article 15(1) GDPR, which was kept by the Higher Administrative Court. The Court denied the request. Does Article 15 GDPR apply to hand written

legislation (30) Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data processing in this case. (31) Recital (47) GDPR: The data controller

information as laid down under Article 13 GDPR (the data subject invoked Article 13 GDPR but apparently meant Article 15 GDPR, see comment below). The controller

.]" 5. Because according to above article 17 of the GDPR, as it has been interpreted according to the content of the Guidelines 5/2019 of the GDPR1, the

submits that Article 77 AVG 2, interpreted in the light of Articles 1, 51(1) and 57 AVG, recitals 7, 10 and 141 AVG, Article 8 Charter and Article 16 TFEU,

offer services to data subjects in the EU (Article 3(2)(a) GDPR). The DPA concluded that Article 3(2)(b) GDPR was also not applicable. The DPA mentioned

out by Article 12(4) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA (Law

thus violating Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The controller processed health data without a valid legal basis (Article 6(1) GDPR) and in breach

On 30 May 2023, the Garante notified the controller of the alleged violations and that it was initiating the procedure pursuant to Article 166(5) of the

found a violation of art. 13 GDPR as well as the principles of storage limitation and accountability in art. 5(1)(e) and art. 5(2). It stated that "the longer

minimization of data processing as referred to in Article 5 of the GDPR. Plaintiff also refers to Article 32 of the GDPR and argues that the security of her personal

provided to the interested parties based on Article 13 GDPR and to non-contactable persons based on Article 14 GDPR. The information notice includes the right

Recital 51 GDPR, the DSB found that the pictures taken from the data subject did not constitute biometric data according to Article 9(1) GDPR because they

information stated in Article 13 GDPR. The data subject didn’t receive an answer within the time limits set in Article 12(3) GDPR. The data subject filed

/13 of the GDPR are processed, their processing must find a basis in article 9.2 of the GDPR read in conjunction with Article 6.1. of the GDPR. 29. Since

obligations arising from Article 5(1)(e) of the GDPR. D. On the breach of the transparency obligation 36. Article 12(1) of the GDPR provides that "the controller

discipline (Article 9(2)(i) GDPR) and not in the consent of the data subject. The Italian DPA held that the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(1)(b)

place per Article 46(2) GDPR. For these violations, the DPA reprimanded the controller and ordered it to comply with the GDPR (specifically Article 46 GDPR)

procedure under Article 166(5) of the Italian Privacy Code in relation to the alleged breaches of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. In light of the

with the provisions of article 85 of the LPACAP. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B.. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD,

assessed that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code also

according to Article 19 GDPR. The DPA held that the controllers could have breached Article 21(2) GDPR, Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17(1)(c) GDPR in combination

basis of consent in accordance with Article 5.3 of the eData Protection Directive or covered of the exceptions in Article 5.3 of that directive can only be

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

failure to respond to an erasure request pursuant to Article 12 GDPR in relation to Article 17 GDPR. On September 17 2020 a data subject resigned as a voluntary

provided for in article 28 of the Regulation, and an impact assessment, as provided for in article 35 of the Regulation. 6. On August 30, 2022, I received

to as the GDPR) in accordance with Article 5 (1) (a), a The principle of purpose limitation under Article 5 (1) (b) of the GDPR and Article 5 (1) the principle

the processing (article 21 of the GDPR) and the processing is necessary for freedom of expression and information (Article 17.3 of the GDPR). e - 3 plea:

pursuant to Article 12(2) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA (Law

provisions of Article 6 of the GDPR, in relation to Article 22 of the LOPDGDD, constituting an infringement as defined in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and 72.1

disclosed: Possible violation of Article 129 of Law of 13 June 2005 (WEC - Wet elecktronische communicatie) as well as possible GDPR violations, especially but

legislator used the open clause of Article 6(1)(c) and (e) GDPR, in combination with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) GDPR, to create a legal basis for the

applied Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, according to which the data subject could have voluntarily disclosed their health data defined in Article 4(15) GDPR to the

information and granting it access to personal data in accordance with Article 58 (1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The data subject filed a complaint with the Polish DPA, claiming

violation of Articles 5(1)(a) and (c) GDPR, as well as in breach of the adequate information requirements under Article 13 GDPR. Based on these infringements

responsibility under Article 83 GDPR? On the duration of data retention The CNIL found that the company had violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and several domestic

accordance with Article 34(1) of the GDPR-2. The appeal procedure is provided for in the GDPR for personal data falling under Article 1(1) of the GDPR. This provides

that under the terms of the principle of minimization devoted to Article 5.1c) of the GDPR, the data processed must be adequate, relevant and limited to what

the DPA held that the controller violated Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), and (6) GDPR as well as Article 2-ter of the Italian privacy code. The DPA also discovered

data against unauthorised access as stipulated in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA referred to Article 32 GDPR and recommended a logging measure and to keep track

Dutch DPA under Article 60(3) GDPR, by which the case was dismissed, the Italian DPA adopted the final decision under Article 60(8) GDPR and notified it

of the GDPR on data transfers outside the EU / EEA but would also violate Articles 5 (b) (limitation purposes), 5.1 (c) (data minimization), 5.1 (e) (limitation

Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f for this processing. Our legal basis for decisions on reprimands is the Privacy Ordinance, Article 58, No. 2, letter

responsibility – article 5.2. GDPR). It must also implement all the measures necessary for this. effect (Article 24 GDPR). 6. Pursuant to Article 15 § 1 of the

carried out on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, as well as to fulfill a legal obligation pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR related to public entities’