Search results

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

against the respondent, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(c) of the GPRS, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of all that has been done,

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

of which are typified in article 83.4.a). V The violation of articles 32, 33 and 34 of the RGPD are criminalized in Article 83.4(a) of the said GPRS in the

allegations.  On March 26, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital

provisions of the GDPR relating to the principles of data protection (article 5 of the GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (article 6 of the GDPR). An infringement

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

under Article 17(3) GDPR. Two doctors sued a platform for deletion of their basic profile set up on the platform without their consent under Article 17 GDPR

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

has a date (21.5.2018) subsequent to the date on which the complainant's computer was accessed (16.5.2018) (note 1.3.2019, p. 4-5). 1.4. On 17 May 2019

2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), OJ No. L119 of 4.5. 2016; §§ 4 Paragraph 6, 24 Paragraph 1 and 5 of the Data Protection Act - DSG, Federal

aviolation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation towith article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of € 4,000 (four thousand

Consequently, based on Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, the hospital was fined to pay a fine of EUR 30.000,00 for violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Corrective measures

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

***NIF.1, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned Regulation

Therefore, Article 5(1)(f) GDPR was considered violated by the community of owners as a whole and a fine according to Article 83(5) GDPR was imposed.

Ordinance, Article 4, No. 7 for the person in question the credit check made by complainants. 5. Legal basis for obtaining credit information 5.1. In particular

treatment referred to in Articles 5 and 9 of the Regulations (Article 5, par. 1, letter f) of the Regulations). With a note dated 11.4.2019 (prot.n.46587), the

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

and (b) GDPR). However, Art. 14(1) to (4) GDPR shall not apply if and to the extent that the data subject already has the information (para. 5 leg. cit

Sections 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23-24. Section 4 (5), Section 5 (3) to (5), (7) and (8), Section 13 (2) § 23, § 25, 25 / G. § (3), (4) and (6),

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

violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant

more personal data than strictly necessary within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. The FPS Finance therefore does not comply with the data minimization

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

"lifting". (4.2) Exclusions (4.2.1) GDPR and AO restrictions 145 According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person concerned (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) has a right

towards employees, cf. Articles 13 and 14 GDPR complied with the principle of transparency in Article 5 (2) (1) (a) GDPR, which according to the Authority's

company result in a breach of Article 37 GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that Conseguridad SL had violated Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having designated

on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p. 5-8). 1.6. On 4.8.2020, at the

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

processed (data minimization), would that be an infringement of the Article 5.(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that it is responsibility of the demandant to make

Niedersachsen fined notebooksbilliger.de €10,4 million, their highest fine issued so far under the applicability of the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

accordance with provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

licensing rights with Y2 4. 2016: [title number 4]: Master rights for the record company XY = X with exclusive rights with Y2 5. 2018: [Title 5]: Master rights

of €10,000.00. claimed, for the violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

processing operations should not be disproportionate.5 disproportionate.5 16. Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR provides that personal data must be be "collected

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of

third party, breach Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) referred to the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)), as well

it on the internet, in accordance with the provisions of article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of

the infringement of the data minimisation principle specified at Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

DPA (AEPD) imposed a €1000 fine on a beauty salon for breaching Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The salon sent a marketing SMS to a client months after

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

sanctioning procedure, under Article 83(5)(a) of the GDPR, against AAA on 21 December 2022, due to a infringement of Article 6. AAA was the father of the

pursuant to Article 100, §1, 5° WOG, to order a disqualification for the violation of Article 5.1, a), Article 5.2, Article 6, Article 12.1, Article 14.1 a)

fine of €6,000 imposed for violation of Article 32 GDPR and a fine of €5,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Additionally instructed the erasure

of minimum data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR). 33. In order to check whether the third condition of Article 6.1 f) GDPR - the so-called "Balancing test"

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

in relation to proceedings under Article 78(1) of the GDPR. The Court notes that Article 58(4) and Article 78 of the GDPR give expression to the right to

DPA 5. The General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32

is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such:C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/11"5 . Violations of

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

according to Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and to maintain a record of the processing activities under its responsibility according to Article 30(1) GDPR

Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR, persons such as [the claimant] can object to the processing of their personal data on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) or

in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied. The data disclosed in the land

case fell under the household exception found in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. According to this provision, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data

2019, GDPR Art. 37, para. 1; Döpfler , EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 37, marginal 1; Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art.

eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=623051) 5 These guidelines have since been replaced by a new EDPB document adopted on May 4, 2020. (https://edpb

against the defendant for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1(a) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.4 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the above-mentioned

- Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/4 The exposed facts suppose, on the part of the claimed, the commission of the infraction of article 22.2 of the LSSI. This offense

that meets the contemplated requirements-two in article 5 of Law 5/2014 on Private Security, of April 4.- Camcorders cannot capture images of people who

Digital Rights (LOPDGDD), for the infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD and considered very serious in 72

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

his compliance with the principles of article 5 par. 1 of the GDPR. 5. Furthermore, Article 6 para. 1 of the GDPR provides, among other things, that the

authority. Under Article 60 GDPR, the following DPAs were identified as “concerned supervisory authorities” under Article 4(22) GDPR: the Netherlands,

( *** POSITION 1) for an infraction of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”. In the face of it, no allegations have

and 83, para. 4 and 5, of the same Regulation, as also referred to by art. 166, paragraph 2, of the Code. 5. Corrective measures (Article 58, par. 2, letter

found that there had been a “personal data breach” pursuant to Article 4 (12) of the GDPR as a result of the publication on the municipal website regarding

constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that the actions of the defendant constitute an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR " Data Minimisation

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

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

investigation,4 Article 98, 3 ° WOG - the parties are informed of “the possibility to obtain any documents they consider useful in thefile. ”5 Recital 20 GDPR. Page

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

limit of Section 5 no. 2 FM-GwG, so the duties of care set out in Section 5 no. 2 FM-GwG do not apply to the complainant. Pursuant to § 5 Z 4 FM-GwG, the obliged

for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation itself and Article 166, paragraph

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

(f) and 5 (3) of Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2 (h) of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 4 Article 6 (11) and Article 6 (1)

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

that, in cases of video surveillance, Article 22.4 LOPDGDD provides that the duty of disclosure in Article 12 GDPR may be fulfilled by placing a sign near

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

controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) of the AVG. 3.4 Violation regarding the reporting of a violation 3.4.1 Introduction Article 33(1) of the AVG stipulates

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. The telematic

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

provided in articles 12.5 and 15.3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

adequate information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted

2012 to 2019 that it was operating. Following Article 83(5)(a)GDPR, read in the lights of Recital (148) GDPR, the AEPD issued a reprimand to the owner of

specified time". In this sense, Article 77.1 c) and 2, 4 and 5 of the LOPGDD, indicates: 1. The regime established in this article shall apply to the processing

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary

recorded images” (folio nº 1). SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, of Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

infringes the basic data protection regulation depends on Art. 5 ff. DSGVO. Under Article 5(1)(a) DSGVO, personal data must be processed in a lawful manner

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

inform the affected parties as provided for in Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. According to Article 30(1) GDPR a record must be kept by the responsible

controller had violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. Firstly, the HDPA found that the controller violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR because its transmission

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

personal data within the meaning of Article 4, opening words and (1) of the AVG. Based on Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the AVG, the

Protection 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

the grounds of (i) the absence of a high risk within the meaning of Article 35.5 GDPR and (ii) the fact that the present complaint is only a side dispute

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

party was charged with claimed a violation of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR; considering that capturing images of shared

established facts. Complaint part 3 is unfounded. Complaint part 4 (violation of the GDPR) 5.5. Like the chamber, the court finds that the junior civil-law

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.

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

policy of the Disputes Chamber. 4 Cf. criterion A.5. in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. 5 Article 15.3 GDPR: “The right to obtain a copy referred

Protection 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

GPRD), an offense under Article 83(5)(a) of the GPRD and described as very serious in article 72.1. a) of Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December, on Protection

infringement of article 21.1 of the LSSI, typified in Article 38.4.d) of theLSSI, a sanction of warning.B) For an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

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

procedure to the claimed, by the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. SIXTH: Notified the initiation agreement

authorities an infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) GDPR? The AEPD agreed to impose a penalty for infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) for lack of accuracy in

her life. Her objection to processing follows from Article 21(1) GDPR. ING argues that Article 21(1) GDPR cannot be relied on in this case because it applies

force of the GDPR, the controller also sent him a separate revocation letter referring to the operational reasons under Article 38(3) GDPR, second sentence

2 2/6THIRD: On October 30, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 ofOrganic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data andguarantee of

provisions of articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 17 of the RGPD provides

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

personal data, approved with resolution of n. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in the Official Gazette no. 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp.it, doc. web no. 9107633

conducts under Article 41 GDPR (redacted as "code S***", code M*** and code U***"). These codes had been approved by the DSB under Article 40(5) GDPR. Inverstigations

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

with NIF A95758389, for the alleged violation of article 5.1 f) of the RGPD,typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPDSECOND: ORDER IBERDROLA CLIENTES, SAU

Procedure"), LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GPRS. FOURTH: Once the above-mentioned agreement

information under Article 13 GDPR is illegal. Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of €1.500 for the violation of Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments

able to demonstrate this, cf. Article 5 (2). 5.4 The requirements for personal data security and management systems Article 32 of the Privacy Regulation

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned start-up

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

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

subject to the provision of Article 25(4) of Law 1756/88. Consequently, its provisions were not applicable in this case of Article 5 of the Civil Code and the

measurespre-contractual;(…) "The offense is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such:"5 . Violations of the following provisions will be

for the allegedviolation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of theArticle 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD

the provisions of Act no. 33/2013 on consumer loans, ie. Article 5 (now k) Article 5 and Article 10. which stipulate that the consumer's credit rating is

there was a wrong application of Articles 12 and 15 GDPR. The DPA highlighted that Article 12 GDPR burdens the controller with the obligation to provide

personal data, approved by resolution no. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in the Official Gazette n. 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp.it, doc. web n. 9107633 (hereinafter

is only determined by Article 5 et seqq. GDPR. A violation of Article 13 or 14 GDPR can be fined under Article 83(5) GDPR but it does not affect the lawfulness

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

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

provide data that the data subject already possesses under Articles 13(4) and 14(5) GDPR. Thus, the DPA found that the company has adequately fulfilled the

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

unequivocal consent to the processing of his personal data according to Article 4(11) GDPR. The AEPD noted that to determine whether FEDA, having regard to the

other things, article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI and the ZBO register of the Dutch central government. See article 2 paragraph 2 SUWI and article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI

SIXTH: On March 4, 2020, a motion for a resolution was formulated, A78923125, for a violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD

point 4.7. of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and Article 6.1. e) of the GDPR. Decision

ING's IVR. 2.4 [Appellant] subsequently asked ING on several occasions to remove its data from the IVR. ING did not comply with these requests. 2.5 ING informed

controller, under Article 24 and 32 of the GDPR, which led to a breach of the security of personal data under Article 4(12) of the GDPR, and no proof that

MEDISALUD, dated February 28, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, dated December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and the Guarantee

an infringement of Article 5 (1) a), b) and c) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - an infringement of article 8 of the law of 21

12/13 public, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “1. The regime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction of APPEARANCE. SECOND: ORDER, under the provisions of article 58.2

electoral rolls. In accordance with Article 14(5)(c) AVG, information must be provided in Article 14, paragraph 1 and Article 14(2) AVG are not mentioned when

organisation contravene Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The AEPD found that the disclosure of her personal data to the 400 members violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD stressed

(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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

the basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the

identity "(Article 4, par. 1, 1, of the GDPR). The processing of personal data must also take place in compliance with the principles indicated in art. 5 of the

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

against privacy included in Article 197(1) of the Spanish Criminal Code, with the aggravating circumstance from Article 197(5) of being data related to the

principles are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

according to Article 4, point 11, as well as the Restrictions according to Article 7 GDPR. (149) According to Article 5 (1) point b) of the GDPR, personal

should comply with the criteria set out in Article 6. (4) General Regulations. The application of Article 6 (4) of the General Regulation to a change in

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

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

a violation of GDPR Art. 17 and Art. 12(3) & (4). The National Supervisory Authority found that there had been a violation of the GDPR and imposed a fine

the respondent, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: Formal notification of the agreement

Point 6 of Article 3 Act no. 90/2018 and item 7 of Article 4. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, cf. and the first and second paragraphs. Article 4 Epidemiology

show that the basics the principles of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation are complied with (Article 5 (2)). The person responsible for personal

number: 1 K 90.19 Document type: Judgment Source: Legal norms: § 59 (4) BDSG, § 113 (5) sentence 1 VwGO Tenor The defendant is ordered to provide the applicant

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2

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

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

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to

proceedings. 2.5 Subsequently, [appellants] submitted various requests to ABN AMRO relating to the provision of information. 2.6 By letter of 5 March 2018

possible. 3.5.4 All in all, the conclusion is that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim. The appeal of CSR et al. fails. 3.5.5 The failure

defendant, in accordance with the provisions of article 65.4 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital

aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/6 The physical image of a person, in accordance with article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. SIXTH: On 06/27/22 the first brief of

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c), 5.1 f) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article83.5 of the RGPD.FIFTH. On 07/29/20, a Proposal

confidentiality of personal data (Article 5 (1) (f) of Regulation 2016/679) or rules for limiting data storage (Article 5 (1) (e) of Regulation 2016/679)

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

>>) " The violation of article 5.1.d) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in the following terms: "5. Violations of the following

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

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,

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPDand considered very serious in 72.1.a)

2023 standard B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 DSG §24 DSG §4 GDPR Art 12 GDPR Art 15 GDPR Art 15 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art77 UWG §26b paragraph 1 B-VG Art. 133

of his right to rectification, as referred to in Article 16 of the GDPR. 5. Pursuant to Article 12.3 GDPR, the controller must inform the data subject without

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

to as the LPACAP), on the alleged breach of Article 58 (2) GDPR as laid down in Article 83 (5) of the GDPR. SIXTH:At the time of notification of the said

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

coming into force of the GDPR on 25. 5. 2018. Can a controller charge for access to historic account data under Article 15 GDPR? Is GDPR applicable to a case

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

DSGVO), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 p. 1; Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ No C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 1; Article 8 of the Charter

contemplates in its article 76, entitled “San- corrective measures and actions ”: "1. The sanctions provided for in sections 4, 5 and 6 of article 83 of the Regulation

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

legitimate and explicit purpose. Therefore, it was contrary to Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. In addition, the DPA found that the controller did not

stating that it is not included among the assumptions of Article 37 GDPR nor among the ones in Article 34 of the Spanish Law on Personal Data Protection (LOPDGDD)

obligation (Article 4:32 § 1 Wft). Therefore, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR was relevant. However, the Court highlighted that the phrase "at least on" in Article 6(1)

sedeagpd.gob.es 4/7 Article 22 section 4 LOPDGDD (LO 3/2018, December 5) provides the following: “The duty of information provided for in article 12 of Regulation

processing of his personal data would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case

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

the processing is thus in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (c) and Article 5 (1). Paragraph 1 (e), where processing and

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

administrative sanction provided for in Article 83(4) and (5) of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83(5) of the Regulation itself as also

basis for the processing (Article 21(1) GDPR). Finally, the DPA fined the controller €12,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR due to the lack of a valid

process for user registrations, the respondent violated Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, and Article 32 GDPR, and § 1 para 1 DSG (the Austrian Data Protection

Secondly, under Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this article for violations

data in accordance with Article 5 of the Regulation, including in particular the principle of data minimization, cf. Article 5 (1) of the Regulation. 1

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

According to Article 94 of the GDPR "references to the repealed directive must be understood as references to the [GDPR]". 84. Under Article 4, paragraph

alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Does the action of the defendant constitute a violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Considering the evidence

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD.FIFTH: On 07/10/20 this Agency receives

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

[The equivalent GDPR Article to Article 48(3)(a) EU GDPR is Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, and Article 50(1)(d) EU GDPR is Article 49(1)(d) GDPR.] Share blogs or

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

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 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

violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/5 FOURTH: On

order that there is no violation of articles 5.1(c), 5.1(d), 5.1(e) and 5.1(f). Articles 5.1(c), (d) and (f), 5.2, 12, 16, 24, 25, 30.1, 31, 32, 38.3 and

violation of the Article 12 of the GDPR, in conjunction with Article 17 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 12 of the GDPR The aforementioned

prejudice to Articles 12(5) and 15(3) of the EU Regulation 2016/679 and in Article 13(3) and (4) of this Organic Law". FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

proportionality within the meaning of Article 5.2.1(c) of the Protocol. In view of the considerations set out in point 3.4 above, high requirements must be

Norway, and not the GDPR. The DPA does, however, refer to corresponding Articles in the GDPR: Articles 5(1)(b) and (c), as well as Article 17. Share blogs

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

with NIF A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www

their privacy policy in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR within a month. The AEPD also held that URLs 1-4 breached Article 22(2) of the Law 34/2002 (LSSI)

required by Article 12 GDPR. The DPA clarified that the right of information and the right of access are distinct. An access request under Article 15 GDPR is not

constitutes personal data according with Article 4(1) GDPR therefore its processing falls within the scope of GDPR. The DPA also analysed whether the controller

the GDPR, as the data falls under Article 9 GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The Austrian Business Code cannot override Article 9 GDPR. There

of Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the documentation in the file provides evidence that G.L.P. Instalaciones 86, S.L violated Article 6(1)

(hereinafter, LPA- CAP), for the alleged violation 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

particular, the following: 4. The processing of personal data violating the principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

fine are set out in Article 83 of the General Data Protection Regulation. contained in Article. In the event of a breach of Article 5 of the General Data

the definitions of the legal concepts that the RGPD indicates in article 4: Article 4 GDPR. Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation, the following

captures activities of employees without their knowledge compliant with Article 5 GDPR? The DPA concluded that the video surveillance system introduced by

breach of the obligations of Article L. 34-5 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code 11. According to article L. 34-5 of the CPCE: " Direct prospecting

specific enough and did not comply with Article 13 GDPR. Does the lack of precision enough to infrige Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD found that the information

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is notbased

registered on the Robinson List in breach of Article 48(1)(b) LGT and Article 21 GDPR in conjunction with Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. Avilon Center SL made an voluntary

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

Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/5In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, theThis Resolution will be made

assistance of the Norwegian DPA, based on GDPR rights. The DPA denied the request as per Article 55 GDPR, stating that the GDPR does not apply to his situation.

has taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (1) (f) and Article 35. Below is a more detailed review

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

fine on the defendant and stated he has to comply with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 83(2)(a)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

€150,000 on Xfera Móviles S.A. (defendant) for infringing Article 17, 32, 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The fine was imposed after investigating two complaints

paper has been disposed of for shredding. 4.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation Pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation

the company would have breach the data minimisation principle from Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. With regard to the union's demand to provide a list of the workers'

violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that were clear indications that the defendant infringed Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR, principles relating

twenty thousand euros), under¬ Article 6.1 (a) and Article 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, under consideration as ‘very serious’, in¬ Article 71 (1) (a) and (b), respectively

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

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) GDPR

data subject has exercised their right to object under Article 21 GDPR. In the same way, Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish General Telecommunications Act

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR ("integrity and confidentiality"). Therefore, the Spanish DPA held that there was an infringement of the GDPR. It imposed

Section 49 of the Wbp has been met. 4.1 The next question to be answered is whether the claimant has suffered damage. 4.2 With reference to Section 6:106(1)(b)

defined in the first paragraph. Article 4 of the Act, cf. Points 2 and 4 Article 3 of the Act and points 1 and 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. According to

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

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

outside the material scope of the GDPR. Also, with regards to the definition of personal data from Article 4(1) GDPR, the DPA did not reach a firm conclusion

6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against the principles of fairness and minimisation set forth by art. 5 GDPR

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

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against the principles of fairness and minimisation set forth by art. 5 GDPR

cf. Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i, cf. Article 83. Both infringements of Article 6 and Article 13 may be sanctioned with a fee, cf. Article 85, paragraph

referred to in this article for the processing of personal data in the context of its search function. 4.5 Subsequently, Article 17(1) of the GDPR grants the right

considered a violation pursuant to Article 72(1)(m) of the LOPDGDD, which would be sanctioned according to Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

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

Raise Marketing violated the data subject's right to object (Article 21 GDPR and Article 23 LOPDGDD). The DPA fined Raise Marketing €1500 for this violation

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

a violation of Article 12(3) in relation to Article 15 GDPR. The Garante hence applied an administrative fine as per Article 83(5) GDPR. The amount of

according to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is data personal protection and their protection, therefore, is the object of said Regulation. Article 4.2 of the RGPD

to the first controller. First, the DPA recalled that according to Article 4(1) GDPR the image of a person constitutes personal data because it reflects

Member States ”. The violation of article 32 is classified in article 83.4.a) of the cited GDPR in the following terms: "4. Violations of the following provisions

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000 however

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

the decision of April 4, 2019 of the board to be well-founded. This decision qualifies for annulment due to violation of article 4: 5, first paragraph, of

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

controller, in this case the public administration, breached Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD examined a complaint submitted by an anonymous citizen

is not sufficient. Article 87 GDPR regulates the processing of a national identity number. This is also regulated with Section 29.4 of the National Data

responsibility under Article 26 GDPR. Categories of data subjects and categories of personal data Pursuant to Article 30 (I) (1) (c) GDPR, a list must contain

had a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR to publish the data subject’s personal data, and did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In the decision, the Croatian

purpose thus breaching the principles of data minimization under article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

an alleged violation of article 6 of the GDPR typified as an infringement of basic principles for processing in article 83.5 GDPR. In determining the amount

protection of personal data, approved by resolution No. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in G.U. No. 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp.it, web doc. No. 9107633 (hereinafter

pre-contractual; (…) " The offense is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such: "5. Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned

es Page 4 4/5IIIThis infraction is typified in article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers as such: “ nofacilitate access in breach of article 58, paragraph

paragraph 5, of the Code, the notification to the company of the alleged violations of the Regulation found, with reference to Articles 5, par. 1, lett

A.U. with NIF A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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

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

information provided was in breach of Article 13 GDPR. Therefore, the authority warned the controller (Article 83(5) GDPR) and requested to complete the notice

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/14 particular (…) ” III The RGPD deals in its article 5 with the principles that must govern the treatment

National Defense violated the principle of dataminimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. It reasoned that the Type A Certificate's general purpose is to

provisions of article 9 of the GDPR, which implies the commission of an infringement classified in section 5.a) of the Article 83 of the GDPR. Article 83.5.a) of

requests for information according to Article 15(1) GDPR. The ‘Business secrecy’ exception only applied to Article 15(4) GDPR, where a data subject would request

the principle of confidentiality, namely Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, and thus, it did not comply with Article 5(2) GDPR referred as the principle of "proactive

Procedure"), LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the GRPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the above-mentioned agreement

companies that use the TC-string? (Article 4(1) GDPR) 2) a) Is IAB a (joint) controller (Article 4(7) GDPR and Article 24(1) GDPR)? b) Does it matter whether

measures aimed at strengthening the security of the processing. Under Article 36(5) GDPR, the Italian Ministry of Health has submitted the Data Protection

violation of thearticle 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1 of the RGPD.The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a)of the RGPD. The

violated Article 12 GDPR, as it did not facilitate the data subject´s exercise of their rights, especially the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. In view

was complete and in accordance with the transparency principle of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In conclusion, the DPA held that no violation had occurred in the

gob.es 4/9 This infraction is typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

show that the basics the principles of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation are complied with (Article 5 (2) of the Regulation). The person responsible

accordance with Article 38.3 of the AVG 5. On 5 October 2021, the Disputes Chamber decided on the basis of article 95, §1, 1°and article 98 of the CPC that

en hij deze zaak niet wenst verder te zetten. 2. Rechtsgrond Artikel 12.4 AVG 4. Wanneer de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke geen gevolg geeft aan het verzoek

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

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance

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

breached Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA handed down a 'call to order' against the joint controllers for breaching Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and no

complied with the requirements of Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and Article 5 (1). 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2. It is clear

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

sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Article 83 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, as well as those that are contrary to the present organic law”. And in its article 72, it

cookies, as per Article 22(2) Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI). This law regulates cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR. The decision

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

the complainant for the costs of the appeal (paragraph 5). 3.4.2. According to Article 55 (3) GDPR, the supervisory authorities are not responsible for supervising

protection of personal data, approved by resolution No 98 of 4/4/2019, published in OJ No 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp.it, web doc. No 9107633 (hereinafter

unclear, cf. the preparations for the act, Prop. 56 LS (2017-2018) points 4.4.7 and 4.5.7. The question has not previously been put to the fore, and there is

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

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

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

States ”. The violation of article 32 of the RGPD is typified in article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD in the following terms: "4. Violations of the following

whether Article 6 GDPR provides a legal basis for processing credit cards details and whether the processing is compliant with Article 5 GDPR. It also

(EU) 2016/679, according to article 58 par. 2 i of the GCP in combination with the article 83 par. 4 and 5 of GKPD and article 39 par. 1 of law 4624/2019

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

accordance with Article 12 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 6 and Article 5 (2). 1 (c). The Data Inspectorate has hereby emphasized that Article 12 (2) of

principles to the GDPR;
 
 (b) The effect (if any) of the remaining claims – Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (the data security principle), the Article 8 claim and

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

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

obligations under Article 6, §2, al. 5 and Article 9 of the Camera Act 1 2. there is a serious indication that article 6, § 2, al. 4 of the aforementioned

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Was the publication of the census copies a breach of the data integrity and confidentiality principle under Article 5(1)(f)

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

complainant as per Article 17 GDPR, as well as his/her right as a consumer to refuse unsolicited commercial phone calls, as per Article 21 GDPR in connection

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

by the defendant under Article 6(1) GDPR? Did the controller infringe the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? Did the controller commit

obligations of the partners". SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on Personal Data Protection and guarantee of

aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/11i) impose an administrative fine in accordance with article 83, in addition to or instead ofthe measures

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

copy of 4 commercial SMS received on 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021 and 03/15/2021. The issuer is identified as YOIGO. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic

against the respondent, for the alleged infringement of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of all that has been done, the

of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR -public interest and exercise of official authority vested in it, which falls within the exception of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. It

identification data of the parties be published directly. 3Ibid. Decision 57/2022 - 4/4 12. In accordance with its dismissal policy, the Disputes Chamber will refer

powers of investigation conferred on the supervisory authorities in Article 57 (1) of the GDPR.Thus, on 31/10/18, an information injunction was sent to the entity

decision stated: - Pursuant to Article 100, §1, 9 WOG, to order processing in accordance with with Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24 and 32 GDPR, in which in particular

by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The defendant also breached

the data subjects, therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep

pursuant to Article 13 GDPR. In the present case, the controller omitted this obligation. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 13 GDPR

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

CFR Art8 para 11 CFR Art11 para 1 ECHR Art10 para 1 GDPR Art4 no 2 GDPR Art4 no 7 GDPR Art85 para 1 GDPR Art85 para 2 Text GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019

referred to in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 that is not included in the remote access system. 3. For the purposes set out in Article 12(5) of Regulation

Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/9 punish the complained party for an infraction of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83. 5) of the RGPD, with a fine

of articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the Regulation (EU)2016/679 and in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law " FIFTH: Article 17 of the RGPD

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

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) fined Borjamotor, S.A. for infringing Article 7 GDPR and Article Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI)

infringement of Article 32.1 of the GDPR typified as a serious infringement in Article 73 f) of the LOPDGDD and in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. For its part

Criminal Procedure, in particular Article 9 thereof; Having regard to the Highway Code, in particular Article L. 130-9, paragraph 4 thereof; Having regard to Law

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance

the general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

accordance with Article 5 (1) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation; and (3) whether the controller should be ordered in accordance with Article 58 (2)

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

www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/4 in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and paragraph 5 of the provision additional fourth of Law

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

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

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

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

existence of a legal basis from Article 6, paragraph 1, and in connection with this, Article 9, paragraph 2 of the GDPR; 4. The data controller did not inform

AEPD concluded that the defendant could have breached Article 13 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI: there was no identification of the data controller

the principle of transparency established in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and further developed in Article 12 GDPR, and that the data subject was duly provided

articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the Regulation (UE)2016/679 and in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law "FIFTH: The article 17 of the RGPD

consultation in its visas is also ineffective. 4. Secondly, if, under the terms of a) of 4 ° of I of article 11 of the law of 6 January 1978 relating to data

unsolicited commercial emails without a legal basis, connected to Article 6 of the GDPR—, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

protection, the DSGVO had come into force during the proceedings. Pursuant to Article 69 (4) of the DSG, proceedings pending before the ordinary courts under the

municipality €5,000 for failing to designate a DPO and to cooperate with the DPA, therefore violating Article 31 GDPR and Article 37(1)(a) GDPR. On 2 June

identification of natural persons. It follows from Article 12 (1) GDPR that, without prejudice to Article 11, if there is reasonable doubt as to the identity

2-7 b, which implement Article 5 (3) of the Communication Protection Directive, are lex specialis for the Privacy Regulation. Article 95 of the Privacy Regulation

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

fourth applicant, 5.FUNDACJA PANOPTYKON c/o. foundation under Polish law, with company number0000327613, with seat to onion. Orzechowska 4/4, 02-068 Warsaw

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

against the defendant, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On 06/02/20, this Agency received

personal data and information under Article 15 GDPR in his Google account, Google has not violated Article 15 GDPR concerning this data/information. As

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation, with this measure. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of

of an infringement of Article 5 (1) (f) of the GDPR under (74345679) (f) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) (a) of the GDPR. SECOND: To notify this

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

pay to [the employee] compensation/amount, pursuant to Article 7:683(4) in conjunction with Article 7:682(6) of the Dutch Civil Code, equal to the gross

circulation 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

meaning of § 6 para 1 no. 5 KSchG (Eccher in Fenyves/Kerschner/Vonkilch, Klang3 § 6 para 1 no. 5 KSchG Rz 5 f; Kathrein/Schoditsch in KBB5 § 6 KSchG Rz 11 [aE];

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 which are not be included in the remote access system. 3. For the purposes of Article 12(5) of Regulation

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

(thirty thousand euros), for violation of article 22.2) of the LawLSSI, typified as “slight” in article 38.4.g) of the aforementioned Law.SECOND: REQUIRING

he assessment: violation of Article 57.4 AVG (third plea in law from X). X submits that the decision violates Article 57.4 of the AVG where this provision

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

a work that is in the public interest, cf. Item 5 Article 9 Act no. 90/2018 and paragraph 3 e. Article 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 3. Conclusion Privacy

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR, is processed and stored here by the defendant as the person responsible in accordance with Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. According to Art. 4 No.

by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On 10 June 2020, the

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

violation of Article 32(1) GDPR due to the scope of the data mishandling and the sensitivity of the subject. Moreover, the Family Court violated Article 28(3)

provided for in Article 15 GDPR and Article 13 LOPDGDD was exercised. Secondly, the DPA noted that a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR is required

for a possible personal data breach affecting confidentiality, as per Article 32 GDPR. The decision is the consequence of the notification of a possible personal

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,

amount of the fine under Article 83(2) GDPR. The data subjects complains about the violation of its right of access (Article 15 GDPR) by the Istituto Nazionale

had fulfilled its obligation to provide information pursuant to Article 12(3) and Article 4(7) of the Basic Law (Voriger SuchbegriffDSGVONächster Suchbegriff)

publicly available on the Internet. However, it follows from Article 28(1) GDPR and Article 28(3)(f) GDPR that the data processor (in this instance Kombit A/S)

Judiciales (JAVA). JAVA infringed Article 6(1)(a) GDPR by publishing illegal recordings on its website and also infringed Article 22(2) LSSI due to its cookie

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

companies Menzis and VGZ € 50.000 for insufficient security measures under Article 32 GDPR. Translated summary by the AP (The Netherlands): In 2018, the Authority

of personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The complainant argued that the size of the administrative

set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 that is not included in the remote access system.3. For the purposes set out in Article 12(5) of Regulation

public interest in accordance with national law. It follows from Article 5(1)(b) GDPR that further processing for archival purposes in the public interest

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

(Considering 40 GDPR), Article 6.1 of the GDPR is therefore applicable and not RD 1720/2007 used by the defendant. Thus, the aforementioned article 6.1 GDPR establishes

infringement of article 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1, of the RGPD. The infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a) of the

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

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

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

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

Protection Officer, filip.johnssen@klarna.com Page 4 of 5Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-10518 5 (5) Date: 2021-03-31 How to appeal If you want

the social and health authority of a city to had breached Article 6 GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

a claim under Article 15 GDPR entitles the data subject to be provided with copies of their personal data and whether Article 15(3) GDPR contains an independent

set out in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 which are not be included in the remote access system. 3. For the purposes of Article 12(5) of Regulation

under Article 15 GDPR, in a timely manner as well as in clear and transparent form. Second, the DPA looked at the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/5In accordance with the provisions of article 39.1. c) of the LSSI, minor infractions canwill be

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

the personal protection regulation article 83 no. 5 that violation of articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of accordance with article 83 no. 2 shall be imposed an infringement

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:

chero. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/12 - The person responsible for the File will be responsible for periodically

the decision of 5 February 2019. 2.4. On July 1, 2019, the school attendance officer declared the claimant's objection unfounded. 2.5. Plaintiff has appealed

database. The request for erasure under Article 17(1) GDPR is not applicable, because under Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the processing was necessary for the defence

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

information pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the GDPR relates to "personal data relating to an individual" pursuant to Article 4 No. 1 of the GDPR. In addition, the

Ms. A.A.A., herein the data controller, violated Article 6 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR, as well as Article 22.2 LSSI (Spanish national law). The data subject

aforementioned infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR could lead to the commission of the offenses typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR that under the The heading

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 of personal data, approved by resolution no. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in OJ no. 106 of 8/5/2019, web doc. no. 9107633 (hereinafter "Regulation of

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

the right of access under Article 15(4) of the GDPR or section 22 of the DDPA can be invoked. It follows from Article 15 (4), that the right to obtain

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

fact that the processing of the controller relied on Article (6)(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as legal basis affects the holding of the DPA since

***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72(1)(a) a fine of EUR 10 000 (TEN

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

provisions of article 9.5 of the RealDecree-Law 5/2018, the acceptance agreement for processing of this is signedclaim.Under the protection of article 11 of Royal

the criminal sanction referred to in Article 170 of the Code and the administrative fine provided for in Article 83(5)(e) of the Regulation shall apply;

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the aforementioned

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

complied with the principle of data minimization as per Article 5 (1) (c) and Article 25 (2) GDPR? The Finnish DPA held that the controller has not complied

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

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

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

minimization (Art 5 Para 1 lit c GDPR) and Storage limitation (Art 5 Para 1 lit e GDPR). [...] The pursued legitimate interests (if Art 6 para 1 lit f GDPR as Legal

breaching Article 12(3) GDPR, since it failed to notify the data subject that her erasure request was satisfied, as well as Article 24(1) GDPR, given that

Articles 57(1) and 58(2) GDPR for the processing of personal data without the consent of the data subject, as foreseen in Article 6 GDPR. Firstly, the DPA found

five thousand euros (5,000.00) euros, for the above violations of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 of the GCP and article 25 par. 1 of the

information to be retained by the defendant any longer. 4. Pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the GDPR , a data subject has the right to obtain erasure of personal

the complainant's name would be an excessive burden according to Article 12 (5) GDPR. The prison officer then complained before the DPA about the Prison

Justification . Pursuant to Article 78 paragraph 1, Article 79 paragraph 1 point 1 and Article 84 paragraph 1 point 1-4 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the

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

the lack of a privacy and cookie policy on a website infringe Article 13 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI? The AEPD decided to impose a fine to the clinic: €

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

3.2.3. To an objection by the BF according to Art 21 GDPR According to Article 21 Paragraph 1 GDPR, every person concerned has the right to object at any

with Article 30(1) GDPR, despite employing fewer than 250 persons, because of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject (article 30(5) GDPR)

appeal is brief, it contains a ground as referred to in Article 6: 5, read in conjunction with Article 6:24 of the General Administrative Law Act. The appeal

way of a finding under article 15 of the GDR instead of the provisions of article 15 of the GDR. 36, § 4 and § 5 as well as Article 38, § 1 of the Law of

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

law to the GDPR, both regimes must be read in the same way. Second, identifiability is defined by Article 3(1) 2018/1725 (Article 4(1) GDPR). The use of

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

personal data did not comply with the rules of Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (f) and Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation.

_gid; _ga_DZD8C8RYLW and_ga_G4RJWW5CDC3) as well as targeting cookies (_gat_gtag_UA_40838799_5; ts and _gat_gtag_UA_.30525763_4) were installed. They also

provisions of article 58.2.i) of the GDPR, for the alleged infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT

against the respondent, for the alleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of the foregoing, the following

second complaint alleging the ongoing violation of Article 6 GDPR. The AEPD finds the violation of Article 6 quite apparent and focuses on the criteria to

not complied with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and 2, Article 33, para. Article 34 (3) (d) 1 and 2, and Article 5, para. 1, letter

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance

***URL. SECOND: Dated May 20, 2019, in accordance with Article 65.4 of the Organic Law 3/2018 of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital

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

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

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

basis of the processing; 4.5.2016 L 119/40 Official Journal of the European Union EN (d) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(f), the legitimate

the GDPR within 1 month starting from the receipt of this decision; c)ordered the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as

to in Article 9 of the GDMPR in order to infer that such consent would not be necessary for data not referred to in that Article, since Article 4 of the

persons pursuant to Article 34(1) GDPR. The Danish DPA found that Intervare did not go through with a proper assessment pursuant to Article 34(1), as it had

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

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Regulation

authority (cf. Article 36 (2) no. 7 lit. a DPA) for the purposes of military self-protection (cf. Article 36 (1) DPA in conjunction with Article 2 (1) no. 2

did not acknowledge that with the introduction of Title 8.4 in the Awb on the basis of Article 8:4, paragraph 1, opening words and under f of the Awb, the

free circulation of these data (hereinafter GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

meaning of Article 4 No. 7 GDPR. However, the defendant cannot be accused of violating an obligation to provide information under Art. 15, 12 GDPR. Paragraph

controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 17(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

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

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

accordance with the above article 17 of the GDPR, as it has been interpreted according to the content of the Guidelines 5/2019 of the GDPR, the data subject has