Search results

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

". 26. Article D. 213-1 of the same code provides that "[t]he amount mentioned in article L. 213-1 is set at 120 euros" and article D. 213-2 provides

regard to paragraph (k) of Article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, Article 76, 'Sanctions and corrective measures', provides: '2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

analyse the criteria set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR. 61. As regards the nature and seriousness of the breach (Article 83(2)(a) of the RGPD), it points

Based information provided and the authority granted by Article 58 and 83 GDPR, as well as Article 24(b) of National Law 125(I)/2018, the DPA came to the

parties (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) - The turnover or activity figure of the entity (article 83.2.a, of the

a, 13.1.c, 13.2.d, 13.2.a and 13.2.e between 15 June and 2 December 2020 as regards departures. (b) infringements that took place from 2 December 2020

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

more details. Article 2: Substantive scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal

in accordance with the provisions of Article 58.2 of the RGPD and in articles 47 and 48.1 of the LOPDGDD. II Article 6.1 of the RGPD, establishes the cases

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

mentioned by the claimant. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authority of control, and as established

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE D. A.A.A. (BEINNOVA.ES) with NIF.:***NIF.1, a sanction of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros), for violation of article 21 of the LSSI. SECOND:

clients. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will have of all the following corrective powers indicated below: d) order

infringement.In relation to Article 83(2)(k) of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", states that: "2. In accordance with

addition to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58 ( 2 ) (a) to (h) andin Article 58 ( 2 ) (j). When making an administrative decisionas well

agent of *** TELEPHONE. 2 that processed the request to change the owner. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes

their rights'. 91. The rights referred to in Article 14(1)(c), (d) and (e) and in Article 14(2)(a), (b), (d) and (g) AVG such information shall not be required

The interpretation of article 13 of the Wbp is no different from that of article 32 of the GDPR, described in paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Also in the period

violation of article 21 of the LSSICE, classified as serious in article 38.3.d) and c) of said rule, for the alleged infringement of article 48.1.b) of the

gob.es 4/19 FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW Yo By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the GDPR recognizes to each control authority, and as established in articles

Hence, the controller violated Articles 32(1)(b) and 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to its Article 58(2) GDPR statutory powers, the DPA ordered the controller to implement

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

" Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

Sections b), d) and i) of article 58.2 of the RGPD provide the following: C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/6 “2 Each supervisory

is contrary to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 54.1 (d) of the GDPR states that the period of employment of an official at the

violation of Article 33 GDPR. 11. Based on the above, the Authority considers that there is a case to exercise the v the article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR corrective

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD. 2-That in application of article 58.2.c) of

sanctions (articles 58, par. 2, lett. I and 83 of the Regulations; art. 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). The Guarantor, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) and

the LSSI, typified as mild in article 38.4.d) of said norm.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/5FOURTH: The Support service

Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG, le règlement s'applique

period allotted to it to do so (Article 15.1 combined with Article 12.3. of GDPR as well as Article 12.2. of the GDPR (obligation to facilitate the exercise

(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

would have been required by Article 29 GDPR. Moreover, in violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2), and Article 34(4) GDPR, the controller had not implemented

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 the

accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. First 3.2. Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation 2 Article 32 (2) of the Regulation

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

legal action basis, cf. the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f. 2. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the Privacy Regulation, the EAS / Elektro

AEPD considers that this could lead to a sanction, in accordance with article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the publication results

to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, 'Sanctions and corrective measures', states that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

minor one." 2) Observance of the measures previously applied in the same case, referred to in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 83(2)(i) of Regulation

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

for the fulfillment of this obligation. For its part, art. 58.2.i) of the RGPD provides: "2. Each control authority will have all the following corrective

" Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

information”, article 83.2 f) of the GDPR. (IV) "The non-existence of benefits obtained through the infringement", article 83.2 k) of the GDPR and 76.2 c) of the

the conditions of lawfulness of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ” V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each supervisory

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

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

violation of Articles 14(2)(f), 17(1)(c) and 21(1) GDPR, on the following grounds. Firstly, the DPA found a violation of Article 14(2)(f) GDPR, as the controller

RIBADEDEVA ( *** POSITION 1 ) according with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, so that you can withdraw the copy of the sentence Exposed from the FACEBOOK

of Articles 5(1)(a), 6 and 28(3) GDPR and adopted an administrative fine on the basis of Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR. The total amount of the fine took

Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 256) and Article 7(1) and (2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 103 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data

of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) on B.B.B., with IFRN ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 32 GDPR, as defined in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND:Notify

1(e) and 5.2 of the DGPS and Article 6 of the DGPS; 2.the defendant has not complied with the obligations imposed by sections 12.1. and 12.2. of the DGPS

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

the defendant for an infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR a warning penalty in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

on the GEOPORTAL2 was not in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied.

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

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

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

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 on the

alleged infringement of Article 48.1.b) of the Law LGT, classified as "minor" in Article 78.11) of the aforementioned Law LGT.2, NAME B.B.B. as instructor

considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to D. A.A.A

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

to art. 58, par. 2, of the GDPR. 6. Adoption of the injunction order for the application of the pecuniary administrative sanction (Articles 58, paragraph

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

to Art. 58 sec. 2 lit. b) and e), in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33

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 Data

2020.IV Article 83.7 of the RGPD establishes that: “ Without prejudice to the corrective powersof supervisory authorities under Article 58 (2), each Member

Camera" (which processes image and voice) according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the staff of the General Directorate

also be subject to the provisions of Article 6.1(e) DSGVO in conjunction with Article 6.1(b) DSGVO. Article 2, 28.2 no. 2 BayDSG without the consent of the

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

is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR and therefore in Article 6.1.c) invoked in the species. Article 6.1 of the GDPR in fact reproduces

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

80 Para. 2 GDPR does not exist. Contrary to the view of the BB, the data at issue in the proceedings are not personal i.S.d. GDPR. The BF2 explained that

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

zoekopdracht op naam van de klager. 2. Op 14 november 2019 wordt de klacht ontvankelijk verklaard op grond van de artikelen 58 en 60 WOG en wordt de klacht op

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

controller thus also violated Article 14 GDPR. However, the DPA did not use any of their corrective powers as listed in Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

in the Home Agreement.FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authority ofcontrol, and as established

document dated 12/19/19.FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authori-control, and as established in

new page gina *** URL.2, in which information is provided in accordance with those stipulated in the article Article 13 of the GDPR. Regarding the complaint

data protection officer, article 39 of the RGPD attributes to him the function of cooperate with said authority. Article 58.2 of the RGPD confers on the

43; " Article 83.7 of the RGPD indicates: “Without prejudice to the corrective powers of the control authorities by virtue of the Article 58 (2), each

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/5 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authority 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

imposition of measures, according to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. Along with it and In accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR, it was also indicated that the

(articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i and 83 of the Regulation; article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). The violation of articles 5, paragraph 2, letter f)

comply with GDPR Article 12 (1) and GDPR Article 5 (2) of the provisions of paragraph 2, and he did not even mention the Data Subject 2. Based on GDPR Article

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

(art. 58, par. 2, lett. i and 83 of the Regulation; art. 166, par. 7, of the Code). Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 of the Regulation and Article 166

for the allegedinfringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of theArticle 58.2.a) of the aforementioned RGPD

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

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

for the violation of Article 6 GDPR and € 4 000 for the violation of article 13, under the power conferred by Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here

regard by the Respondent. (a) Principle of accuracy (Article 5.1(d) of the AVG), accountability (Article 5.2 of the AVG), transparency information, communication

applicant's demands and given Google LLC an order in accordance with Article 58, paragraph 2, subsection c of the General Data Protection Regulation to comply

of a link to this information. This was a violation of Article 12. Based on Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and WP29 guidelines on transparency, the CNIL noted that

17 Para. 1 lit. d GDPR. The data protection authority therefore makes ex officio use of its power under Art. 58 Para. 2 lit. g GDPR (on the admissibility

individuals complies with Article 14 of the GDPR. 2 On breaches in connection with the exercise of rights 28. Under Article 12 of the GDPR: "1. The controller

"accept all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article 5(3) -Privacy while the data controller

the violation considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, of according to art. 58.2 of the GDPR.

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

correct processing [...]" (Article 6(1)(c) and (e)). 2, RGPD), with the consequence that the provision contained in Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Code

with Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) and (f) in connection with Article 83(1-3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of

be 2,000 euros (two thousand euros), without prejudice to what Sulte of the instruction of the present file. WHAT: in accordance with article 58.2 of the

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

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

dossier werden toegevoegd. 2. Motivering 2.1. De bevoegdheid van de Inspectiedienst en de Geschillenkamer en de omvang van het dossier 2.1.1. Het verzoek van

considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to D. A.A.A.

of a person (article 83.2 b).- Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number ofidentification, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g).- Section

event of an infringement of the precepts of the GDPR. Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all the following

other hand, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, according to which each supervisory authority may 'order

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

processing, in order to avoid their illegal disclosure, reported to art. 58 para. (2) lit. d) of the RGPD).

of personal data mentioned in Article 2 (2) GDPR are not relevant. Contrary to the plaintiff's view, Article 2(2)(d) GDPR does not apply in the present

the processing of personal data of the data subject (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR; Article 6 and Article 8 of the Italian Legislative Decree No. 101 of August

4 and article 15 of the GDPR (right of access), for reasons set out below. Furthermore, in accordance with article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §

analyzes the criteria set by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

principle of data minimisation - art. 5, § 1, b. "c" of the GDPR, respectively Art. 2, para. 2, item 3 (revoked) of LPPD ,and the processing is excessive

(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

violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT as instructor C.C.C. and, as secretary, D.D.D., indicating

the supervisory authority with pursuant to article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breach of article 58, Paragraph 1." The defendant could also specify

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

considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to D.A.A.A. and

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 RGPD

pursuant to Article 21(1); and no other legitimate grounds for processing prevail, or the data subject to oppose processing under Article 21(2); (d) the personal

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

13. See Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 18. 13See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 28. 14 See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, pp. 28-29. 12

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

is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) or Article 9(2)(b); or (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence

page. The injunctions are notified pursuant to Article 58 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, letter d. The deadline for compliance with the orders

data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which in turn meets the conditions for consent laid out in Article 7 GDPR. The AEPD highlighted that this

pursuant to Article 58 ( 1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1] . 2 (e). The content of the notification must comply with the requirements of Article 34 of

(hereinafter claimant 2). C.C.C. (hereinafter claimant 3). D.D.D. (hereinafter claimant 4). E.E.E. (hereinafter claimant 5). F.F.F. and D.D.D. (hereinafter claimants

11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. 4 2.8 Chapter IV, Section 2 addresses security of personal data. Article 32 GDPR provides: 1. Taking

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

procedure for the adoption of the measures referred to in Article 58, paragraph 5, of the Code. 2, of the RGPD and inviting the above mentioned Municipality

the commission considers that the corrective measures under Art. 58, § 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), "f", "g", "h" and "j" of the Regulation are inapplicable

to delete the contents of the e-mail box, cf. article 17 No. 1 letter e. 2. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the Privacy Regulation, this is imposed Radio

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

other two conditions of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR are not met. (26) The second condition of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR is that the processing of

controller) under Article 33 GDPR. On the 7 December 2023, the Norwegian DPA imposed a reprimand on the municipality under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR, for processing

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

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

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

the Personal Data Act § 26 second paragraph, cf. Article 58 (2) (i) of the Privacy Regulation, cf. Article 83, to pay a infringement fee to the Treasury of

by virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes each Control Authority and, as established in arts. 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the LOPDGDD Law

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read

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 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

timetable" "B.- In accordance with Article 67 of the GDPR, the Inspectorate of the AEPD, in accordance with Article E/0113/2019, carried out the following

violated Article 34(2) GDPR, because he only informed the data subject of the alleged data loss. However, the information obligations of Article 34 GDPR provide

measure was also applied to him, based on the provisions of art. 58 para. (2) lit. d) of the General Regulation on Data Protection, which is obliged to

violation of article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in accordance with article 58 par. 2 i' of the GDPR in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GDPR. The

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

under Article 15 GDPR to the defendant and requested i.a. information on concrete recipients of their personal data under Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. The defendant

penalty payments pursuant to Article 58(2) opening words and under (d) of the AVG, Article 16(1) of the UAVG and Article 5:32(1) of the Awb. This means

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

is based on Article 9(2)(i) of the GDPR as mentioned above. 34. However, certain data referred to in the PIA are not mentioned in Article 2 of the draft

has engaged another real estate agent for the sale. 2 Process flow First instance 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 PME summoned [plaintiff] on May 9, 2018 (see also

COMPANY.1, through a single partner and administrator, D.D.D. being the object so- cial and commercial activity of this company, the same as that of my sponsored

section 1 of the Personal Data Act, cf. the Privacy Ordinance, Article 58 no. 2 letter i, cf. article 83, is imposed on Coop Finnmark SA, org.nr. 981 397 568

monitoring the application of the GDPR and that, in Spain, one of these authorities is the AEPD. Also, according to Article 58(2) GDPR and the provisions of the

accordance with Article 4(1) GDPR, according to the DPA. The Court of Appeal of Brussels held that, in accordance with Article 16 GDPR, the data subject

serious infringement, which will be sanctioned in accordance with art. 58 (2) of the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

policies regulating this, they failed to comply to Article 24(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 25(1) and (2) GDPR. No fine was imposed, but a reprimand and clear

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,

comply with this decision will be sanctioned as an infringement of Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

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

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

present proceedings. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS I By virtue of the powers that Article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each supervisory authority, and as established

to, or instead of, the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), (f) and (g). (a) to (h), and (j). In deciding whether to impose an

application must be dismissed. D E C I D E : ---------- Article 1: The intervention of the PDU - What to choose is allowed. Article 2: The request of the company

an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

accordance with article 15 AVG (section 2.1) - data processing officer (section 2.2) - cookie policy (section 2.3) - health data processing (section 2.4) - camera

provisions of article 68 of the LOPDGDD and article 64.2 of the LPACAP (in this case, of the different corrective powers provided for in article 58.2 of the RGPD

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

processing on the merits in accordance with article 98 et seq. WOG, to: - on the basis of article 58.2, c) AVG and article 95, 1.5° WOG to the controller order

responsible for resolving this procedure, in accordance with Article 58.2 of the GDPR in Article 47 of the Organic Law on Data Protection. II The joint assessment

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,

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

specified in Article 83 of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of

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

with Article 2 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation the general data protection regulation applies to data processing. According to Article 4 (1)

legal basis, cf. the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 (1) (f). 2. Pursuant to the Privacy Ordinance art. 58 No. 2 letter d is imposed LINDSTRAND TRADING AS to

area on the facade of the PUB ***PUB.1. Likewise, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the RGPD, the claimed party was ordered to proceed to place the

order to guarantee the right to union activity in the company (art. 2.1 d) and art. 2.2 d), the employer must, on the one hand, guarantee the right to information

graduation established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 The

his mobile phone: to “the Pack”, to which all the defendants belong except D.D.D., in addition more than other people and to "Enjoy SFC." In these WhatsApp

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

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

data subject (art / e83.2.c of the GDPR} d) Any violation committed by the controller or processor (article 83.2.e of the GDPR} e) The degree of cooperation

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

as indicated in article 25.2 of the RGPD. In this sense, it is meant that the indeterminacy referred to in the article 25.2 of the GDPR refers to the default

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

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

according to Article 21 paragraph 2 , d) the personal data were processed unlawfully…”. 3. In addition, according to article 4 par. 2 of the GDPR as processing

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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

present sanctioning procedure. LEGAL GROUNDS I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each control authority, and according to what

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with the provisions of Article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

commission of the offence referred to in Article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned in accordance with Article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

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

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

virtue of the powers that Article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each control authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018

unlawfully. 2.4 Administrative fine Pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, preamble, in conjunction with Article 83, paragraph 4, of the GDPR and article 14, third

have entered into a breacha / 'article 14.1-2 combined' article 12.3, article 6, article 5.1, c) and articles 5.2 and 24.1-2 of the RGPO. It is therefore

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

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

to the claim. mado, for violation of the content of art. 5.1 c) GDPR. Article 58 section 2 of the RGPD provides the following: Each authority of control

The DPA first requested an overview of such processing (equivalent to Article 30 GDPR) for purposes related to the Norwegian Execution of Sentences Act, details

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 Parliament and of the Council known

person, using Article 15 as their basis. The Slovenian DPA (IP) was asked for an opinion concerning the scope of GDPR Article 15. Within the GDPR, an individual

VwGO) .191. The legal basis for the dispute is Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation no and to repeal RL 95/46 / EG

treatment of personal data, cf. the Personal Data Act § 2 and the Privacy Ordinance article 2 no. 1. 4.2. Assessment of legal basis The next question is whether

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

§ 8 clause 2 of the GTC agreed between the parties (according to § 8 b paragraph 2 MB/KK). 52 § 8 b para. 2 MB/KK violates §203 sentence 2 VVG and is therefore

number of personal data. (Article 76.2.b) The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the Article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with

whether Art. 15 GDPR applies to the investigation files at all, since according to Art. 2 Para. 2 d GDPR, Section 2a Para. 4 AO, the GDPR does not apply

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

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The continued nature of the infraction (article 83.2.k of the RGPD

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

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

to criminal investigations, pursuant to Article 2(2)(d) GDPR. The second problem was the fact that Article 9 GDPR prohibited the processing of genetic and

art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2, as well

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

a bank was subject to the GDPR in its capacity as a controller and should have answered access requests under Article 15 GDPR.   The complainants are clients

the infringement considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

with "APERCIBIMIENTO" for an infraction of article 7)of the RGPD, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2) of the aforementioned RGPD.NINTH: Following

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

the infringement considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

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

of: 1) Article 12(2) GDPR, by not enabling the data subject to exercise their right to rectification stated in Article 16 GDPR. Article 12(2) GDPR thus includes

violation of article 22.2) of the LSSI, Regarding the "Cookies Policy" on the website of its ownership. In addition, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD

accuracy and updating of data as provided in Art 5 par 1 let d GDPR. Following Art 58 2 c and g GDPR, the Guarantor finds the data subject´s complaint well-founded

personal data (Article 9 GDPR)? Does the data controller have a legitimate interest to process credit card data of recurring purchasers under Article 6(1)(f)

es 2/7 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW FIRST: The Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in

ensure compliance with the GDPR. It therefore violated Articles 5(2) and 24 GDPR. Consequently, on the basis of Article 58(2)(f) GDPR and in accordance with

the size of the infringement fee. 2 Decision on infringement fines 1. Pursuant to the Privacy Ordinance Article 58 no. 2 letter i, and after an assessment

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR

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

under Article 15 GDPR and demanded free access to the historic bank transaction data. The bank argued that this would be a misuse of Article 15 GDPR and

sec. 1 lit. a) and ... h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-2 and Art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) in connection with art. 58 sec. 1 lit. a) and e) of Regulation

broad definitions of processing and personal data laid down by Article 4(1) and (2) GDPR. The DPA then quotes ECJ, 11 December 2014, Ryneš, case C-212/13

recording is "processing" of "personal data" within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 4(2) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject has the right to request access to

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

highest amount. " Article 83.7 of the RGPD indicates: “Without prejudice to the corrective powers of the control authorities under article 58 (2), each Member

security of the data, in violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR and warned the controller for a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

to Article 4(11) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR and that no other legal basis can be considered and the aforementioned processing is therefore unlawful. 2) the

line with Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, the controller was obliged to delete data processed unlawfully, unless the exception of Article 17(3) GDPR (fulfillment

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

Motivated by the above and on the basis of Article 38, Paragraph 3 of the GDPR, in connection with Article 58, §2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the Commission

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

781 254 D2D_Casmar 964 800 099 D2D_Casmar 912 303 310 D2D_Casmar 910 888 516 D2D_Solivesa 910 120 123 D2D_Three-Quarters Full S.L. 919 034 107 D2D_Three-Quarters

of article 6.1) typified in the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT D. C.C.C. as instructor. and as secretary to Mrs. D.D.D., indicating

Section 2 (2) and (4) a may apply the legal consequences set out in the General Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b), (d) and (i)

pursuant to Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. Second, the DPA considered the non-compliance with the summons to breach breach of Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The delay

this respect, Article 58(2)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides In this regard, Article 58(2) of the GDPR lists the different

(c) and (d) GDPR. Hence, pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA prohibited the controller from further disseminating data concerning the complainant

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

making the identification of a person easier. The DPA referred to Article 4(2) GDPR which defines the concept of processing. Publishing a person's image

complaint; b. give notice to the second defendant, pursuant to Article 58(2)(a) AVG and Article 100(1)(5) WOG, that it will not take part in the proceedings

provisions of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and article 32 of the GDPR, violations classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR and article 83.4 of the GDPR respectively

obligations arising from Article 32 of the GDPR. D. On the failure to document any personal data breach 72. According to Article 33(5) of the GDPR: "The controller

in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 83 (2) (i) of Regulation 2016/679) - in this case, the measures referred to in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation

has not violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment"

art. 58, par. 2, lett. i), and 83, par. 3, of the same Regulation. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation). Art. 58, par

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

of November 12, 2019, p. 18). D.1.2. On Art. 3 Paragraph 2 Letter b GDPR (“D.1.2. On Article 3 Paragraph 2, Letter b, GDPR (“Behaviour Observation”) Regardless

data 9 2.1.1 Factual findings 9 2.1.2Legal assessment 9 2.2 Controller and processor(s) 10 2.2.1 Factual findings 10 2.2.2Legal assessment 12 2.3Security

powers under Article 58(2) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for violations of Articles 5(1)(e), 6(1)(f), 12(1) and 13(1)(d) GDPR. Share your comments

identification of corrective and resolving solutions (Article 5 , par. 2 and art.83, par. 2, letters c) and d) of the Regulation); - the Company immediately demonstrated

accordance with Article 60 of the AVG. No objections to this were submitted. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Scope of the AVG Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the AVG

powers under Article 58 Paragraph 2 lit d and f GDPR. Both the remedial authority of the instruction standardized in Art. 58 Paragraph 2 lit d GDPR and the

inconvenience caused to the complainant. (d) it respects the laws of the EU and Cyprus and fully complies with the GDPR. 2.4. On 8 July 2022, I had issued a warning

in Art. 58 sec. 2 lit. ah and lit. j GDPR, instead of an administrative fine, it should be indicated that pursuant to Art. 58 sec. 2 lit. and GDPR, each

Norwegian Health Records Act (pasientjournalloven) and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR (cf. Article 5 GDPR). The DPA fined Moss municipality NOK 500,000 (€47

breach of Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(2), Article 6 GDPR and 129 of the Code. The data controller also breached Article 12(2), Article 15 GDPR

event of an infringement of the precepts of the GDPR. Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all the following

DSG §24 paragraph 1 DSG §24 paragraph 5 GDPR Art17 GDPR Art4 GDPR Art5 GDPR Art58 GDPR Art6 VwGVG §28 paragraph 2 saying W101 2213581-1/5E IN THE NAME OF

specified period of time - Article 58.2 (i). According to Article 83(2) of the GDPR, the measure provided for in Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR is compatible with

criteria. tion established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679

measures specified below which the Company is ordered to take pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the Regulation: 1. drafting and publishing, on the Company's website

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

processing. In accordance with Article 36 GDPR, the Garante must decide on the adequacy of the intended processing under the GDPR. After careful examination

€20,000 for breaching Article 32. However, the DPA did not request that the controller brings, in accordance with Article 58(2)(d), their processing behaviour

the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR SECOND: ORDER ORANGE

imposed, taking into account the¬ relevant circumstances set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:(a) processing of the complainant’s data has been carried out locally;(b)

data under Article 9 GDPR, which can only be lawful if one of the exceptions of Article 9(2) GDPR apply. With respect to Article 9(2)(h) GDPR, the DPC held

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

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

Guidelines, and therefore article 75 of the Italian Code, were also violated. With the power conferred by Article 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the Italian DPA imposed

the dara subject's objection to be further contacted. Article 5(2), Article 24, and Article 25 GDPR for failing to implement suitable organisational measures

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

surveillance, (2) breach of Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 28(1), (3) and (10), Article 29, Article 83(1), (2), (3) and (5) in

pursuant to Article 13 of the GDPR for collaborators; Information pursuant to Article 13 of the GDPR for employees; Disclosure pursuant to Article 4, paragraph

specified in Section 2 (2) defined in the General Data Protection Regulation may apply legal consequences. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) GDPR, the supervisory

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

violation of Article Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. In addition, the DPA also contested the controller's inadequate data retention time (breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR);

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

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

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

with the criteria established in Article 83(2)(b) GDPR: negligent character of the infringement, and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR: categories of personal data affected

for in art. 64.2 b) of law 39/2015, of 1 October and article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, the sanction that may apply for the violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD

to Art. 17 GDPR. There are none of the reasons set out in Article 17 (1) a to f GDPR. A right to erasure according to Art. 17 Para. 1 d GDPR is ruled out

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

at www.bvwg.gv.at DECISIONS D A T U M 2 9 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 2 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 5 8 2 2 4 7 0 2 8 - 1 / 1 1 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal

country, pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) and (j) of the Regulation; 2.20. the complainant requests that: 2.20.1. the complaint under Article 58 of the Regulation

accordance with Article 58 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, letter d. According to the Data Protection Act, section 41, subsection 2, no. 5, is punishable

signs according to the indications set out in point 2 of this decision, (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter d) of the Regulation); apply a pecuniary administrative

effective beyond the processing prohibition in Article 58 (2) (f) of the GDPR. Article 58 of the GDPR replaced Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection

specified period -article 58. 2 d)-. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

having considered all of the corrective powers set out in Article 58(2): (i) Article 58(2)(d) – I have decided to order the HSE to bring its processing

materia di protezione dei dati personali”; and of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(e), Article 6(2) and Article 6(3)(b). The Italian DPA did not impose a fine

Under Article 83 (2) and (5) of the General Data Protection Regulation: 2. Administrative fines shall be imposed in accordance with Article 58 (2), depending

controller €4,900,000 pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR. The controller was also ordered to make its several processing operations GDPR-compliant. The DPA also investigated

criteria established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may

virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authority of control and as established in articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the LOPDGDD

constitute 'data relating to health' in the sense of Article 4(15) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 9 GDPR, this special category of data can only be disclosed

the GDPR introduces a prohibition on their processing (Article 9(1) GDPR), while allowing for explicit and limitative exceptions (Article 9(2) GDPR). In

here is covered by the GDPR. For further information and relevant legal provisions, please see Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, Articles 1 and 2 LED, and Part 5 and

appropriate security of the personal data under Article 5(2) and 32(1) GDPR. Pursuant Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, it asked the data controller to take measures

plaintiff derives his legitimacy from Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 11 UKlaG or from Article 80 Paragraph 2 GDPR and only has to show that it concerns data

Region Lombardia violated Article 5(1)(a)(c) GDPR due to the dissemination not being necessary as well as Article 6(1)(c)(e) GDPR due to the absence of suitable

processing of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) It is appropriate to graduate

complained party, by the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. Said agreement was notified by post on March

DPA, the controller breached Article 157 (request for information and production of documents) in relation to Article 166(2) of the Code. Therefore, the

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

art. 2, d. lgs. n. 81/2015 (as amended by art. 1, paragraph 1, letter a), nos. 1 and 2, d.l. 3.9.2019, n. 101, converted with modifications into l. 2.11

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 of 18.12.2019

with Article 58 of the General Data Protection Regulation by alerting the controller or processor. Article 58 (2) (b), (d), (i), (f) and (g) GDPR: In the

workers. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 9 GDPR. The duration of the illegal data dissemination

breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d), cf. Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For this, the DPA fined the Parliament about €196,400 (NOK 2 million).

(articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i and 83 of the Regulation; article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). The Guarantor, pursuant to articles 58, par. 2, lit.

access under Article 15 GDPR and for violating the principles of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), confidentiality (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR) and the controller’s

the treatment is based in accordance with article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another

within the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. 24. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.c GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° WOG, to

violating Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 17(1)(a), Article 17(1)(d) and Article 25(1), cf. Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(e) and Article 5(1)(f)

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,

SECOND: IMPOSE D.C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €2,000 (two a

circumstances of the specific case (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), Regulation). 5. Injunction order. Pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) of the Regulations

and any information necessary for the performance of its tasks (Article 58 (1) (e) GDPR). Violation of the provisions, consisting in failure to provide

elementi essenziali richiesti dal Regolamento (artt. 6, par. 2 e 9) e dal Codice (artt. 2-ter e 2-sexies); TENUTO CONTO in particolare che, come ribadito nel

that the controller breached Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b) and (d), and Article 32(2) GDPR due to a lack of a reliably

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

80) for the breach of Articles 5(1)(b)(c) GDPR, 6(1) GDPR, 12(1) GDPR, 7(2) GDPR, 9(1) GDPR, 13 GDPR and 14 GDPR. Independent of any instructions from the

165/1999 as amended: Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 51, Paragraph 1, Article 57, Paragraph 1, Letters a and h, Article 58, Paragraph 1, Letter

Lastly, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 24(2) GDPR and Article 25 GDPR for failing to take adequate measures

the GDPR. 14. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner'task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 15. By Article 58(2)(d)of the

Regulation, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i), and 83, par. 3, of the same Regulation. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation)

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

Litigation Chamber decides: – on the one hand, on the basis of Article 58.2.a) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 4° of the LCA, to issue a warning to the defendant

considered confirmed and it is necessary to enjoin Aesse, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lit. d) of the Regulation, if it intends in the future to direct the promotional

criteria established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 The

consideration Article 9 GDPR, which establishes that data revealing a person’s sex life are special categories of personal data, and Article 85 GDPR, which establishes

or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58 paragraph 2 points a) to h) and Article 58 paragraph 2 point j). When deciding on the imposition of

h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of the Regulation

were initiated, based on Article 63 and Article 64 LPACAP and an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR typified in Article 83(5) GDPR. After the proceedings

subject to exercise further rights under the GDPR. Therefore, the DPA used its power under Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and ordered ELGA to provide the requested

so that the violation is still continues. 2. Legal framework Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, of the GDPR, this Regulation applies to all or part of

announced in accordance with the data protection regulation, article 58, subsection 2, letter d. The Danish Data Protection Authority must request confirmation

in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 83(2)(i) of Regulation 2016/679) - in this case, the measures referred to in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation

personal data securely, in violation of Articles 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Two aspects of the decisions are interesting. First, the

criteria established in the section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 also

(EU) 2016/679. With reference to item 2. Paragraph 2 Article 42 Act no. 90/2018 and point b of paragraph 2. Article 58 regulation (EU) 2016/679 is BL ehf

to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) of the same Regulation. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter c), of the Regulations). Art. 58, par. 2, lett. c)

issuing the measures referred to in Article 58 of the Regulation. 2. The measures of the Garante referred to in Article 58 of the Regulation may also be adopted

controller under Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25 (1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR#2"Article 32(2) GDPR. Share blogs

pursuant to Article 9 GDPR, and violated the principle of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The DPA ordered, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d), to bring

approximately €2.000 because it ignored the DPA's request to provide information regarding its processing operations in violation of Article 58(1) GDPR. A data

carry out an interest test and therefore breached Article 6(1) GDPR. Article 13(1) GDPR and Article 13(2) GDPR set out the processing circumstances and information

sedeagpd.gob.es, 3/10 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each control authority, and according to the

powers to be granted under Article 58 (2) (a) to (j), including reprimand, injunction and penalty fees. It follows from Article 58 (2) of the Data Protection

it and the applicants, i.e. on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. However, pursuant to Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the right to request from the controller the

without a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and for not adhering to the accountability principle as per Article 5(2) GDPR, cf. Article 24. The DPA also requires

officer. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f), 32, and 37 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d), it ordered the controller to bring processing

based on Articles 6(c) and 9(2)(b). The school did not specify the source of the legal obligation under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, nor the source of the obligations

security and confidentiality for personal data, in breach of Article 32(1)(b) and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA further noted that the controller did not reply

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 a person (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number of identification, the line identifier) (article 83.2 g). C / Jorge

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’

the UK GDPR. 14. By Article 58(2)(d) of the UK GDPR the Commissioner has the power to notify controllers of alleged infringements of the UK GDPR. By Article

for violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 85.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD, in accordance with article 77. 2 of the LOPDGDD. Once

highest amount. " Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides: “Each control authority will have all of the following corrective powers listed below: d) order the person

to Article 58(5)(a) and (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation, the imposition of a penalty in accordance with Article 58(3)(a) of the GDPR. 2(i)

violated. When determining the type of corrective measure under Art. 58, § 2 of the GDPR, which should be imposed by the CPLD for the found violation, as mitigating

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,

alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned GDPR and considered for

ICB’s infringement of Article 25(1) of the GDPR warrants the imposition of an administrative fine pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR in addition to the reprimand

areas pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. The court held that the video surveillance was not lawful pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as the data subjects

with the data protection regulation, article 58, subsection 2, letter d. The deadline for compliance with the order is 2 September 2022. The Danish Data Protection

found the following infringements. Enel Energia violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR where it failed to carry out an adequate assessment of

the art. 58, par. 2 of the Regulation, believes that it is not necessary to order corrective measures pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, letter. d), and provides

failure to comply with an order issued by the DPA pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR. The following is a detailed description of the case and the

de-index an article about a criminal investigation on the data subject, as there was no public interest regarding the news, regardless of the article being accurate

Therefore, the controller was sanctioned with a €2,000 fine for violating Article 58(1) GDPR and Article 83(5) GDPR. The Romanian DPA rarely published full decisions

controller, Article 58(2)(b). Notably, the DPA's decision derives the right to a copy only from Article 15(1) GDPR, while other DPAs have held that Article 15(1)

violated Article 14 and Article 15 GDPR, since the controller did not give exact information where they had obtained the email-address from (Article 14(2)(f)

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

that art 58.2 of the RGPD and, as established in arts. 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the LOPDGDD Law. For its part, sections 1) and 2), of article 58 of the RGPD

accounts of three of its former employees in violation of Article 5(1) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. GEICO S.p.A., the controller, was the employer of the three

minor "; d) compliance with previously applied measures in the same case, referred to in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 83 (2) (i) of Regulation

supporting means of the compliance with what is required. In this sense, article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, states that each control authority may “order the person

violated Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR. Because it failed to provide clear and transparent information, the controller also violated Article 12(1) GDPR. The DPA

personal data from Article 9 GDPR. According to the AEPD, even if the controller may had relied on the exemption on Article 9 GDPR(2)(f), since the data

accesses) (Article 83(2)(a) GDPR and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). It also considered the cooperation of the controller to remedy the infringement (Article 83(2)(f)

interested party" (Article 6, paragraph 1, letters c) and e), 2 and 3, as well as articles 9, par. 2, lit. g) of the Regulation and 2-ter and 2-sexies of the

within the foreseen deadlines, under Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR. The DPA further stated that regarding

according to its faculties under Article 58(2)(a), Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d), as well as Article 83(5) GDPR, Share your comments here! Share

the planks). FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I In accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of (EU) 2016/679 (Regulation General Data Protection, hereinafter RGPD)

By Article 58(1)(d) of the GDPR, the Commissioner has the power to notify controllers of alleged infringements of the GDPR. By Article 58(2)(i), the Commissioner

right to object. 2.2.2. With reference to the dispute referred to in point 2), the violation of the provisions of Articles 5, para. 1 and 2, art. 6, par.

of 25,000 euros (Article 83, paragraph 2 GDPR; Article 100, §1, 13 ° WOG and Article 101 WOG). 18 55. Taking into account article 83 GDPR and the case law

32(2) GDPR. Finally, the Finnish DPA considered that the firm had failed to respect the principle of accountability enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR, as

art. 58, par. 2, lett. i), and 83, par. 3, of the same Regulation and art. 166, paragraph 2, of the Code. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter

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)

Article 9, Article 12 and Article 13 GDPR. The Italian DPA ordered the controller to bring processing operations into conformity with the provisions of

weeks pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR because the processing was unlawful under Article 6 GDPR and the exception of Article 17(3)(a) GDPR did not apply.

following Article 14 of Law No. 190/2018, the DPA fined the controller RON 10,000 (approximately €2,000) for violating Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. Share

processing according to Article 4(2) GDPR and thus requires a legal basis according to Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with Article 5 GDPR. The controller did

provided for in Article 2, h) of Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, under these new requirements, article 4, paragraph 11 of the GDPR requires that the

criteria established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 The

the meaning of Article 9 of the GDPR must indeed be based on Article 9.2 of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 6.1 of the GDPR. 24 This has been

covered by Article 58 of the GDPR (cf. BVwG of May 28, 2020, GZ W211 221 6385-1). Point 2 is based on Article 58, paragraph 2, letter c, GDPR. The restriction

out SARS-CoV-2 self-testing procedures is Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (the necessity to comply with a legal obligation) and Article 9(2)(h) GDPR, in conjunction

their tasks (Article 58 Paragraph 1 Letter a GDPR). (Article 58 Paragraph One Litera a, GDPR). From this provision, taken together with Article 31 of the

tölul. Articles 2.2.1. to record in the default register information that the debtor has been ordered to pay a debt by a court. In Article 2.1. The operating

accordance with the provisions of Article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD. SECOND:

absence of a valid legal basis, in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6 GDPR, as well as Articles 2-ter and 2-sexies of the Italian Data Protection Code

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, it is personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. Article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

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

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending

the controller was in breach of Article 33(1) GDPR, Article 33(3) GDPR, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) GDPR, and Article 5(2) GDPR, Firstly, the Polish DPA held

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/8 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each control authority

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the Article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

in the data controller" (Article 6, paragraph 1, letter e ), 2 and 3, and art. 9, par. 2, lett. g), of the Regulations; art. 2-ter of the Code, in the text

1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1, Article 57 Paragraph 1 Letter f, Article 58 Paragraph

in article 58.2 of the GDPR. Between They have the power to impose an administrative fine in accordance with the article 83 of the RGPD -article 58.2 i)-

in conditions of objective difficulty. Pursuant to its powers under Article 58 GDPR, the Italian DPA (Garante) issued a decision to fine the Mayor of Messina

(EU) No Article 5 (1) (a) and (b), Article 6 (1), Article 6 (4) Article 12 (1), Article 13, Article 21 (1) and (2), Article 24 (1), Article 25 Article 1 (1)

issued a reprimand (Article 58(2)(b) GDPR) to the controller for breach of those provisions and instructed (Article 58(2)(c) of the GDPR) it to satisfy the

the provisions of Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC in presence of cross-border processing of personal data’;2) Directive 2002/ 58/EC contain an implicit

subject was unlawful, violating Article 12 in connection with Article 17. The DPA held that, with reference to Recital 148 GDPR, the infringement cannot be

Agency. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I.- Competition: By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of the Parliament- European Act and of the

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. This was

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

of a person (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number identification, the line identifier) (article 83.2 g). - Section

company (D), noting in particular that: “(…) We therefore understand that Article 3(2) of the GDPR applies to processing activities performed by (D). Considering

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)

established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)”. VII Second unfulfilled obligation: violation of article 9.1 of the GDPR Article 9 of the GDPR states:

legitimate interest. Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data management in this case. GDPR Article 4, point 1: "personal data":

online store had violated Article 6(1) GDPR. The AEPD also held that the online store had violated its obligation under Article 13 GDPR to provide data subjects

circumstances in relation to Article 5 and Articles 32 and 33 GDPR. First, there was the duration of the infringement under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR; second, there was

Section 2 (2) in accordance with Article 58 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation may apply legal consequences. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b), (c)

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

Articles 5(1)(a) and (e), 6(1), 12, 13, 15 and 17 GDPR. 2. Datatilsynet’s Decision Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, Datatilsynet issues an administrative fine

reprimanded Nottinghamshire County Council under Article 58(2)(b) (UK) GDPR, for infringing Article 32(1) (UK) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or

controller violated Article 5(2) GDPR by not being able to demonstrate its compliance with the principles under Article 5(1) GDPR. For these violations

ISWEB violated Article 28(2) GDPR and Article 28(4) GDPR as a processor on behalf of the hospitals and Article 28(1) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR as controller

provision of article 58 par. 2 sec. i of the GDPR, effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative money fine according to article 83 of the GDPR, both

supervisory authorities (Article 58(2) DSGVO), in particular the fines to be imposed (Article 58(2)(i) DSGVO), for which Article 83 DSGVO contains a detailed

negligence of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) the impact on basic personal identifiers (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR) Share your comments here! Share

accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD: "2. Each supervisory authority shall have all the following corrective powers indicated below: d) order the person

60 of the GDPR does not apply the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR and 13 para

" Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

measures pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, of the Regulation. 4. Order of injunction. The Guarantor, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) of the Regulations

for by the GDPR (called grounds for justification by the complainant) and explains why it considers that neither Article 6.1.d) nor Article 6.1.e) is applicable

these investigative actions. In light of provisions (Article 4 (15) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR) the vaccination of a person against Covid-19 implies

selection process, taking the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1)(e) GDPR into consideration. A data subject had entered a public competition

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 58, par. 2, lit. i), and 83, par. 3, of the same Regulation and of the art. 166, paragraph 2, of the Code. 5. Corrective measures (Article 58, paragraph

constitute a severe and negligent violation (Article 83(2)(a) and (b) GDPR) of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR, as the complainant's data was neither processed

to the GDPR in execution of article 2.1. of the GDPR. II.2. Regarding compliance with Article 6 of the GDPR (lawfulness) 24. Pursuant to Article 6 of the

controller according to the accountability principle laid down in Article 5(2) GDPR. For this reason, the DPA concluded that the call centre first contacted

such as an insurance company, should have an adequate legal basis under Article 6 GDPR to lawfully do so. An individual notified the IP about a car accident

finding likely violations of Article 5(1)(c), 8, 9, 13 and 35 GDPR. The AEPD found a likely violation of Article 35 GDPR. Article 35 GPDR requires that a data

that the controller did not violate Article 16 GDPR. Third, the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 15 GDPR because it only provided a reply

2) of the LSSI, without detriment of what results from the instruction. WHAT: in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD, the corrective measure that

operations into compliance, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) within 3 months. An administrative fine, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83, addressed to WhatsApp

By Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR the Commissioner has the power to notify controllers of alleged infringements of GDPR. By Article 58(2)(i) he has the power

unlawful. The 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

Failure to ensure data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR) The DPA also found a violation of Article 25(2) GDPR regarding the controllers “X” icon at the

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

cookies. The Spanish DPA held the controller to have infringed Article 13 GDPR and Article 22.2 of the Law of Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce

DIGITAL, S.L.U., with NIF B11514445, is ordered that by virtue of article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, within a period of 1 month, accredit having proceeded to comply

criteria established in the section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, also

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

to withdraw consent at any time; (c) breach of Article 17(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 58(2)(g), of the DPA, by failing to apply them and omitting

criteria established in the section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, also

submissions made for an injunction and under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice. D E C I D E D: Article 1: The request of the associations "La

by the art. 58, par. 2 of the Regulation, believes it is not necessary to order corrective measures pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, letter. d), and provides

attacking. D E C I D E : -------------- Article 1: The request of the companies Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited is rejected. Article 2: This decision

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and in

Protection Regulation paragraph and paragraph 2 of Article 7. II. The Authority based on Article 58 (2) point d) of the General Data Protection Regulation

the provision of information can be absolute by Section 2(2)(a) FOIA or qualified by section 2(2)(b) FOIA.  Where an exemption is qualified it is subject

Violation of article 35 of the GDPR................................................ ...................36 8.2. Violation of article 9 of the GDPR.........