Search results

that Article 36(1) GDPR provides for a duty to consult if two conditions are met. First, a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 GDPR must

principle to which Article 6(1) GDPR is linked, and imposed a fine of €2000 relying on Article 58(2) GDPR. The defendant ultimately paid €1200 for the breach

DE SA’s objection on Article 33(3) GDPR fails to meet the requirements set out in Article 4(24) GDPR Infringement of Article 34 GDPR on the communication

is necessary in accordance with Article 6 (2) of the GDPRthe legal basis within the meaning of Article 6 (1) point e) GDPR. 2056. The question is also whether

AEPD fined telecoms company Telefonica EUR 55,000 for a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR. Personal data of the claimant were processed without her consent due

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

not have a legitimate interest to store credit card data under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. On 6 September 2018, the CNIL issued a Recommendation on the processing

as required by article 6 of the RGPD. The data processing carried out violates article 6 of the RGPD conduct that is subsumed in article 83.5 of the RGPD

take place within the framework of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 6 (1) (a) and (c) and Article 6 (1) 1, letter e, and the Data Protection

protocols. This therefore breached Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. The initial sanction for infringing Article 5(1)(f) was a fine of €5000 and the

conditions laid down in Article 6(1), - processing as described above, and in particular one of the conditions laid down in Article 6(1). 1 AVG. It should

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

personal data pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right

incorrect as until 9/3/2019 the Pec of the company was tbsrls@pec.it, therefore he [has] never heard of this request. I also specify that from 9/3/2019 to today

Law. […] " III Article 6.1 of the RGPD establishes the cases in which the processing of personal data, providing within them - article 6.1.e) - the that

(hereinafter, LPACAP).C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/8In accordance with the provisions of article 85 of the LPACAP, in the event

established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. "IIIThe documentation in the file accredits that the claimed,violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

applicable (cf. Article 99(1) and (3) AVG). As of that date, the AVG is binding and directly applicable in every Member State (Article 99(3) AVG), i.e.: irrespective

[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

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

cf. GDPR Art. 34, 3 (b), it is our opinion that Namely and Intervare are not required to notify the data subjects pursuant to the GDPR art. 34, 1. 3. Justification

processing laid down in Article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” III The documentation in the file provides evidence that Article 6.1 of the RGPD was

resume. 3 The Marktenhof states in 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)

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. 6, co. 3, 2nd para. of the GDPR, the law or regulation that constitutes the legal basis referred to in letters c) and e) of co. 1 of art. 6 of the

information or to preserve authority (Article 3, paragraph 3 of the Media Act). Also, the Law on Media in Article 7 paragraph 3 stipulates that a person who statements

(2016/679) Article 5 (1) (a), Article 12 (1), (2) and (6) , Article 13, Article 15 (1) (h), (3) and (4), Article 58 (2) (c) and (d) subparagraphs Article 34 (1)

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

assistance under Article 2.3 of the Youth Act and that deletion would violate the Archives Act (Archiefwet) and Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The mother objected

law of 6 January 1978, it is the responsibility of the data controller to ensure the security of personal data. Thus, article 4-6° of the law of 6 January

employer we must look for it in article 9 and 6 of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/13 Article 9 of the RGPD establishes

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

authorization provisions of Article 9. Act no. 90/2018. These include point 6. Article 9 of the Act, cf. point e of the first paragraph. Article 6 of the Regulation

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

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

processing is in the public interest arising from article 6.1.e) of the GDPR, authorized by article 46.3 of the LOU. v. The corresponding weighting judgment

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

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

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

accordance with the provisions of article 17 of the RGPD, paragraph 3: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/6 “Sections 1 and 2 will not

over employees in the workplace. This right is within Article 89 LOPDGDD. Similarly, Article 20(3) LOPDGDD enables the employer to adopt any measures it

The issuer is identified as YOIGO. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

processing might be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) and - regarding health data - on Article 9(2)b) GDPR (fulfilling obligations under

and takes all the necessary measures pursuant to article 32 of the GDPR. 6. In article 29 of the GDPR it is defined that "The processor and any person

rectification.(article 16 of the GDPR), the right to be forgotten (article 17 of the GDPR), and the right to limit the use ofdata processed unlawfully (article 18

from Article 6(1)(b) of the The GDPR - but from the consent given for that specific purpose (Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR) of the GDPR). The GDPR (Article

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

sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the DPIA, for clarity, the Commissioner also recommends that the Home Office links its purposes to both its Article 6(1)(e) public

possible. 1 Article 6:2, preamble and under b, in conjunction with Article 7:1, first paragraph, preamble and under f, of the Awb 2 Article 6:12, second

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

required by Article 35(3)(b). The AEPD also held that there had a been a violation of Article 32 because of a failure to comply with GDPR security measure

estimated your claim. " C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/7 THIRD: Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of April

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

legitimate basis a violation of GDPR? The Spanish DPA considered that the processing of personal data was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR, as the worker had processed

2021, for the purposes C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 provided for in article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the

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

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

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

in violation of Article 13 GDPR. The questionnaire to subscribe to Nestor did not include all the information required by Article 13 GDPR: there was no information

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

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

right of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

legal bases of contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) and determined that

processing (Article 6.1.a. AVG), nor that there would be an agreement between the parties on which the personal data processing would be based (Article 6.1.b.

also met. 3.3. In the matter 3.3.1. Legal situation: Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the CouncilArticle 12, of Regulation

AEPD imposed a fine of € 6.000 for unlawful processing data from a public registry without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A citizen filled a complaint

under Article 36 GDPR) regarding the compliance of the envisaged processing with the GDPR. According to the Commission, the legal basis was Article 6(1)(e)

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

the social and health authority of a city to have breached Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

defendant is accused of committing an offense for violation of the Article 6.1 of the RGPD. Article 6, Legality of treatment, of the RGPD establishes that: "1.

and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 28(1) GDPR. Second, the DPA found that, since the data processing

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

even though Article 32 GDPR stipulates such a technical measure for certain emails. It is important to note that only Article 6(1)(a) GDPR allows for such

GDPRhub is a wiki with GDPR-related decisions and knowledge, enabling anyone to find and share GDPR insights across Europe! GDPRhub collects and summarises

accordance with article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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

of Articles 6, 7 and 12 of the GDPR. In the contested decision, the Belgian DPA found the infringement of Article 6, 7, 12, 13 and 24 GDPR sufficiently

about it. In my personal view, this would be a violation of Article 13(1)(c) and (e) GDPR. Furthermore, it is unclear from the decision of the Spanish

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

contract Article 6.1.c: Legal basis for compliance with a legal obligation Article 6.1.d: Legal basis for safeguarding a vital interest Article 6.1.e: Legal

The Swedish DPA held that a controller has violated article 12(3) GDPR, because, although they complied with an erasure request, they did not subsequently

there is legitimacy for it derived from the article 6.1. c) and 6.1.e) and at individual level 6.1.f) of the GDPR for the serious accusations that poured into

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

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " III The documentation in the file provides evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the

under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is not a valid legal basis for the processing of cookies. The Italian DPA also held that the controller violated Article 122 of

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)

under Article 15 GDPR." The DPA rejected the request for review. Genealogical research on a family surname did not fall within the scope of Article 15 GDPR

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

purposes, in accordance with Article 89(1), to the extent that C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/6 the right indicated in paragraph

offence of Article 37.1.f of the LOPD, classified as serious in Article 44.3.i of the LOPD C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/11 The

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 33 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD

basis in line with Article 13(1)(d) GDPR. The DPA stated that it would impose a fine on the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, if latter does

information correctly published at the time. The DPA noted that under Article 17(3)(b) GDPR, personal data shall not be erased if their processing is necessary

portability; (d) where processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any

infringements of article 6.1 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Regulation General Data Protection, hereinafter RGPD) typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned

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

the processing as per Article 6. The DPA therefore assumed that the legal basis would have been legitimate interest as per Article 6(1)(f). The DPA identified

regulated in article 6 of the GDPR. The assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful listed in article 6.1 of the GDPR: 1. Treatment

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR and b) directs a reprimand, according to article 58 par. 2 b) GDPR, to the complained

constitute a violation of the GDPR? The AEPD held that the email constituted a confidentiality breach and violated Article 32 GDPR, as the law firm had failed

and the 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

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) (a)

wrongly not happened. 6. Plaintiff cannot be proved right. Article 78 of the GDPR does contain a decision period as referred to in Article 4:13 of the Awb.

concerned is not in default of payment of court fee, as referred to in Article 8:41(6) of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht,

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

Data Authority2019 53 3.3Penaltyforviolatingthesecurityofprocessing 53 3.3.1 Nature, seriousness and duration of the infringement 54 3.3.2 Negligent nature

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

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), nor could be based on legitimate interest of the controller (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) could

All this is in violation of Article 22 GDPR. The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity have also not been met. 3.3. Furthermore, prior to the

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

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

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

based on Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, but not for all processing based on this article. […] 73 74Investigation report, page 22, point 4.4.2.3.3. WP 260 rev

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

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

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

controller had violated Article 6(1) GDPR since the legitimate interest assessment on which the processing was based (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) was understood as

sanction is imposed for violation of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR of 3,000 euros. VIII Infringement of Article 13 of the GDPR The facts claimed also provide evidence

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

set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” In accordance with the facts considered to be proven, the respondent violated Article 6.1.a) of the

by law to retain the data. The municipality relied on Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 7.3.8(3) of the Youth Act to argue that it was obliged to retain

determined in Article 6.1. GDPR. 36. To this end, the Disputes Chamber examines the extent to which the legal grounds as provided in Article 6.1. GDPR can be

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

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

of the respondent a violation of the GDPR? The AEPD held that the actions of the company violated Article 6 GDPR. According to the decision, acting as

(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

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law (LOPDGDD)

Decision understands that Article 45.6 of the LOPD confers on the AEPD C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/7 a "power" different

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

for the alleged violation of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR and article 13 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned

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

data concerning him / her on the basis of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR . Should Article 21 (1) of the GDPR - and in particular the addition `` at any

finepublic, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “ 1. Theregime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this is not based on another legal basis; C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/8 c)

relation to the provisions of article 48 of Law 9/2014, of 9 of C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/97 May, General Telecommunications

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

portability of the data; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) the existence of the right to withdraw consent in at any

Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/8 Consequently, my client considers that there has been no violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD

which article of the GDPR was violated. However, considering the plaintiff made a request for the removal of her data, it is likely that Article 17 GDPR

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

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.

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

valid consent under Article 4(11) GDPR and Article 6(1) LOPDGDD (National data protection law aimed at the implementation of the GDPR). In both articles

The Spanish DPA fined an insurance company €24,000 for violating Article 6(1) GDPR due to the processing of personal data without a legal basis. The company

a violation of Article 13 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 2000 euros (TWO THOUSAND euro). C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

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

of Article 13 of the GDPR? Is the publication of a photograph and personal data without the data subject's express consent a violation of Article 6 (1)

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

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 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

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

interference that was unforeseeable for the defendant. As a result, under Article 82(3) the defendant cannot be held responsible for the processing of the claimant's

provided for in Article 9 of the GDPR or Article 51 of the ZZLD. 30 Under Article 27 of the ZMVR, data recorded by the police pursuant to Article 68 of that

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

proportionate and complies with the article 83 of the GDPR. The Litigation Chamber fully complied with article 83.1 of the GDPR and principle of proportionality

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

established in Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR. Therefore, the Belgian DPA found the controller to have breached Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with Article 12(3) and

costs at law. 3.3. In the first instance, [the employee] put forward a substantiated defense seeking the rejection of Trigion's requests. 3.3.1. In the event

intention to infringe either article 5(1)( c) or article 34(1) of the GDPR. Legal framework 8.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR “Personal Data shall be:

the treatment; C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/9 d) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter f), the

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

specified in article 32 GDPR (security of processing). In determining the amount of the fine, certain aggravating factors of article 83 GDPR were considered

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

DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting, CR 2019, 219). 136 (3) In

right of access under Article 15 GDPR? By denying the complainant access, did the respondent infringe Articles 12(1) or 12(2) GDPR? The NAIH that the complainant's

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

pursuant to Article 47(1) and 48.1 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October, on the limitation of the infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5 a)

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

their (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 6(1)(b) or Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the right to

authentication via a third service provider cannot constitute a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR when it implies that the personal data of the data subjects are not

records. Article 5 paragraph 3 of the cited Ordinance stipulates 4 is how records of workers can be kept in written or electronic form, while in Article 8 of

concerned, that they 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

sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -, the power to impose an administrative fine pursuant to article 83 of the GDPR -article 58.2 i) -, or the power

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

laid down in Article 6 of Regulation (EU)2016/679. III The documentation in the file provides evidence that the party claimed violated Article 6.1 of the RGPD

publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that the DPA was

laid down in Article 6 of Regulation (EU)2016/679. III The documentation in the file offers evidence that the respondent violated Article 6.1 of the RGPD

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/3 In consideration of the nature of the Public Authority of Notaries and based on article 37.1 a)

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

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

telephone number of the complainant C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 THIRD: On August 7, 2019, the claimant is notified

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

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

violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/9 The proposed

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

referred to in subsection 1 (6) has arisen, the information shall be deleted within two years of the entry. Pursuant to section 18 (3) of the Credit Information

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

the provisions of Article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

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

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

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 protects that

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

pictures of the individuals without their consent was a violation of Article 6 GDPR. Because of that, they fined Hazte Oir €5000, with a possibility of

Privacy Ordinance article 58 no. 2. 4.2 Requirements for treatment protocol Pursuant to Article 30 of the Privacy Regulation (and Article 24 of Directive

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

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

and Article 85 GDPR. In June 2019, the complainant requested erasure of her personal data from the respondent's website, claiming that an article on that

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

pursuant to Article 55 In section 3.3 it was established that Booking is the data controller. In section 3.1, the AP established that, pursuant to Article 56 of

accordance with Article 3 and 5 of the Finnish Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life and Article 5(1)(a) and (c), 6(1) and 9(1) GDPR? The Finnish

having appointed a data protection officer, thus breaching Article 37 GDPR. After the GDPR came into force, the Burgos city Council did not appoint a DPO

violated Articles 12(3), (4), 13(2)(b), 30(1)(d) and (g) of the GDPR and issued a warning by virtue of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. Due to the anonimisation

basis under Article 6 GDPR to collect and process vehicle registration numbers. The legal basis is a statutory obligation prescribed by Article 229 of the

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

Madrid 6 sedeagpd.gob.es 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

(Ref. 2). As the legal basis for the commercial register derives from Article 6 (1) of the CCIP even in this case, your consent to the processing of personal

Member State (Article 99(3) of the AVG). Claims for compensation in the event of acts contrary to the AVG arise directly from the AVG. Article 82(6) of the AVG

referred to in Article 10, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 150 of 1/9/2011 provided for the lodging of the appeal as indicated below (Article 166, paragraph

violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 28001 - Madrid www.aepd.es sedeagpd.gob.es 3/8 FOURTH: Once

of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, and to bring its processing into compliance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, and

according to Article 6 (1) point f) of the GDPR. (99) In the case of data management based on point f) of Article 6, paragraph (1) of the GDPR, the data controller

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

right to refer to both laws in this matter. 3) Even if, as the plaintiff argued, a recourse to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR were to be considered as an alternative

and the 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

payment to be appropriate. 3. Findings 3.1 Findings prior to the on-site visit of 18 June 2018 Menzis sent documents to the AP on 3 and 29 May 2018 to demonstrate

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

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

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

for infringing the following provisions: -Article 17 GDPR – Right to Erasure - €50000 fine -Article 32 GDPR – Failure to implement appropriate technical

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

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

security at all times”. 3.3.2Assessment From both article 13 of the Wb and article 32, first and second paragraph, of the GDPR it follows that the controller

Thus, the AEPD understood that the defendant has infringed Article 7 of the GDPR and Article 6(3) of the Spanish Law on Data Protection and Digital Rights

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

P3120800B, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.b) in relation to article 6.4 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the RGPD. SECOND: INITIATE

controller with €10,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €25,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. There is a pattern in the Spanish DPA resolutions

violation of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. No fines can be imposed against the controller and Article 83(5) GDPR can therefore not be imposed.

electronic communications for marketing purposes, connected to Article 6, 7 and 17 of the GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by

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

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

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

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 AEPD fined VODAFONE €50,000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €20,000 for violating Article 32 GDPR. However, in this case, the AEPD gave two possibilities

the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. According to the national legislation (Article 76(2)(b) LOPDGDDon

series of measures pre-contractual, in accordance with article 6.1b) RGPD or pursuant to article 6.1 a) RGPD. It also states that the breach would be attributable

for processing personal data without a legal ground as required by Article 6(1) GDPR, after hiring a handwriting expert to determine that an alleged signature

space. The DPA found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR and ordered the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, to adjust the location of the cameras

that: 1) The telephone number constitutes personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR as the owner can be indirectly identified. 2) In both cases above,

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

data in the deeds, based on Article 40(2)(c) of the Dutch Civil-law notaries act (Wet op het notarisambt) and Article 18(1)(3) of the Land registry act (Kadasterwet);

and the 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

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

to in par. 3 and the IP address referred to in par. 7 to whose content please refer in full. 6. Subjects involved in the treatment Article. 6, paragraphs

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: €

data, recorded in copies Article 6 (1) of the GDPR and, in the case of health data, Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 1 (1); (3) did not provide clear and

claimed, by the alleged 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

confidentiality established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there

Data Protection Regulation5. Article 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2) and Article 13 Article 1 (1) to (2). III.3. JogkövetkezményekIII.3.1. The Authority is responsible

48.6 of the LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of theC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/6LPACAP

council for an infringement of Article 32 GDPR. The AEPD dropped the case due to the time limitations outlined in Article 72 and 73 LOGPD. The access to

addresses from which the access took place. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/7 Regarding the causes that made the breach possible

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)

violation of Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR, and a fine of €4 million for a violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, and ordered CaixaBank, to conduct a review

with NIF A85850394, for the presumed infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5 a) of the aforementioned RGPD". opting for a penalty

violated the principle of data minimisation as prescribed my Article 5, para. 1, b. 'c' of the GDPR, with regards to document content. Regarding administrative

abusive multiple evaluations. 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

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 assess

personal data by a law firm contrary to data protection regulations (Article 6 GDPR). A lawyer from the Cabrera y Gil law firm, sent a letter to a third

Under the conditions set out in Article 15 (1) and (3) of the GDPR, thereby infringing the GDPR Article 25 (1). III.3.2. Designed to handle requests to

infractions of article 48 of Law 9/2014, of May 9, General of Telecommunications (hereinafter LGT), in accordance with the provisions of the article 84.3 of the

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, infringement typified in its article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned regulation. IV. Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers

installing surveillance cameras in public spaces without a lawful basis under Article 6 GDPR. An individual lodged a complaint with the Spanish DPA (AEPD) arguing

the DPA held that it had violated Article 12(3) GDPR (the controller failed to answer within a month), Article 12(4) GDPR (The controller failed to provide

personal data was based on an agreement under Article 6 (b) and a legitimate interest of the controller under Article 6 (f) to continue processing the data in

VII The violation of article 32 of the RGPD is typified in article C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/11 83.4.a) of the aforementioned

of a Commission decision on adequacy , or in Article 46, Article 47 or the second subparagraph of Article 49 (1) (a) the period for which the personal

subject's data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. Thus, the data subject was entitled to have the controller delete his personal data per Article 17(1)(d), which allows

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

Fundamental Rights (Article 8 (1) in conjunction with Article 8 (3) CFR) is protected by Article 77 (1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 77 (1) CFR. Art.

loss of control of personal data and a breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The first complainant is a company that is engaged

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

section 3.3 >>.<< 3.3. Informed manifestation of willThe GDPR reinforces the requirement that consent must be informed. In accordance with theArticle 5 of

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

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

unsubscribed from the organization. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 12/3 c) .- The staff will only access those data and

the existence or absence of a decision in accordance with Article 46, Article 47 or Article 49 (1). in the case of the transmission referred to in the

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

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

lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the

protection regulation article 6 no. 1 letter f, for failure to assess protests, cf. article 21 and for missing information, cf. Article 13. X AS has also complained

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

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

alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

the first question is answered in the affirmative: 3. Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) GDPR based on a sufficient enabling clause, in particular

staff. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/11 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection

the 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

concerning him based on Article 6 (1) (e) and (f) GDPR at any time for reasons related to his specific situation . Pursuant to Article 17, paragraph 1, preamble

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

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

minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and €500 for a violation of the information requirements under Article 13 GDPR). Additionally, the AEPD

comes regulated in article 32 of the GDPR. II Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes the following: "Article 5 Principles relating

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

2020 [CONFIDENTIAL] 3.3 Report obligation in connection with personal data on AP 3.3.1 Breach of Personal Data On the basis of Article 33, first paragraph

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

6(1)(e) GDPR (public interest) or Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest). Moreover, Article 21(2) GDPR specifically grants data subjects the right to

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

juncto 7.3 of the RGPD; - that it is not necessary to pronounce one of the measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of the ACL. Pursuant to Article 108, §

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

accordance is basedC / Jorge Juan 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a)

company for faulty website security (article 32 GDPR) and violation of the storage limitation principle (article 5(1)(e) GDPR). After a complaint in 2018, the

three years, which was in violation of Article 12(3) GDPR. The DPA also determined a violation of Article 17(1)(a) GDPR, because data subject's e-mail accounts

Member State (Article 99(3) of the AVG). Claims for compensation in the event of acts contrary to the AVG derive directly from the AVG. Article 82(6) of the

with the 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

significant negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic personal identifiers were affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The economic volume of the

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

communicated via e-mail. 3 4See recitals 75 and 76 of the Data Protection Regulation. See Article 87 of the Data Protection Ordinance and Chapter 3. Section 10 of

infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR, as explained above, under the provisions of Article 83 of the GDPR, I take into account the following mitigating (1-3) and aggravating

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

taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1, letter e, and Article 6, para. 1, cf. Article 4, point 11. The Danish Data

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

entities, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “1. The regime established in this article will apply to the treatments

253 of the Article - 29 - Working Party of 3 October 2017, page 6). e) The latter view is correct. aa) When creating Article 83 (4) to (6) GDPR, the European

prove the lawfulness of processing according to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and for violating Article 12(2) GDPR by creating undue barriers to the exercise of the

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

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

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

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

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

search the following urls: 1. *** URL.1 2. *** URL.2 3. *** URL.3 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, which has provided for a mechanism

authority with pursuant to article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breach of article 58, Paragraph 1." Organic Law 3/2018, on Protection of Personal

Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/6 Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative procedure in accordance with article 48.6 of the LOPDGDD, and

- Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/8the power to impose an administrative fine pursuant to article 83 of the GDPR-article 58.2 i) -, or the power to order

aggravating circumstance according to Article 83(2)(i) or as a separate violation according to Article 83(5)(e) or Article 83(6). Since the situation at hand now

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

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

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 that

of the legitimate interest of the Respondent (Article 6.1(f) of the AVG). 44. In accordance with Article 6.1(f) AVG and the case-law of the Court of Justice

the public interest, per Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and was also necessary for scientific research purposes under Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Thirdly, that the data

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

lead to a security incident, in breach of Article 28(1) and 32 GDPR, for which the controller was fined RON 9,836.6 (approximately €2,000). Additionally, the

installing a video surveillance camera system violating Article 22 LOPDGDD and Article 12 GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the defendant could install

violation of article 5.1f) of the RGPD in relation to the Article 5 of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

obligations established in article 22.2 of the LSSI those necessary cookies C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/10 for the intercommunication

2016/679, of April 27 (GDPR), and Organic Law 3/2018, of April 5 C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 December (LOPDGDD), in

cf. 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

Personal Data Act 2018 § 3, but also a number of other places in the GDPR. Of particular importance in this case is Article 6 of the GDPR, which in paragraph

C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.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

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 LOPDGDD

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 states

there was no justification for this, which constitutes a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Furthermore, the nature of the breach is not deemed as grave. However

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.

out by the school). Article 9 GDPR, for having processed biometric data without any valid ground from Article 9(2). Article 13 GDPR, for not having informed

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

claim asserted here and based on Article 82 of the GDPR, appears questionable in view of sentence 3 of recital 146 of the GDPR. In the case in dispute, however

(hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32, paragraph 1, as it applied under Article 13 6. The UWV

over the right to access Article 15 GDPR. A citizen requested a copy of his personal data from a controller under Article 15 GDPR. The controller requested

(‘seeding’) be regarded as a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, even if the individual pieces as such are unusable

arising from Article 15 of the GDPR. 3. On the breach relating to the obligation to respect the right of opposition (article 21 of the GDPR) 45. The rapporteur

_______ Page 3 3 (7) 2.5. In our opinion, the PBGB has no legal basis for partially non-compliance with the request for information. 2.6. The PBGB cites

right to the storage of data; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any

established legal basis from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the GDPR, and in this connection there was also a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2; 6. The controller did

such data. 3. Adherence to a code of conduct approved in accordance with article 40 or to a certification mechanism approved under article 42 may serve

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

same way as Article 12 (2) of the Directive. 4th 3.3.3. The Data Protection Authority's guidance on data protection in employment (2018) [3] shows the following

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

Administration Act. As such, the municipality did not have a legal basis cf. Article 6 GDPR. In addition, Datatilsynet found that the municipality lacked routines

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

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/20 cookies Domain Description cookie to maintain the status of the session. _ga_G4RJW5CDC3 ***DOMAIN

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

breach of Article 38(2) GDPR; (6) the controller was not responsible for (potential) conflict of interest of the external DPO under Article 38(6) GDPR, the

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 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

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

complainant, prima facie cannot be placed in one of the cases listed in Article 35.3 GDPR. This brief explanation will suffice: the Litigation Chamber may conduct

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

{kenk DOS 2019-06201) dismissing her complaint on the basis of Article 95 § 1, 3 of the Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority {hereinafter

violation of art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code and art. 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b) of the Regulations; c) in violation

15(1)(a)-(h) GDPR. For these reasons, under Article 58 GDPR, the HDPA reprimanded the controller for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. In addition

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

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

follows The appeal is dismissed as unfounded. Legal basis: Article 51(1), Article 57(1)(f) and Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the basic data protection

Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? The AEPD held that publishing personal data on Twitter without the consent of the claimant is a violation of Article 6 GDPR, due to the

other GDPR provisions, such as those related to the transfer of personal data to third countries. The IMY took into account Recital 75 and 76 GDPR in order

application form can be found in Article 6, first paragraph, preamble and under e, of the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ): the processing is necessary

Vodafone on December 3 of the same year, for alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, proposing a fine of

out in Article 12 (3) of the General Data Protection Regulation, the Debtor informed by electronic means on 7 March 2019, in accordance with Article 15 (1)

documents or to ask to be heard by the Authority (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code; as well as Article 18, paragraph 1, of Law no. 689 of 24/11/1981)

rejected. 3. Secondly, under Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this article for violations

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

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

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

AEPD pursuant to Article 72(1)(m). The AEPD does not specify the provision of Article 21 on which it bases its decision. Article 21 GDPR states that the

areayou work with heavy machinery.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/7For all the above, I request the AEPD to have this

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

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

ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the requirements of awarding damages for GDPR violations and the assessment of such damage under Article 82 GDPR. For the

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

identity, additional information may be requested, as follows from Article 12(6) of the GDPR. In this case, the Council of State as of the opinion that there

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

established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 "IIIThe defendant in the present sanctioning procedure is attributed ainfringement of article 6.1 RGPD. The

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/7 will be made of your personal data, in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the GDPR. THIRD:

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

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

are subject to the GDPR pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of this Regulation. B. On the competence of the CNIL 22. Article 55(1) of the GDPR provides that "each

violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the DPA fined the controller €50,000. In its assessment of the fine, the DPA noted three aggravating factors per Article 83(2)

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

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

violated the GDPR and the consent given through such a banner cannot be considered a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 4(11) GDPR. Further

objection for data processing under Article 21 GDPR and the principle of liability under Article 2(4) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The complainant, the data subject

infringement of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, a fine of € 3,000 (three thousand euros), in accordance with article 73.g) of

to have been adopted in this regard.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/11In view of all the actions, by the Spanish Agency

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

Constitution, Article 19 TFEU and Article 47 CFR. As Mr A's mandate and termination had not been assessed in the light of the provisions of the GDPR, the Supreme

in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/11 Therefore, when the use of a cookie involves

art. 139 of the same Code; CONSIDERING that art. 137, paragraph 3 of the Code and art. 6 of the Deontological Rules identify as a limit to the dissemination

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

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

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 establishes

(algemene verordening gegevensbescherming), hierna AVG; Gelet op de wet van 3 december 2017 tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit, hierna

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

Acts, only in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation 2016/679. In turn, in accordance with Article 30a of the Act of 14 December

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

processed in accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Regulation. 2nd 3.3. Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1 and Article 34 (1). 1 The Data Inspectorate

supervisory authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and the

the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter LOPDGDD). On August 6, 2020, the respondent

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

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

12(1), 14(1)(c), 14(2) and 14(3) GDPR. In addition, Datatilsynet also issued criticism in relation to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR for the controller’s attempt

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

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

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

that a valid legal basis would be either Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, or Article 6(1)(d) GDPR or Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The Data protection authority (the UOOU)

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

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR was lodged. A company providing utility services took enforcement actions for recovery of amounts receivable against 3 debtors

communications, as per Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI), as well as for the infringement of Article 13 of the GDPR. The decision

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

provided for in Article 6(1) of the GDPR should exist in order for the processing to be lawful. According to Article 6(1) of the GDPR, the consent of the

request for information in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR and that the deadline of Art. 12 Para. 3 GDPR did not end until November 23, 2018 . In addition

controlled (article 13.1.b) of the GDPR), information relating to the relevant legal basis under Article 6 of the GDPR (article 13.1.c) of the GDPR), the legitimate

of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

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

instance, the controller sought to rely upon Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR establishes a lawful basis for the processing

Guarantor or to ask to be heard by the Authority (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code; as well as Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Law No. 689 of November

French act n° 78-17 of 6 January 1978, modified, on information technology, data files and civil liberties, in particular its article 6-III; Having regard

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

on Protection of Personal Data. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/6 Article 2 of the same law establishes: 1. This Law shall

Chief Constable West Midlands Police (WMP), for violating Articles 34(3), 38(1)(3), 40 and 57(1)(2) of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). ICO also recommended

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

Regarding this, article 6.1 of the RGPD, establishes, on the legality of the treatment of personal data, the following: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

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

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

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

indicated in point 3.3 of this decision. 4.3. Safety measures applied to the storage of traffic data. The conduct ascertained in point 3.4 of this decision

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.

as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA further held that the company failed to: provide the data subjects with required information, as per Article 13 terminate

company "bieNNova" infringed Article 21 LSSI (Ley de Servicios de Sociedad de la Información y de Comercio Electronico). Article 21 establishes that it is

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

had no legal basis as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that they had failed to inform the employee sufficiently as per Article 13 GDPR. Consequently, they were

volition investigation into CP&A's compliance with Article 9, as well as Article 32 GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories

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) with

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

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

initiate andto solve this procedure.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/9IIIn the present case, the complaint dated 10/21/19

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

data laid down by Article 4(1) and (2) GDPR. The DPA then quotes ECJ, 11 December 2014, Ryneš, case C-212/13 (point 22), EDPB Guidelines 3/2019 on processing

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

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

obtain such recordings through the camera, with grounds on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 22 of the Spanish Data Protection Act (LOPDGDD), that allows

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

Authority Our ref: DI-2021-4355 5(6) Date:2023-01-19 Choice of intervention Article 58(2) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR give IMY the authority to impose

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

FOUNDATIONS OF LAWC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/8IBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to

street a violation of Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA has found that the facts of the present proceedings show that 2 of the 3 cameras installed by

rowspan="2" width="3"><img src="http://www.dpa.gr:80/APDPXPortlets/images/menutop_space.jpg" width="3" height="104"></td><!--/*++++++++++++++++++++++++3 Υπομενού

companies in both Belgium and the UK, violated Article 15(1) GDPR, Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR GDPR for deleting data instead of providing access

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

reactivated according to plan. It follows from Article 28 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation Article 3 (3) (f) requires the data controller to assist the

Datatilsynet hold that the Municipality of Odense infringed Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to delayed answers to access requests. The Datatilsynet

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

request because the processing was necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8

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

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

decision under Article 66 GDPR when the lead SA fails to respond to provide mutual assistance within a month as per Article 61(8) GDPR. The CJEU adopted

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1

rectification under Article 16 GDPR, the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR, and the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. The court therefore

against the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (IAB Europe) for various GDPR violations (including the principles of legality, transparency and fairness

Justification for the Danish Data Protection Agency's decision 3.1 It is clear from Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, letter a, that the

refers to the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f as the relevant valid basis for processing, as well as Article 21 No. 1 on the data subject's right

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

union enshrined in Article 7 of the Spanish Constitution. Therefore, such processing would be lawful in accordance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Share your comments

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

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

processing of personal data, whose objectiveC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/14The main objective was to guarantee compliance with

Protection and Freedom (BInBDI) fined a retail group €525,000 for violating Article 38(6) GDPR due to the conflict of interest of their DPO who independently monitored

23/15w Pkt 3. mwN). An employee's privacy is also one of the legal interests protected by § 96 Paragraph 1 Z 3 ArbVG (9 ObA 23/15w Pkt 3. mwN). 3.2 Human

Guarantor or to ask to be heard by the Authority (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code; as well as Article 18, paragraph 1, of Law no. . 689 of 11/24/1981)

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, following the application of Article 85(1) and (3) of LPACAP, a fine

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

obligation of Article 32 GDPR? Does the fact that this health data is not encrypted constitute a breach of the security obligation under Article 32 GDPR? Does

this sanctioning procedure proceeds.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/13FOUNDATIONS OF LAWICompetition:- About the Privacy

dismiss the complaint in accordance with Article 95, §1, 3° WOG, on the basis of the following justification. 6. When a complaint is dismissed, the Disputes

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

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

authority ofcontrol pursuant to Article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breachof article 58, paragraph 1. "Organic Law 3/2018, on the Protection of

unanimously considers that in accordance with Article 17 in in conjunction with Article 21 para. 3 of the GCP and Article 25 para. 1 of the GCP the conditions for

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

they filed a complaint, however the accused company acted according to Article 28 GDPR and the Spanish DPA ended the proceedings. A.A.A. (data subject) received

German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. 35.3 million Euro fine for data protection violations in H&M's service centre 01

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