Search results

internal compliance and accountability according to Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. Since the company had totally ignored the its

c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of the ICA, to impose

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

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

associations even without legal personality" (see Article 2, Law 179/2017 which added paragraph 2-bis to Article 6 of Legislative Decree .lgs. 8 June 2001, n

Liability Law, 9 Article 156, the second and third paragraphs of Article 157, the first paragraph of Article 166, Article 168, Article 262, Article 269, 1. 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

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

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

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

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

privacy. Health data are special categories of data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

regulation article 83 no. 2 letters a to k. It is central to this assessment to look at the nature, severity and duration, cf. article 83 no. 2 letter a

that the article’s publication was in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when read in line with Article 85 GDPR. Article 5(1)(c) outlines

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

provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction for an infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD

established in article 83.2 of the RGPD2b) Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, identification number, line identifier), according to article 83.2 g) In

amount of the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83". 91. Article 83 of the GDPR provides that "each supervisory authority shall ensure that

to"Process third party data" (art. 83.2 a) RGPD).- the intentionality or negligence in the infringement (art. 83.2 b) RGPD).For all these reasons, it is

infraction of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of APPRECIATION, in accordance with the provisions of Article 58.2 RGPD

condition of necessity is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR. The article 6.1 of the GDPR replaces Article 7 of the Directive, without the relevant

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 of the

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

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

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

typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned Regulation; for the alleged violation of article 22 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned

regulation as established in thearticle 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LOPDGDD. It says to article 2.2 of the RGPD:"2. This Regulation does not apply

(2) (f) and Article 14 (2) (g), Article 14 (1) andArticle 15 (1) (h) and Article 21 (1)infringement of Article 18 (1) (a) and (d).order the restriction

violated the provisions of Article 17 of the GDPR and Article 21 of the GDPR and urge GLOBAL CAPITAL GROUP SPAIN, S.L. with NIF B87258091, so that, within

wrongoriented, so that the conduct is considered negligent to a slight degree (art. 83.2 b)RGPD).C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/9Therefore

§ 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

and Article 60 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) in connection

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

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

Art. 83 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679, the circumstances: 1. Actions taken by KSSiP to minimize the damage suffered by data subjects (Article 83 (2) (c)

guarantees ”(Article 9, paragraph 2, letter b), of the Regulation). In any case, the dissemination of data relating to health is prohibited (art. 2-septies

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

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 an administrative fine

infringement fee, cf. article 58 no. 2 letter i, cf. article 83. Violation of article 32 can be sanctioned with a fee, cf. article 83 no. 4 letter a. The

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)

57(1)(a) and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

and to cooperate with the DPA, therefore violating Article 31 GDPR and Article 37(1)(a) GDPR. On 2 June 2021, the French DPA (“CNIL”) informed a French

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

to the criteria laid down by Article 83 paragraph 2 of the GDPR. With regard to the breach of Article L. 34-5 of the GDPR, the restricted committee considers

opting for the of a higher amount, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. However, Article 58.2) of the RGPD provides that: “Each control authority

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

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

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

the meaning of Article 83 and recital 148 of the Regulation”. The Garante hence reprimanded Barclays pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments

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

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD. FIFTH: Consulted the database of this

administrative fines set out in Article 83.5 of the AVG. 51. Taking into account the criteria contained in article 83.2 of the AVG as well as the case law

activities further violated Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPA, in accordance with its powers under Article 58 (2) GDPR, imposed an administrative

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

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.

proportionate and dissuasive. The provided for in Article 83 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 83 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation sets out

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

Commission, which entered into force. The circumstances under Art. 83, § 2, letters “b” and “i” of the Regulation are irrelevant as far as the administrator

under Article 77 GDPR was very clear and limited in scope. However, the DSB went on to assert a violation of Article 12 GDPR and Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, acting

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

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

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

concluded that the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d), Article 32(2), and Article 32(4) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA decided to impose a

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

proportionate and dissuasive. The provided for in Article 83 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 83 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation sets out

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

with provided for in article 58.2 of the RGPD, for the alleged violation of articles 13 and 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned

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

(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 withdraw

IVWithout prejudice to the provisions of article 83 of the RGPD, the aforementioned Regulationprovides in its art. 58.2 b) the possibility of sanctioning with

mitigating points the points set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR: (a) The treatment has been carried out ted.¬ b) There is no intention on the part of Vodafone

same Article 83. 181. Article 83 of the RGPD provides : 1. Each control authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

breach of Article 13 (2) of the GDPR. 43. Consequently, the restricted panel considers that the company has committed a breach of Article 13 of the GDPR. It

described in the conclusion (Article 83.2, c) AVG 83.2 (c) AVG); the absence of previous relevant infringements (Section 83.2 (e) AVG), as well as the cooperation

the provision of article 58 par. 2 par. i) of the IGC, an effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative fine under Article 83 83 of the IGC both

meaning of article 4, opening words under 1, 2 and 15, of the AVG, article 10 of the AVG and article 1, preamble below and b, of the Wb and article 16 of the

specified in Section 2 (2), it may apply the legal consequences specified in the General Data Protection Decree. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General

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

Human Rights. According to settled case-law, it follows from Article 1.2 and Article 59.2 of the Basic Law that there is an obligation to use the Human

lit. e) and f) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 83 sec. 1 and 2, art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) Regulation of the

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

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

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 AVG applies

provisions of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, it allows setting a penalty of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros). V Measures Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes

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

data Article 9.2.a: Express consent Article 9.2.b: Fulfillment of labor law obligations, etc. Article 9.2.c: Protection of vital interests Article 9.2.d:

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

data Article 9.2.a: Explicit consent Article 9.2.b: Execution of labor law obligations etc. Article 9.2.c: Protection of vital interests Article 9.2.d: Edit

and Article of 11Law No. 3471/2006, in accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and

cases G.B.6 (11 days delay in applying the Registry), G.B.8 (6 days), G.B.9 (3 days including a weekend), G.B.10 (4 days including a weekend) and G.B.11 (5

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

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

*** SCHOOL ), with NIF*** NIF. 1 , for a violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD, a penalty of Admonition .SECOND: NOTIFY

fairness principle, violating Article 5(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 8 Personal Data Protection

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

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

---------- Article 1: The intervention of the PDU - What to choose is allowed. Article 2: The request of the company Google LLC is rejected. Article 3: This

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

same article 83. 97. Article 83 of the GDPR provides: 1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

accordance with article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 The GDPR defines

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

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. " Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the "Informatique et Libertés"

(ECHR) - Article 8 RS - Constitution, Laws, Agreements, Treaties Criminal Procedure Act (1994) - ZKP - Article 83, 83/2, 285e, 285e/1, 285e/2 Associated

before May 25, 2018. 2.2. Consent and the lawfulness of the processing (Article 4, point 11, Article 6 (1) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR) 121. With regard

opting for the higher amount, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. However, Article 58.2) of the RGPD provides that: “Each supervisory authority

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

comprehensible character, within the meaning of Article 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Article 13 of the Regulation must be assessed. The

that under Article 82 (1) and (2) GDPR, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a violation of the GDPR is entitled

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

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

(listed in Article 57 of the GDPR) including that of dealing with complaints (article 57.1.f) of the GDPR) as well as a number of powers (article 58 of the

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

administrative fine on the basis of Article 83 thereof. However, considering: (a) all the factors set out in Article 83 (2) of the GIP; (b) that, at all stages of

of article 4.19 of the GDPR – (article 13.1. c) of the GDPR) and does not mention the data retention periods personal data processed (article 13.2. a)

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

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

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

RETAIL S.L. for alleged infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR- Initiate sanctioning procedure against

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

contrary to the legal provisions established in article 22.2 LSSI. This Infraction is classified as "minor" in Article 38.4 g) of the aforementioned Law, and may

resulting from Article L. 34-5 of the CPCE and Article 7-1 of the GDPR. B. On the breaches relating to the exercise of rights 27. According to Article 12 of the

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

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

that Section 9 (1) GDPR contains a restriction to a certain professional group (“classic media companies”), although Article 85 (2) GDPR does not include

within the meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. Processing of sensitive data requires a legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR. In the present case

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

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

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

infringements of Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(e) and Article 6(1)(f) the DPC issued a reprimand to Airbnb pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. In addition

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

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

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

out in point 56 Based on article 83 of the GDPR and articles 100, 13° and 101 of the LCA, a fine from 7500 EUR Under article 108, § l of the LCA, this

court referred to Article 43(1),(2) Law N. 158 (I)/1999, which is the Cypriot Law on General Principles of Administrative Law. Article 43(1) Law N. 158

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) — amongst others, the Spanish law regulating cookies — and Article 13 of

there is no explicit consent by the customers as requested under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and an implied consent cannot fulfill the provision’s requirement

infractions of these Regulations ”and in 2.i), that of: “Impose an administrative fine pursuant to article 83, in addition to or instead of measures mentioned

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

(hereinafter, “the person claimed ”), by virtue of the complaint presented by B.B.B., (hereinafter,“ the claimant ”), and based on the following, BACKGROUND

1-� L _JCourt of appeal Brussels-2021/AR/282- p. 3 ° - pursuant to Article 83 GDPR and Articles 100, 13 and 101 WOG, an administrative to impose a fine

had been no violation of Article 32(4) GDPR, and in the alternative, that: in accordance with the provisions of Article 83(2) GDPR, the BGN 1500 fine should

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

(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 MBG)

with Article 12(2) and (3) GDPR. Hence, the controller received a warning for not respecting data subjects' rights (violation of Article 85(3)(b) GDPR)

that a fine of €2,000 be set for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR as defined in Article 83(5) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR the Spanish DPA

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

L.111-1, L.111- 2, L.121-17, L.121-19-4, L.121-83, L.121-84, L.132-1, L.133-2, L.135-1, L.141- 5, L.421-1, L.421-6, L.421-2 and R.111-2 and R.132-1 and

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

according to Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. However, the AEPD imposed no fines in either of the two violations. Instead, according to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the AEPD

course of the audit proceeding to remedy the breaches of Article 38(1) GDPR and Article 39(1)(b) GDPR. The CNPD noted however that these measures were taken

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

(EU) 2016/679, p. 41. 2.2.2 Obligations relating to consent ('opt-in') (Articles 5, 6(1)(a) and 4(11) in conjunction with Article 7 of the Data Protection

on FPDAL Article 5, Part One, Clause 2, Article 23, GDPR Article 58, Clause 2, subparagraph i), AAL, Article 115, Part One, Clause 4, Article 151 Paragraph

the requirements on how it should be provided under Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR. The court of appeal disagreed with the court of

Articles 24 and 25 GDPR. The Bulgarian Data Protection Authority (CPDP) found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR since the personal

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

accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Taking into account the above-discussed findings, the DPA also held that the controller violated Article 24(1) GDPR by not fulfilling

of the GDPR by 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 the

found that the company violated Article 7 (3) GDPR, Article 12 (2) GDPR, Article 17 (1)(b)GDPR and Article 24 (1) GDPR, by failing to implement appropriate

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

aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 also may be taken into account: a) The continuous

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

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

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

violated the general Article 32, paragraph (1) and points a)-b) of the data protection regulation, as well as (2) of this article paragraph. 2. Measures taken

1) and 17.1 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a) and 83.5b) of the aforementioned RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT D. B.B.B. as instructor. and as secretary to

fine of EUR 2,000,000 on XXXX GmbH for these violations in accordance with Section 30 (1) and (2) DSG in conjunction with Article 83 (5) (a) GDPR. On the other

so-called household exception according to Article 2, Paragraph 2, Litera c, GDPR is not fulfilled. 3.1.2. Art. 83 Para. 5 lit worldwide annual turnover of

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

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)

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

ignores the wording of Article 82 GDPR. To put this into perspective: Other than Article 82 GDPR, Article 77 GDPR actually only mentions GDPR violations by processing

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

street. The DPA was allowed to issue a reprimand, Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR. On the basis of Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA was not entitled to order the removal of camera

presented the matter Applicable law Article 4 (7) and (8), Article 28 (3), Article 58 (2) (b) and (i), Article 83 (1), (2), (4) (a) of the EU General Data

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"

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: APPOINT B.B.B. as

case (Article 83(2)(b)); as well as that the NAIH had already warned the controller about its processing activities previously (Article 83(2)(b)). However

investigations. The DPA found that both companies had violated Article 32(1)b and c and 32(2) GDPR because they had not implemented adequate technical and organizational

FIRST: IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of 2,000 euros (two

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

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

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR, Article 32(4) GDPR, as well as Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 24(2)

August 2020 - until the date of this decision. 1.2. Intentional nature of the breach (Article 83 (2) (b) of Regulation 2016/679). In the opinion of the

MEETING PUERTO C.B., with NIF E76518877, for a infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a fine of €2,000 (two thousand

art. 58 sec. 2 lit. e) and lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-2 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with Art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation

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

proceedings for potential GDPR violations to evaluate the possibility of applying a penalty as per Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 83 GDPR. In response, the controller

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, and for the alleged infringement of article 13, typified in article 83.5.b) of the

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", establishes that: "2. In accordance with

€7,80) 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

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

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 of 18.12

violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up agreement, D. B.B.B., on behalf

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

portability, thereby violating Article 13(2)(b) GDPR. In light of the above, in accordance with Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and Article 83 GPDR, the AP considered it

with NIF B09966508, for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in the article 83.5.a) of the RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT B.B.B. Instructor

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

negligence in the offense (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, data bank, the line identifier) (article 83.2 g). That is why it is

NIF B99514218, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infraction 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b)

security are set out in Chapter IV, Section 2. Here is Article 32 central. Article 32 (1) (a) and (b) states: Article 32. Safety of treatment 1. Taking into

principle of purpose limitation under Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and the principle of data minimisation pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Further, the DPA found that

in the form of obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1) and Article 32 (1) (b) and (b), Article 32 (2) of Regulation 2016/679), and moreover

procedure in Article 60(9) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPC removed its proposed “Finding 1” from its Final Decision (2.23). Issue 2 – Reliance on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR

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

parties (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter c) of the Regulation); 2. the absence of previous relevant violations committed by the data controller (Article 83,

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

5(1)(a) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, as well as Article 9 GDPR related to the processing of special categories of personal data, and Article 32 GDPR on the security of

violation of art. 6 of the GDPR. IV Article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD states that “according to what is established in the article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

33(3)(b), Article 33(3)(c), and Article 33(3)(d), as Article 34(2) GDPR prescribes. Therefore, the DPA decided to impose an administrative fine pursuant to

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

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

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

with GDPR provisions, this includes obtaining proof of consent in line with Article 7(1) GDPR. Especially in the context of Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, the explicit

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD and Article 83.4, respectively, of the GDPR. SECOND:

finally financial loss. 2. Intentional nature of the infringement (Article 83 (2) (b) of Regulation 2016/679). In line with the Article 29 Working Party's Guidelines

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

serious negligent action (article 83.2 b) - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname, domicile) (article 83.2 g) The balance of the circumstances

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

regulated in article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and other violation of article 13 of the GDPR. III Article 5.1 c) of the GDPR Article 5 of the GDPR “Principles

NANDIVALE, S.L., with NIF B66070012, for a violation of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a fine of 10,000 € (ten thousand

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

intent within the meaning of Art. 83 (2) lit. b GDPR. within the meaning of Article 83, Paragraph 2, Letter b, GDPR. 4. The following must be noted for

violation of Article 52 of the Code, for which an administrative sanction is provided for (Article 166, para 2 of the Code and Article 83(3) of the Regulation);

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

whether DPG adequately facilitated the exercise of GDPR rights for the purposes of Article 12(2) GDPR. This provision obliges controllers to "facilitate

established in article 83.2 of the RGPD. Specifically, we are faced with several manifestly negligent actions, in accordance with article 83.2 b) of the RGPD

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

in accordance with article 37 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and article 34 of this organic law. " SAW On the other hand, article 83.7 of the RGPD, which

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

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

against the Company (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter e of the Regulation); 2) the common nature of the data processed (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter g of the

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

RGPD); as he points out Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. -12 of the RGPD, in relation to 22 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. " FOURTH:

the UK GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. Article 5(2)

a violation of article 6 of the RGPD. IV Article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD states that “depending on what is established in the Article 83.5 of Regulation

of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation with article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). While it is true that Orange's

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

negligent action (article 83.2.b). Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to article 83.2.g). VII Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, the

accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. - An infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5. b) of the RGPD. SECOND: By virtue

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

attenuating circumstance. [Article 83 (2) (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation] The Authority did not consider Article 83 (2) (c), (g), (i), (j) and

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

Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of €1

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

whether an infringement fee shall be imposed pursuant to Article 83 no. 5, cf. Article 83 no. 2, and if a fee shall be imposed, how large the fee must be

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

sedeagpd.gob.es, 8/10 In relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes

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

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

prohibition to process sensitive data (Article 2-septies (8) of the Code and Article 9(4) GDPR). Pursuant to Article 83(3) GDPR, the DPA considered several aggravating

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

regulation Article 58 (2) point b) states that the Customer has violated the general data protection Article 5(1)(b) and (c), Article 6, Article 5(2) and the

well as art. 57 sec. 1 lit. a) and h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with Art. 28 sec. 1, 3

in Art. 83 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679, the circumstances: a) actions taken to minimize the damage suffered by the data subjects (Article 83 (2) and (c)

point (c). Article 13 (2) point (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation General Data Protection Regulation Article 13 (1) (b), (e), (2) (b), (d), (e)

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

Authority during the investigation, the violation is not culpable (Article 83, paragraph 2, letters b) and f) of the Regulations). Due to the aforementioned elements

complained party, by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Notified the

the object of the This claim is very high (article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD in relation to with article 83.2.k). Considering the exposed factors, in order

violation of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to a failure to respond to an access request that was submitted around a month after the GDPR became

national rules applicable to workplace monitoring system as per Article 6(1)(b) and Article 88(2) GDPR. Since the controller is also a public entity subject to

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

..........202 Article 83(2)(b): the intentional or negligent character of the infringement.............................211 Article 83(2)(c): any action

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

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

the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training notes that with regard to the breach of Article 5.1.e) of the GDPR, it constitutes

following preliminary questions to the CJEU: (1) Is Article 83(4) to Article 83(6) GDPR of the GDPR to be interpreted as incorporating into national law

pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR. Moreover, it ordered the controller to bring its processing operations into compliance pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. On sharing

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

as established in article 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LO- PDGDD, the following should be noted: it says to article 2.2 of the RGPD: "two

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

data for these purposes under Article 21(2) GDPR. Additionally, the data subject filed an access request under Article 15 GDPR. The data subject did not receive

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

infringement of Article 83.5.b) of the RGPD and Article 74.c) of the LOPDGDD, for breach of the provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the RGPD

residence, and it fined the data controller €10,000 under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and Article 83 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

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

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

the principles found in Article 5 GDPR, in this case Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In addition, Persónuvernd highlighted Article 32 GDPR as operationalising the

body within the meaning of Article 83(7) GDPR. In interpreting what amounts to a public authority or body under Article 83(7) GDPR, the NSS held that such

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.

breach of the principle of purpose limitation (Article 5(b) GDPR) and of data minimization (Article 5(c) GDPR), since the accesses in question to the data

the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training notes that with regard to the breach of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, it constitutes

line with the GDPR were not adequate to the nature, context and risks of the processing carried out (breach of Article 5(2) and Article 24 GDPR). In determining

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.gob.es 2/8 FIFTH:

established in its article 12.5. (…)” VII Penalty for violation of article 12 of the GDPR Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83 of the GDPR, the aforementioned

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

troversies between those and any interested party. " Article 83.2.k) of the RGPD concurs, specified in article 76.2 b) of the LOPDGDD, for the usual treatment of

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

force of the RGPD. Regarding the mitigating effect of article 83.2.k) RGDP in relation to article 76.2. and) of the LOPDGDD, considers it irrelevant since

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

constituted an infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR for violating the principle of confidentiality and Article 32 GDPR for failing to implement appropriate

subject about it. 2. Intentional nature of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679); According to the Guidelines of the Article 29 Working Party

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

should rely on one of the legal basis under Article 6 and 9 GDPR. Specifically, Articles 9(2)(h) and 9(3) GDPR allow for processing of sensitive data for

third parties. Article 83.2 g) GDPR: the categories of personal data affected by the infringement: image of the claimant. Article 76.2 b) LOPDGDD: "The

and Article 58 (2) GDPR (b) condemns the Applicant for violating: - Article 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the GDPR, - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 6 (1)

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

May 2018 and Article 13(2) of the Data Protection Act (DSG) from 25 May 2018, Article 50b(2) for the period before 25 May 2018, Article 50b(2) for the period

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

accountability pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) and (2) GDPR and its responsibility as a controller under Article 24(1) and 25(1) GDPR. In addition to that, the

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

violation of the Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT

of the infringements (Article 83(2)(a) of Regulation 2016/679), intentional or unintentional nature of the breaches (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679)

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 concerns

itself (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter e) of the Regulation); - the Healthcare Company has behaved collaboratively with the Authority (Article 83, paragraph

imposed in accordance with the following criteria established by article 83.2 of the RGPD: 2. Administrative fines will be imposed, depending on the circumstances

alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR respectively. SIXTH:

pursuent to Article 6 GDPR. In determining the amount of the fine, the DPA considered aggravating factors, as stipulated in Article 83(2)(a) GDPR, and mitigating

(such as: origin of data, disclosure and consent) (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter a of the Regulation); 2. the subjective dimension of the conduct, to be

for a violation of Article 28 in relation to art. 24 both of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the RGPD and according to art. 83.2, with a fine of 100

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

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

provided in Article 5 GDPR, a lawful and transparent processing of personal data. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. In view

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

as an heir to her deceased father. The request was based on Article 15 GDPR and Article 2-terdecies of the Italian Data Protection Code which makes a special

and of the Council ((EU) 2016/679) Article 12(1), (2) and (6), Article 15(3), Article 58(2)(b) and (i), Article 83(1), (2), (5) and (6). Data Protection Act

sessions, within the Article 12(3) GDPR time limit. Moreover, the DPA declared that the therapist had breached Article 12(4) GDPR, as they did not inform

listed in Article 2(3) of that directive and Article 2(2) of that regulation, apply. 62 In particular, it should be noted that Article 9 of the GDPR and Article

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

level of damages suffered fried; (art. 83.2 a) RGPD). - the intent or negligence in the infringement; (art. 83.2 b) RGPD), to the proce- to obtain images

according to Article (1) point b) and Article 6 (1) ARC. Legal consequences 1. The Authority complies with Article 58 (2) point i) and Article 83 (2) of the

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

PROGRESS, S.L., with NIF B76821586, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.f), typified in 83.5 GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT B.B.B. as instructor. and, as secretary

established 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

error by the authorized person in enveloping the reports (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter b) and d) of the Regulation); - the owner has fully collaborated

interest see Article 9, Paragraph 2, Letter f, Article 17, Paragraph 3, Letter e, Article 18, Paragraph 2, or Article 21, Paragraph one, GDPR; see ECJ of

methods. As a result, the DPA found violations of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. The controller was fined €15,000. Regarding the

that is the subject of this claim is undeniable (article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD in relation to article 83.2.k). The intentionality or negligence in the infringement

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

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 basis of Article 58 (2) point b) of the GDPR, the Applicant is condemned for having violated it Article 5 (1) point a), Article 12 (2) of the General

accountability principle, to facilitate the exercise of this right (Article 5(2) and Article 12(2) GDPR). For these reasons, the DPA found that the mere mention of

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. i) and 83 of the

art. 83, par. 2, of the Regulation; In the present case, the following are relevant: 1) the seriousness of the violations (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter

indicated in art. 83, par. 2, of the Regulations; In the case in question, the following are relevant: 1) the seriousness of the violation (Article 83, paragraph

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

-9.2 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and article 72.1.e) of the LOPDGDD. “ "For the purposes specified in the art. 64.2 b)

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’

application of Article 17.3.b, the complainant cannot invokea reason provided for in article 17.1 or 17.2 for requesting the erasure of data concerning him.b) The

currently pending. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, the DPA imposed an administrative fine of €220,337 (NOK 2 500 000) against Argon

designed programming. b. Subjective position According to number 2 Paragraph 1 Article 47 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point b, paragraph 2 Article 83 of Regulation (EU)

out in Art. 83 sec. 2 lit. c of the Regulation 2016/679. 2. The way in which the supervisory authority learned about the breach (Article 83 (2) (h) of Regulation

the accountability principle referred to in Article 5(2) GDPR. Using its powers under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and taking into account the gravity and duration

violation of Article 35 of the GDPR, Article 32 of the GDPR and Article 13 of the GDPR, typified in Articles 83.5 of the RGPD and Article 83.4 of the RGPD

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

calculating the fee, the elements in point 7.2 above must be weighted, cf. article 83 no. 2. In accordance with Article 83 no. 1, the infringement fee must be effective

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).

to violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR. VII Classification of the violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD Article 83.5 of the GDPR provides the following:

failed to comply with the provisions of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Furthermore, InfoMentor did not ensure sufficient

This is confirmed by the wording of Art. 83 sec. 2 lit. k). Other aggravating or mitigating factors (Article 83(2)(k) of Regulation 2016/679). The President

May 2018. 2.2 Follow-up of complaints 2 2.2.1 What has emerged during the proceedings During a control search on 8 June 2018 of complaint 2, the Data Inspectorate

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

integrate different corporate systems and procedures (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter b), of the Regulation); 2. the timely adoption of corrective measures, some

provisions of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR by: (a) failing

GDPR and Article 66.2 WOG); and • compliance with the transparency obligations (Article 12 GDPR) and the te provide information (Article 13 GDPR). Page

provisions of article 13 of the RGPD. The RGPD, without prejudice to the provisions of its article 83, contemplates in its article Article 77 the possibility

the processing of personal data in accordance with art. 4 item 2 of the GCC. 2. Article 5 of the GPA sets out the processing principles governing processing

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

for violating articles 6.1 and 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5. a) and article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. The aforementioned Proposal

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

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

procedure (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter c), of the Regulation); 3. the absence of previous relevant violations committed by Ediscom (Article 83, paragraph

in violation of Article 12(3) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

category of higher fines according to Article 83 (5) point a) of the General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR Article 83 (2) point a) ], based on this, the maximum

(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)

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

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

the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD and Article 83.4 of the RGPD. C/ Jorge

alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan

the GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in Article 5(1) of the GDPR. Article 5(2) makes

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

UPMOBILE SOLUTIONS, S.L., with NIF B02682276, for a violation of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 500.00 euros (FIVE

the Regulation. Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(3) of the Regulation and Article 166(2) of the Code. 4. CORRECTIVE MEASURES Article 58(2) provides the Garante

pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, because controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR. The Court upheld the appeal and ordered the controller to pay € 2,500, - as

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. Once the Initiation Agreement was notified

December 18, 2023 standard B-VG Art 130 Paragraph 1 Z1 B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 GDPR Art4 GDPR Art51 GDPR Art56 GDPR Art60 GDPR Art65 GDPR Art77 VwGVG §28 Paragraph

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

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

processing (Article 4, opening paragraph 7, GDPR). and that the AP is the competent supervisory authority (Article 56, first paragraph, GDPR). 5.2 Obligation

Articles 32 to 36 GDPR, including those regarding the notification of personal data breaches. In particular, pursuant to Article 33(2) GDPR in the event of

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

data in breach of Article 32(1) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

violation of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, Article 6 of the GDPR, Article 9 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR, Article 35 of the RGPD, Article 13 of the RGPD

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

consider the factors identified above under Articles 83(2)(c), 83(2)(e), and 83(2)(f) of the GDPR mitigating. To account for the action taken by the HSE

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

number when purchasing tickets in violation of Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. A data subject issued a complaint with the Icelandic

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

criteria established in the article 83.2 of the GDPR: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 11/18 "2. Administrative fines will be

Accordingly, the Spanish DPA fined Amazon Road €2,000,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR, Article 10 GDPR and Article 10 LOPDGDD for requesting criminal record

letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its article Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", establishes that: "2. In accordance

infringement provided for in Article 83.5.b) in relation to Article 13; i another offense under Article 83.4 (a) in relation to Article 25; all of them from Regulation

website controller qualifies as controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) and Google LLC as processor (Article 4(8) GDPR) for data processing in connection with Google

the type of data) are: Article 9(2)(h) GDPR (necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine); Article 9(2)(i) GDPR (for reasons of public

of integrity outlined in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found that relying on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as legal basis for processing

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR), the DPA found that the controller violated Article 13(1)(c) GDPR by indicating

paragraph. Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3 Article 9, Article 10, Article 17, Article 24 and Paragraph 3 Article 25 and the first paragraph. Article 27 Act no

§. 2, b. "i" of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, for violation of the provisions of Art. 5, § 1, b. "a" and b. "b", in relation to art. 6, § 1 of the GDPR, in

amount of the monetary penalty. Article 83(2) GDPR 56. The Commissioner has considered the factors set out in Article 83(2) GDPR in deciding whether to impose

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

specific way and within a specific period. Of point (i) of Article 58 (2) and Article 83 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation it appears that the Data

controller in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, and Article 13 GDPR. To begin with, in terms of Article 6 GDPR, the DPA rejected the controller's

issued a fine to the controller of €40,000 pursuant to Article 83(4) GDPR and Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

court decisions. The DPA found a breach of Article 33 GDPR and Article 34(1) and (2) GDPR resulting in a fine of €2,324. Share your comments here! Share blogs

information respect Article 57 (1) (a) and Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and d), Article 83 (1), (2) and (5), and Infotv

persons of article 9.1), indicates article 9.2 b) and 9.4) 2. Section 1 shall not apply when one of the circumstances occurs following: “B) the treatment

of article 15 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 15 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 15 of the GDPR supposes

Data Protection Regulation, Article 5 (1) points a) and b), Article 5 (2) and Article 15 (3). V.2. The Authority ex officio examined whether a data protection

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

controller. Pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR, it was the controller's responsibility to make sure that measures were adopted to ensure GDPR compliance, which was

on the part of the claimed entity, (section b). The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD, with Regarding the offense committed

health (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Regulation); b) the economic, organizational and professional conditions of the offender (Article 83, paragraph

pursuant to Article 77 GDPR. The DPA did not consider the processor’s actions in determining that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR

under 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

infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/6 FIFTH: Once

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

violation of Article 5(2) GPDR since the controller failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1) GDPR and a violation of Article 44 GDPR since the controller

on the part of the Company in the causation of the event (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter b) of the Regulations); - the event occurred in the period of

organization. b. A subjective attitude According to paragraph 2. Paragraph 1 Article 47 Act no. 90/2018, cf. paragraph 2 (b) Article 83 of Regulation (EU)

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

implementation of article 7.2.k) of this organic law’. VII Sanction for the infringement of Article 12 GDPR Without prejudice to Article 83 of the GDPR, Article 58 (2)

the company. Lastly, The DPA found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR regarding the sharing of patient clinical data

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

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

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

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

defined in Article 4(15) GDPR. For the reasons stated above, the DPA found the controller in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR

point 2 of this decision, (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter d) of the Regulation); apply a pecuniary administrative sanction pursuant to art. 83 of the

has a wider scope of applicability than Article 8 GRC (the latter only protects natural persons). As Article 16(2) TFEU leaves it to member states to grant

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

proportionate, and dissuasive per Article 83(1) GDPR, and so the EDPB adopted a binding resolution in accordance with Article 65 GDPR to settle the dispute. The

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as well as the data subject’s right to information under Articles 12 and 13 GDPR, and issued a fine of €10

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

controller’s status as “data controller” was correct under Article 4(7) GDPR. Article 44 GDPR requires that the transfer of personal data to a third country

Regulation (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter c); d) the relevant organizational, economic and professional conditions of the offender (Article 83, paragraph

level of damages suffered fried; (art. 83.2 a) RGPD). - the intent or negligence in the infringement; (art. 83.2 b) RGPD), by not doing have adopted the

effective, proportionate and dissuasive" (Article 83, paragraph 1), the elements indicated in art. 83, par. 2, of the Regulation. Specifically, which aggravating

been disclosed pursuant to Article 17(2) and Article 19; … – 8 – (i) to impose an administrative fine pursuant to Article 83, in addition to, or instead

400 for infringements of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(2) GDPR as well as Article 25(1) and Article 32(1) GDPR. First, the controller did not ensure adequate security

circumstances indicated in Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679, namely: 1. the unintentional nature of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679)

into account to determine a lower penalty. [15.2.] In accordance with Article 83, paragraph 2, subparagraph "b" of the Data Regulation, it is necessary to

(art. 83, par. 2, letter b) of the Regulation); 3) as an aggravating factor the degree of responsibility of the data controller (art. 83, par. 2, letter

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

Garante found a violation of the processing principle under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR related to the security of processing which was compromised

occurred for identification purposes, the controller cited Article 9(2)(b), (c), (g) and (j) GDPR as its legal basis. In a later communication, it clarified

relating to health (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter g) of the Regulation); 19 data subjects are involved (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Regulation);

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

sedeagpd.gob.es 2/9 alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: In accordance with article 73.1 of the LPCAP

comply with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR. The DPA stated that Article 15(1)(c) GDPR must be interpreted

responsibility – article 5.2. of the GDPR) and to implement all the measures necessary for this purpose (Article 24 of the GDPR). 26. Pursuant to Article 5.1.a)

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

fines imposed pursuant to this Article are effective in each case, be proportionate and dissuasive. According to Article 83 (2) of the General Data Protection

art. 83, par. 2, of the Regulation. In the present case, the following are relevant: 1) the seriousness of the violations (article 83, paragraph 2, letter

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

art. 83, par. 2, of the Regulation. In the present case, the following are relevant: 1) the seriousness of the violation (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter

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":

for article 77.1 of the LOPDGDD, results from the application of the general sanctioning regime provided for in article 83 of the RGPD. Article 83.5 of

receiving disability pension, in breach of Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(e), Article 6(1), and Article 9(2) GDPR. The Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund

Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, a fine of €4

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

Therefore, the DPA fined the controller €1,000 under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, Article 83(5) GDPR and Article 166 of the Italian Privacy Code. Share your comments

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

2019 - until the date of this decision. 2. Intentional or unintentional nature of the breach (Article 83 (2) (b) of Regulation 2016/679). Due to the fact

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) she has the

to Articles 114 and 157 of the Privacy Code. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed an administrative fine of €6,000.00, and an order

decision, subject to an administrative sanction from the Garante under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR if the order is not complied with. Although the decision textually

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

personal data in violation of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) IMY has the authority to

the Regulations and 2-ter, 2-sexies as well as 2-septies, paragraph 8 of the Code; ORDER pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) and 83 of the Regulations

to Article 88 GDPR, which holds that it is permissible for national laws to provide a greater standard of protection than already given by the GDPR with

App IO" declared by PagoPA. Through the authority identified in Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, the Italian DPA imposed on PagoPA S.p.A the following limitations:

in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. - Has violated the provisions of Article 37 of the RGPD, an offense classified in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND:

right. This amounted to a violation of Article 5 (1)(a), Article 12, Article 13, Article 14 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR. Therefore, on the basis of all the elements

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

light of this, the DPA found that the processor violated Article 5(1)(e), (1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. For these violations, the processor was fined €25,000

the GDPR. Would judge otherwiseindeed contradict :o the wording of Article L2.2 in conjunction with Article 2.f) of the ePrivacy Directive,o Article 8 of

established in article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of article 76 of the LOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD. Also

content: [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted]

administrative fine under Article 83 of the GDPR. For violations of Article 6 of the GDPR, the fifth paragraph of Article 83 of the GDPR prescribes an administrative

12(2) and 21(2), (4) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), (c), (2), 6(1), 12(2) and 21(2), (4) GDPR and, therefore

protection by its article 2.2, without prejudice to the provisions of the sections 3 and 4 of this article. In this sense, article 2.2.d) of Regulation

one claimed for the alleged infringement tion of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, contemplated in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned Regulation- ment. FIFTH:

controller twenty days to remedy to the situation, pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) and Article 58(2)(g) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

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

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

legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and in violation of transparency obligations in the privacy policy under Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. The DPA in 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

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

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

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

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

in place of the other sanctions referred to in Article 58 (2) (a) to (h) and (j), cf. Article 83 No. 2 first sentence. According to Proposition 148 of

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

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

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.