Search results

Ekker in Amsterdam, against the private company with limited liability UBER B.V., Based in Amsterdam, defendant, not published. 1 The procedure 1.1. The course

and Others v Commission, 100/80 to 103/80, EU:C:1983:158, paragraph 97, and of 16 February 2017, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission

any special categories of personal data. Based on CJEU - C-136/17 - GC et al v. CNIL, a weighing of the interests must also be made for special categories

2016 [plaintiff] requested a mortgage offer from Dynamic Credit Hypotheken B.V. (hereafter: Dynamic Credit), in connection with the purchase of the apartment

self-procured USB devices was not subject to supervision by CPS or asset management. 7 V. CPS considered that it would be a "considerable exercise" to ascertain how

agreement between "L." Ltd., "D." AD and "V." EOOD, the same passes under the management of the lessor and "V." Ltd. That is, as of September 15, 2020.

42865/05, Timpul Info-Magazinet Anghel v. Moldova and ECtHR, 10 March 2009, 18897/91, Times Newspaper Limited v. United Kingdom; ECtHR 28 June 2018, 60798/10

CJEU's case law (Aklagaren v Akerberg Fransson C-617/10, Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen na Zycie SA of C-617/17 and bpost SA v Belgian Competition Authority

pseudonymization reasons] approximately 3.8** contacts, 1,851.4** messages, 1.6** V*** emails and 1,246.6** files (apparently photos) were extracted. Content that

been upheld, and this judgment of the Senate are provisionally enforceable. V. The revision is not admitted. Value in dispute: EUR 9,500.00 reasons I 1.

that in his view, the claim was not justifiable. Based on the Hungarian Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code, a claim expires after 5 years, and also, heirs are

of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR. Therefore, according to Art. 15 Para. 3 Sentence 1 i. V. Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR no right to release the test questions.2. The right to

Niemietz v. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (rec. no. 13710/88), spec. par. 29; Copland v. UK, 04.03.2007 (rec. no. 62617/00), spec. par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania

other commercial messages on Messenger and other Facebook Company Prod- ucts. v. Event Data to Personalize Features and Content and to Improve and Secure the

19 November 1991 in joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italian Republic. 10. As regards the resulting non-pecuniary damage, the appellant

developed by the Federal Constitutional Court in this regard (BVerfG, Beschl. v. 8 November 1985 - 1 BvR 1290/85 -, juris recital 10 and of 8 November 1994

Working Group of German Tumor Centers e.V. (ADT) and the Society of Epidemiological Cancer Registries in Germany e.V. (GEKID) for basic documentation for

phase of the treatment and complementary to the duty of professional secrecy. V Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of "the principles

guarantee of digital rights, and that is outside the remit of this Agency. V In relation to the FEDERATION OF BALONCESTO DE CASTILLA Y LEÓN it is noted

the petition of [applicants] under IV and some of the requests under III and V are dealt with. 1.3. Subsequently, after detention, a decision was taken today

C-13/16, Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA Rīgas satiksme, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December

exploited it nor has itenriched the database of users who have browsed it and (v) notIt has an aggressive commercial policy, hardly carrying out campaigns ofcommercial

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679; (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR The corrective powers available

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this Organic Law; v The corrective powers available to the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

distorted, incurs an abuse of rights that the legal system in no case can protect. V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/10 The claimant

Articles 32, 33 and 34, violations all of which are typified in article 83.4.a). V The violation of articles 32, 33 and 34 of the RGPD are criminalized in Article

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD For the purposes of deciding

the maintenance, development, or control of the contractual relationship". V The documentation in the file proves that the claimant violated Article 6 of

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” V In order to determine the administrative fine to impose, the following must

phase of the treatment and complementary to the duty of professional secrecy. V Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of “the basic

5 June 2018, Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH (C-210/16), that in view of the

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA „Rīgas satiksme”, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari

fastweb.it; this in the absence of the guarantees provided for by Chapter V of the Regulation. As part of the investigation initiated by the Guarantor

C/13/706842 / HA ZA 21-794 Judgment of November 9, 2022 in Case C/13/702849 v HA ZA 21-526 of the foundation FOUNDATION RESEARCH MARKET INFORMATION, located

with Section 4 (6) DSG. The complainant had received data information from V *** adressen Lieferant GmbH in January 2019 regarding the "Dominant Geo_Milieus"

November 2020 in case no. 20/2315 in the proceedings between: Football TV B.V. (hereinafter: VoetbalTV) and the AP. Process sequence By decision of July

Niepandaryzowany Fundusz Sekurtyzacyjny in W., which acquired a liability from V. S.A. on the basis of an assignment agreement. and on this basis, it processes

use of the defendant that German law shall apply (see also LG Hamburg, Urt. v. 31.05.2019 - 305 O 117/18, BeckRS 2019, 21755 marginal no. 18). b. In principle

sufficient if the asserted violation of rights appears possible (see Senate, Urt. v. 29.04.2014 - 1 S 1458/12 - VBlBW 2014, 462, with numerous proofs). According

OLG Saarbrücken NZG 2008, 677 f.; OLG Munich, U. v. 11/15/1990 – 19 U 3483/90; see also BVerfG, B. v. February 18, 1991 – 1 BvR 185/91. 35Under which conditions

pseudonymization reasons] approximately 3.8** contacts, 1,851.4** messages, 1.6** V*** emails and 1,246.6** files (apparently photos) were extracted. Content that

its judgment of 18 September 2003 in Case C-338/00 P Volkswagen v Commission, Volkswagen v Commission, relating inter alia to the imposition of a fine by

phone number at v s first page of the decision. t m d More information is available at www.domstol.se. f d A e e l pp O D a r u O P T - v d e n g k e ISLAND

State v/Datatilsynet has submitted the following claim in both cases: 1. The request for a temporary injunction is not accepted. 2. The State v/Datatilsynet

trattamento sui diritti e le libertà dei cittadini e alla natura dei dati trattati” (v. Audizione informale del Presidente del Garante per la protezione dei dati

requires transfers to be carried out in accordance with the conditions of Chapter V of the GDPR, and Article 46 GDPR, which requires appropriate safeguards in

that can still be reversed, for example in the form of a penalty payment (U. v. 20.6.2013 - 8 C 17.12 - juris para. 19) or for a cost notice (Bv 25.11.2021

since April 2018 (Appendix B19, I-466) (cf. BGH ruling of July 21, 2023 - V ZR 112/22, BeckRS 2023, 17918 Rn. 15; BGH ruling of July 5, 2023 - IV ZR 375/21

provisions of paragraph 1 and able to demonstrate it (“proactive responsibility”).” V In the present case, a claim is filed for improper access to the history clinic

Decided: 29.07.2019 Parties: Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV, Case Number/Name: C-40/17 Fashion ID European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2019:629

creditworthiness will be deleted in January 2024. On 22 June 2020, Coderingsvrij B.V., on behalf of the data subject, objected to the registration in the CKI and

this objective. Furthermore, if the 3Article 6.2 GDPR 4 CJEU, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 16 December 2008, C 524/06, para. 52 Decision

further information on her lawsuit. In addition, she argues that Art. 80 e.V. can be represented in a permissible manner in the context of the local proceedings

May 16, 2014 - V ZR) can be considered as an indirect disruptor 131/13, NJW 2014, 2640 Rn. 8 m.w.N.; BGH, judgment of November 14, 2014 - V ZR 118/13-, Rn

2022, 93 f.; Decision of May 23, 2022, 20 U 96/22 n.v.; Judgment of October 26, 2022, 20 U 131/22 n.v., also OLG Dresden, judgment of March 29, 2022, 4 U

Amsterdam, by 1. the private limited liability company FACEBOOK NETHERLANDS B.V., based in Amsterdam, 2. the company under foreign law FACEBOOK IRELAND LIMITED

Data of social circumstances (hobbies, style of life, marital status, etc.), (V) Data on energy consumption and derived lifestyle habits of these, (VI) Economic

access in the "yard" goods unloading area, (iv) PES and PAV certificate, and (v) certificate in charge of drive maintenance and management of floor robots

defendant performs requires continuous data processing customer personal. V It is appropriate to graduate the sanction to be imposed on the defendant and

accordance with required by article 32.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. […] " V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned LSSI. V After the evidence obtained in the preliminary investigation phase, and without

purposes of the statute of limitations, in Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. V Article 58.2 of the GPRS, under the heading "Powers", states that: "2 Each

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V GDPR Article 32 Article 32 of the GDPR, security of treatment, establishes

C-13/16, Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA 'Rīgas satiksme', recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December

personal data have been processed without counting with no kind of legitimacy. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

google.com/analytics/answer/10022331?hl=es to comply with the IAB v2, as can be seen in annex V. In addition to those previously mentioned, our website uses

the established budgets were not given in article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

because of its content, and that has led to the violation of Claimant's rights. V In accordance with the evidence available at the present time of agreement

presented the document Impact Evaluation of the treatment carried out cape. V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/12 On the other

communal service/department to which the inhabitants would have appealed. V. As to the competence of the ODA, in particular the Litigation Chamber As to

other related tasks with the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR). 10 49. In that respect, the Disputes Chamber ruled that Article 58

Tilburg, against the private company with limited liability ELQ PORTFOLIO I B.V., Based in Amsterdam, defendant, lawyer mr. E.J. Luten in Rotterdam. The parties

importance regarding compatibility C d some CD. "defensive checks" (ab imo v. Cass. n. 4746 e of 2002) with the modification of the art. 4 of the Statute

question was carried out in compliance with the conditions referred to in Chapter V of the Regulations; of art. 35 of the Regulation, for not having carried out

GDPR Decided: 04.04.2023 Published: 04.04.2023 Parties: Uber drivers Uber B.V. National Case Number/Name: 200.295.742/01 European Case Law Identifier: E

The legal framework for issuing an enforcement notice is set out in Part V: Decision to issue this EN. Home Office powers 19. The Home Office’s powers

The sudden outbreak of cases of COVID-19-afflictions ("Corona-Virus"), which was declared a pandemic by the WHO affects data protection in various ways

processing of) his personal data within the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V). By decision of 1 July 2019 (the contested decision), the defendant dismissed

plaintiff stated that the appeal proceedings at the regional court ... only with u.v. Ended July 6, 2018. The data protection violation was reported to the courts

Beklagten allein auf Art. 6 Abs. 1 UA 1 lit. b) und f) DS-GVO i.V.m. § 31 BDSG n.F. i.V.m. den Verhaltensregeln der Auskunfteien führt insoweit zu einem

fundamental rights and freedoms of data subject. Controller is Coolblue B.V., a company that sells (electronic) products. Data subject was employed at

Vodafone Kit V-Home, pending payments YY,YY euros financed.” 4º- Vodafone informs you that on December 22, 2020 it had contracted the Vodafone Kit V-Home device

channel (web`s) (iv) non-VDF databases of distributors / collaborators and (v) VDF databases used by distributors / partners 1.2.1. (i) Generation of random

Case C-413/08 P Lafarge v Commission [2010] ECR p. I-5361, section 104, and the order of 7 February 2012, Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, C-421/11 P

complainant's address between November 18 and December 13, 2019. c) NAIH/2017/4819/1/V by the Authority. notice to close the investigation of the data management

inactivity ", v. minutes 17.7.20219, p. 6). the employment relationship is considered ongoing even with long periods of inactivity ", v. minutes 17.7.20219

policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA 'Rīgas satiksme' (ECLI:EU:C:2017:336), edge no. 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v/ Asociaţia de

used for SARS-CoV-2 screening and antibody testing. Upon learning that the Chief Epidemiologist had outsourced screening for the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well

but generally with the credit institutions according to §§ 675 v -675 w BGB. § 675 v BGB is the central liability standard in the legal relationship between

in 2022 and the Complainant chooses a new counsel in the person of Master V. 6. The complainant indicates that she tried several times from September 15

tlc2tpa29rb2luZW4ga3V2YSIsCiAgImkxOG4uY2hvb3NlLmltYWdlLnNpemUiIDogIlZhbGl0c2Uga3V2YW4ga29rbyIsCiAgIkVsZW1lbnQuQmFzZSIgOiAic3RhdG8vY21zL2NvbnRlbnRlZGl0

2,000.00 will be imposed. IV. You have to bear the costs of the procedure. V. The fee is set at €100.00. VI. The expenses result from the attached cost

Ibid., sk. 33-34 and CJEU C-154/21 RW v. Österreichische Post AG, 12 January 2023, sc. 37. 15 CJEU, C-487/21, F.F. v. Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde

forms (cf. VG Berlin, judgments of April 20, 2021 - VG 16 K 3/21, p. 9 f., n.v.; of December 12, 2019 - VG 27 K 292.15, juris marginal no. 179 ff. ; BVerfG

von Leistungschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH, ECJ judgment of 19 April 2012. Bonnier Audio and others v Perfect Communication Sweden AB

accordance with Art. 31 (4) of this law. § 32e AO explains Art. 12 to 15 GDPR i. V. m. §§ 32a to 32d AO for applicable accordingly, insofar as the person concerned

11, 2014. request for a preliminary ruling in the case of František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osnych dátní, Application No. C-212/13; as a legal basis for

several: the name and two surnames, NIF, home address and mobile phone number. V Article 85 of the LPACAP states: "If the offender acknowledges his responsibility

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the GDPR, the aforementioned

assessed by the sanctioning body, it must be translated into an acquittal. " V However, what is established in article 83.5, sections a) and b), of the RGPD

April 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91, C- 337/15 P, European Ombudsman v. Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91). 36. Taking into account the above

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V For the purposes of deciding on the imposition of an administrative fine and

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” v For the purposes of deciding on the imposition of an administrative fine and

character - the result would be to empty the content of the principle of legality. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

that led to the incident could not be exposed as the events were not known. V The infringement attributed to the respondent is defined in Article 83(5)(a)

vice versa, nullity is verified (…) ”- Annotated Civil Procedure Code, Vol. V, pag.140. The same understanding has been advocated by more recent doctrine

page 142. 32 See by analogy Electrabel v Commission, T 332/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:672, para 228, Marine Harvest ASA v Commission, T-704/14, ECLI:EU:T:2017:753

relation to the parameter referred to in Article 83, paragraph 2, letter e), v. Article 29 Working Group for Data Protection, Guidelines on the application

396, doc. web no. 9023246 and 24 May 2017, no. 247, doc. web no. 6495708; v. also: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion no. 5/2005 on the

the European Economic Area, is only permitted if the provisions of Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which are intended to ensure adequate protection

guarantees established in the Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (...)" V The violation of article 32 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605) is typified in article

referred to as: [appellant] Lawyer: Mr. M. de Boorder in The Hague, by ING Bank N.V. , based in Amsterdam, hereinafter referred to as: ING, Intimate, Attorney

Justice of the European Union of 13 May 2014, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (C-131/12) ;

violation of one or more of the rights in the convention. In the ECHR case Tănase v. Moldova, the Court required that the person "must be directly affected by

referring to Recital 47 of the GDPR and to the CJEU judgment in case C-708/18 TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA, the Belgian DPA concluded that the

de renseignement, autorisés à recourir aux techniques mentionnées au titre V du livre VIII du code de la sécurité intérieure, pris en application de l'article

February 2016, the High Court of Ireland delivered judgment in the case of X & Y v. An Bord Pleanála. On 9 July 2016, Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) requested

Decided: 04.04.2023 Published: 04.04.2023 Parties: Ola Drivers Ola Netherlands B.V. National Case Number/Name: 200.295.806/01 European Case Law Identifier: E

images ("Peck v. United Kingdom", "Application no. 44647/9", 28 January 2003, paragraph 59; see also, although in a different context, “Perry v. United Kingdom”

processing of health data, considering that it violates article 9 of the RGPD. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/21 On the other

Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, case of Rohlena v. the Czech Republic, req. 59552/08, paragraph 28). The restricted panel considers

all cases, the legal basis for cookies is the consent of the data subject. (v) Regarding the "tv2play.hu" website, there are two different consents framework

administrative fine, and its imposition in case of its extent. V. Legal consequences: V.1. The Authority rejected the Applicant's requests, established

officio HUF 5,000,000, ie HUF 5 million data protection fine obliges to pay. 2 V. The Authority considers the general data protection regulation in view of

Since the data protection impact assessment presented refers to the DSFA-V, Federal Law Gazette II No. 278/2019, which was only announced on 9 November

Schleswig-Holstein, item 44; see also C.J.U.E., 13 May 2014, Google Spain SL and Google Inc v. Spanish Agency for the Protection of Datos and Gonzales, case. C-131/12, points

March 2019, the amended application directed against Google Netherlands B.V., received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2019, the parties' unanimous request

complaint, was even more significant in the cases (marked by: b.ii; b.iii; b.v; b.v.i) in which the data are intended to circulate outside the sphere of management

ilmeteo.it; this in the absence of the guarantees provided for by Chapter V of the Regulation. As part of the investigation initiated by the Guarantor

AEPD, a file of declaration of infringement of that Public Administration. V Article 83.5 b) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of “the obligations

is also used internally for anti-fraud purposes ”(see minutes cit., P. 8); v. "The communication of the DPO was sent to the Authority on May 31, 2019" (see

things, PCR tests for SARS CoV-2 are carried out under its responsibility. The complainant had a voluntary PCR test (SARS-CoV-2) carried out at the respondent's

permanent removal of an article under the right to be forgotten in Biancardi v Italy. As a result, the DPA was not required to order the deletion of the article

was not involved in this (see in this respect also OLG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 25 May 2018 - 16 U 134/17; Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, judgment of 18

Telemediengesetz - TMG (Telemedia Law) § 3 (II), (V) Telemediengesetz - TMG (Telemedia Law) § 15 (V) Telemediengesetz - TMG (Telemedia Law) Decided: 20

therefore violates Section 25 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 TTDSG in conjunction with V. with Art. 4 No. 11 GDPR. The mere choice between “Accept” and “Settings” is

the case of the private company with limited liability ING Bank Personnel B.V., Based in Amsterdam, the applicant on appeal, at first instance: applicant

2022, V° Contentious procedure, n° 12 and the others references cited therein. 2Trib. adm. November 7, 2016, No. 36132 of the list, No. adm. 2022, V° Contentious

https://www.owasp.org6 https: // www .datatilsynet.no / regulations-and-tools v / supervisors / software development-with-built-in privacy /9 It can therefore

put in place to comply with section 17 of the National Registry Act. IN LAW V. As regards the competence of the Data Protection Authority, in particular

Regulation; see European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, Application no. 61496/08, 5 September 2017, spec. no. 140). The provisions

C-26-62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1; Judgment of the CJEU of 15 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L.,C-6-64,ECLI:EU:C:1964:66;onthelegalprotectionofcitizenson the basis

2020, (321) 335.21 Cfr. analogous reasoning in CJEU judgment, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, ECLI: EU: C: 2008: 724, par.59: “However

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V |Party_Link_1=https://www.vzbv.de/ |Party_Name_2=Planet49 GmbH |Party_Link_2=

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V |Party_Link_1=https://www.vzbv.de/ |Party_Name_2=Planet49 GmbH |Party_Link_2=

Data Protection as an interested party >>. For all the foregoing, WE PLEASE V.I. that has presented this writing in time in the manner and form and on the

legitimate interest of the defendant, and not the consent of the data subjects; (v) the joke happened in a leisure context in which no real harm was made to the

a comparative analysis of the Polish Bisnode decision and the US hiQ Labs v LinkedIn Corp judgment”, European Law Review, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 857–869,

https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/smernice/Smernice_-_Varstvo_OP_v_delovnih_razmerjih_verzija_1.1_koncna.pdf. 2nd and 3rd already published opinions

educational obligation of the responsible party shall comply with Chapter V of Act no. 44/2014 on scientific research in the field of health when obtaining

the insolvency only exists for as long as the regulation of Section 3 InsBekV provides for this, i.e. for six months. Beyond the lack of a legitimate interest

is rejected. IV. The respondent has to bear the costs of the proceedings. V. The amount in dispute is set at € 2,000.00. reasons 1 The jurisdiction of

addition, their equal opportunities must be preserved (see P. Müller, in: v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck, GG, 7th ed. 2018, Article 38 marginal no. 144; Schreiber

person, and the private company with limited liability T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS B.V., located in The Hague, defendant, hereinafter referred to as: T-Mobile, lawyer:

oiwBkkgH?filename=R%C3%A8glement%20COT %20-%2005032021%20-%20v2.pdf 12From the Niemietz v. Germany of 16 December 1992, it could thus be deduced that the

Protection Board, Guidelines 5/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679, v. 1.1 [3] The Danish Data Protection Authority's guidance on consent, section

use of the defendant that German law shall apply (see also LG Hamburg, Urt. v. 31.05.2019 - 305 O 117/18, BeckRS 2019, 21755 marginal no. 18). b. The parties

pursuant to ECHR article 8 no. 1, see Amann v. Switzerland 16.2.2000 [ECHR- 1995-27798] paragraph 65 and S. and Marper v. Great Britain 4.12.2008 [EMD-2004- 30562]

to the Authority a within the above deadline. The fine according to point V within 30 days from the date of this decision becoming final the Authority's

as well as an annex with measures indicative security considered minimum. V administrative infraction The claim is based on the alleged illegality of the

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Planet49 GmbH of 1 October 2019; - the Code of Administrative Justice and

on the ECtHR grand chamber judgment of 28 June 2018 (G.I.E.M. S.r.l. et al. v. Italy (EMD-2006- 1828)): "The ECtHR does not state anything expressly in the

Herregodts, assisted by Clerk Vanity Vanden Hende. OCTOBER 7, 2021 C.20.0323N9 V. Vanden Hende S. Mosselmans I. Couwenberg B. Wylleman K. Mestdagh E. Dirix

duration, type, category and description (see, for these purposes, Annex V attached). In relation to the other types of cookies used by the Website (this

that he will prescribe after 3 years. This is reflected in the Legal Basis V of the initiation agreement and is recalled in the Basis Legal II of the proposed

images from the webcam were live at the address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GimxrnigQtEhttps. The Data Inspectorate surveys also showed that the same live

offences. (...) (The underlining is from the Spanish Data Protection Agency.) V Recitals 51 and 75 of the RGPD state the following: (51) Special protection

reference to the case of the present one plaintiff. A claim for payment arises i.H.v. EUR 1,916.70. It should be noted that 11 the premium amount caused by these

about the changes produced in subcontracting when legally required. (…)”. V Penalty for violation of article 28.2 of the GDPR For the purposes of deciding

attributable to the claimed party, due to violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR The aforementioned

32.2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infraction sanctioned in 83.4.a, of the RGPD. V In order to specify the amount of the administrative fine that would correspond

CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%" background="/images/pobtrans.gif" ><TR ALIGN="LEFT"><TD vAlign="top" width="100%"><TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="100%" CELLPADDING="0"CELLSPACING="0"

to whom the data are communicated. 7CJUE, December 16, 2008,, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, para. 52. 8 Opinion of Advocate General

and classified as serious for the purposes of prescription in article 73 v) of the LOPDGDD. NINTH: The aforementioned initiation agreement has been notified

caffeinamagazine.it; this in the absence of the guarantees provided for by Chapter V of the Regulation. Within the framework of the preliminary investigation activity

examines this request of the Applicant in a separate procedure. V. Legal Consequences V.1. The Authority condemns it on the basis of Article 58 (2) point

Neumeister v. Austria, § 18. Regarding when it if there is an accusation within the meaning of the convention, the EMD has stated in Deweer v. Belgium §

Article 6 III. (1) point f) of the parliamentary and council IV. (EU) regulation V. (hereinafter: GDPR). VI. The Authority grants the Requester's request and

file that served as the basis for the opening of the sanctioning procedure; (v) the brief dated 12/28/2020 of EQUIFAX, in which it requests the extension

https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/smernice/Smernice_-_Varstvo_OP_v_delovne_razmerije_verzija_1.1_koncna.pdf. All IP opinions are published and

information. It appears from the case that the National Board of Health and Welfare v / Erstatningsnævnet returned a USB connector for complaints, which contained

request to the AP (the DPA) to take action against Connexxion Openbaar Vervoer N.V. for the decision to abolish cash payments, through application of the GDPR

authorities. That happened in the present case: The Association of Credit Agencies e.V., to which the defendant belongs, has "rules of conduct for the checking and

wording for the same, Virgin Media relied on the ICO Direct Marketing Guidance (v. 2.3). Virgin Media noted that the ICO Direct Marketing Guidance provides [at

the merits. 1 Cass. (le k.) AR C.17.0220.N, C.17.0318.N, 9 November 2018 (H.V. / Authority for Financial Services and Markets (FSMA for short)), DAOR 2019

prosecuted was actually demonstrated "(judgment C ‑ 136/17," GC and Others v Commission nationale de l'formatique et des libertés (CNIL) ", Grand Section

tort liability regime apply to it (see: Supreme Court of 12 December 2002, V CKN 1581/00 , OSNC 2004/4/53 and of 24 January 2008, I CSK 319/07 , LEX No

3rd ed 2020, Art. 82 para. 18b with further references; critical LG Munich I v. 2.9.2 021 - 23 O 10931/20, GRUR-RS 2021, 33318) and a threatening influence

April 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91, C- 337/15 P, European Ombudsman v. Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91). 23. In the light of the abovementioned

the biggest German credit rating agencies ("Die Wirtschaftsauskunfteien e.V."). The data subject, consequently, filed a lawsuit against the controller

inteference with a data subject's right to a private life (ECtHR, S. and Marper v United Kingdom 1950). While it may be necessary to retain that type of data

recital 47 of the GDPR. 9 ECtHR, 4 May 2000, Rotaru v. Romania. 10 ECtHR, 2 September 2010, Uzun v. Germany, § 66. 1 Decree on Local Government of 22 December

direct marketing of products and services, and have not even been considered; (v) the sole purpose of the processing has been to disclose the information to

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (vzbv, the claimant) filed a lawsuit against advocado GmbH (advocado, the

actually have occurred and is not just feared (LAG Baden-Württemberg, Urte. v. 25.02.i021, 17 Sa 37/20, quoted after juris, Rn. 96 with reference to Frenzel

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” v In order to establish the administrative fine to be imposed, observe the provisions

cameras is subject to the provisions of article 89 of this law organic. " V In order that the duty of information provided for in article 12 of the RGPD

gradually increased since then. As of July 1, 2019, the rent was € 1,114.47. - v) On 14 February 2014, [appellant] was admitted to a municipal debt relief program

recording and disseminating her image, being data protection regulations. V D.D.D., in its capacity as data controller, in accordance with article 6 RGPD

allows setting an initial penalty of 30,000 euros, (thirty thousand euros). V- On the consequences of the lack of adequate security measures. This section

company (Formación Universitaria, S.L.) which directly contacted the claimant, (v) the claimant requested again all the erasure of the data during that phone

Court of Justice, decisions of 12 July 2012 - V ZB 106/12, BGHZ 194, 97 marginal no. 10; of 28 October 2010 - V ZB 210/10, FGPrax 2011, 41 marginal no. 9 mwN;

beneficial products that are relevant to the customer's transactional history. ( i v ) - s t o r e the data we provide to them on their secure server. They selectpeople

Protection Regulation. Transfer of personal data to third countries Chapter V of the Data Protection Regulation sets out the possibilities for: transfer

Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2015, C-362/14, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as “the CJEU”, respectively

the year and provided - represented by the Arbeiterwohlfahrt Landesverband e.V. - submitted a 2016formal application for asylum in a letter dated 1 February

expulsion of, and the judgment imposing the deportation was entered and set aside v this part with the relevant ... decision of the Three-member Misdemeanor Court

litigation secretariat of the Council of State, MP .. M ..., MI .. N ..., Mrs Z ... V ..., Mrs X ... G ... and Mrs L ... E ... ask the Council of State: 1 °) cancel

intervene in the present proceedings. It is necessary to be allowed. V. Admissibility V.1 Submissions of the parties The opposing party submits that the action

accordance as required by article 32.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” (…)” V 1. The GDPR defines personal data security breaches as “all those security

(such as toilets, showers, changing rooms, dining rooms or work areas). rest). V Video surveillance obligations In accordance with the foregoing, the processing

this situation in the case. 15C-645/19 (Facebook Ireland Limited and others v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) recitals 92 to 95 Page 10 of 16 3.2. Obtaining

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment", states that: "1.

this information with justification of their status as interested parties. V Article 58(2)(b), (d) and (i) of the GPMR, "Powers", provides as follows: "2

principles regulated in the same article 5.1.f) of the RGPD transcribed above. V Establishes Article 25 of the RGPD, the following: "Data protection by design

regarding the cookie policy carried out on the website of its ownership. V - About the "Privacy Policy" of the web: *** URL.2 In the first checks carried

sought by the relevant rule of EEA law (see Case E-25/13 Gunnar Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf. [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 524, paragraph 159 and case law cited)

of Justice of the European Communities of 9 October 2019 in the case of ODA v ING SA, in which the Court stated that the exercise of a right provided for

the so-called common data, by art. 6 of the Regulation) (in accordance with v previous decisions of the Authority, including: provisions 17/9/2020, n. 160

on the above, the Authority considers that there is a case to exercise the v the article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR corrective powers in relation to found violations

Indeed, since the judgment of the European Court of Rights of Hamme Engel v. Netherlands from 8 June 1976, it is accepted that the concept of "criminal

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679>> V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

Finance has Article 5, first paragraph, preambles under the AVG violated. V. The AP imposes a fine of €500,000 on the Minister of Finance (in words: five

of Human Rights of 5 September 2017 -Appeal no. 61496/08 - Barbulescu case v. Romania, spec. n. 140). Nor does any type of information appear to have been

alongside respondent 2) (cf. Chamber, decision of June 3, 2022, 28 O 143/22, n.v.). The requirements of Art. 17 (1) lit. c) and d) GDPR are met. The processing

personal and therefore inaccessible to the members of the Scientific Council. V VI. Chapter of the Research Titles Regulations prescribes the procedure for

conditions of legality of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

admitted to being fully aware of the ' Data Protection Policy & Procedure; v. that the lecturer confirmed the following points: ▪ that the complainant,

to This is reflected in decisions of the Human Rights Committee - (Toonen v. Australia, 1994) and in general comments of the Committee on Economic Rights

rejected as a legal abuse in narrowly defined exceptional cases (BVerwG, U.v. 12/15/2020 - 10 C 24.19 - juris Rn. 12 ff.). The objection to inadmissible

accordance with Section 16 (3a) of the Fifth Book of the Social Code (SGB V). In the preliminary legal protection proceedings brought against this before

representative: mr. M. Bruins, against the private limited company Holland Car Company B.V., with its registered office in Rotterdam and its principal place of business

hereinafter referred to as: [appellant], appeared in person, against NAUTA DUTILH N.V., located in Rotterdam, defendant on appeal, hereinafter referred to as: Nauta

lawyer mr. I. Brouwer, against: the limited liability company [respondent] N.V., established and having its office in [place of business] , defendant, attorney

Article 25 or II of Article 26, or declared under the conditions provided for in V of Article 22. Article 88 of the same law, applicable to the processing at

Amsterdam, in return for the private company with limited liability ZIGGO B.V., located in Utrecht, defendant, lawyers mr. J.R. Spauwen, mr. J.P. van den

basis and the eavesdropper will randomly, choose freely from potential calls. (v) The third main area of use is to increase efficiency: team leaders on a daily

Extended”) 28Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (Case C-434/16, judgment delivered by the CJEU on 20 December 2017) (“Nowak”) 29 Breyer v Bundesrepublik

use. additional Lich she has paid compensation for pain and suffering i.H.v. EUR 6,000.00 required. The defendant then removed the video before the conciliation

hearing took place on 19 May 2022. [claimant 1] appeared, assisted by mr. V. de Roo as an observer for the claimants' representative. Defendant was represented

available evidence, (iv) the preparation and formulation of the statements, (v) the authority that the medium on which the statements are made are published

organisation for processing may only take place subject to the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. Having found that the controller still transferred personal data to the

judgments to be rendered by the District Court (with respect to her person); order V Nijestee to pay the costs of the proceedings, including post and service costs

lawyer mr. M. de Boorder in The Hague, the limited liability company ING BANK N.V., Based in Amsterdam, defendant, lawyer mr. D.J. Posthuma in Amsterdam. The

took place personal data of natural persons of minors (students) and adults v the implementation of the mandatory measure of diagnostic disease control by

shown As a proven fact, you can contact the SES to take the measures timely. V. ON THE MEASURES ALREADY APPLIED BY THE SES Prior to having knowledge of the

mr. R.A.J. Summer at Oosterhout, by 1 public limited company ACHMEA BANK N.V., established in Tilburg, the Netherlands, defendant, Attorney at law F.P.

of sexual orientation (see for instance CASE OF E.B. v. FRANCE, 43546/02, and CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA, 19010/07). 32Section 98. 17Grindr argues in

virtualization operating environments have been installed. Microsoft Hyper-V environment. On this virtualization environment, virtual machines with Windows

preliminary relief proceedings to make an interim injunction. The AP and NS Groep N.V. provided a written explanation. The applicant has submitted further documents

right to information does not arise from the Freedom of Information Act M-V (IFG). In this respect, an action would already be inadmissible for lack of

a similar decision on the same day: CE, 21 december 2020, n° 433554, M. B v. Ministry of Interior Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below

(general regulation on data protection). [2]   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rzaWhEwTfU

type of infraction and according to the nature rarity of the facts described. v Among the corrective powers contemplated in article 58 of the RGPD, in its

all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR). 16. The Litigation Chamber considers that Article 58 WOG gives each

a r e a d o c u m e n t a l. s e r v i z i r l. i t / a t t i / d o w n l o a d /AAAAYBnbrd+mLfAGu+72pN0QYxN3M4aK32vCcmNvmk8hVXf3fjep0bQsNQj83pEB8s71Yi

adm. 2021, V° Complaints, n° 16 and the others references cited therein. 2Trib. adm., July 8, 2002, No. 13600 of the roll, Not adm. 2021, V° Complaints

corresponding objective suspicion was present. The purpose of the observation at V. was to uncover the plaintiff's fake inability to work because the plaintiff

fully provided, for what is incardinated in this type the referred conduct. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 17/19 Article 58

LOPDGDD). C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/20 V Video surveillance obligations In accordance with the foregoing, the processing

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” v Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned

of access requested by the complaining party in the email dated 01/15/2020. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeaepd.gob.es 12/20 Right of

accordance with the procedural law of the Union or of the Member States.” V Classification and classification of the offense In accordance with the evidence

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679>> V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

Specifically, the representatives of the employees of OVIEK - S.E.K and S.E.V.E.T.Y.K. - ΠΕΟ in the Complaint, claim that both the content of the Policy

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

of adequate guarantees, which may include encryption or pseudonymization”. V In the present case, THOMAS INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS performs a treatment of data

(Principles), III (Rights of the data subject), IV (Controller and processor), V (Transfer of personal data to third countries or to international organizations)

.................... ................................................2. 3 V Regarding the requirement that the treatment be necessary, appropriate and

.................... ................................................2. 3 V Regarding the requirement that the treatment be necessary, appropriate and

Usž-670 / 21-2 Business number: Usž-670 / 21-2 U I M E R E P U B L I K E H R V A T S K E VERDICT The High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia

involved], which was published in 2016 on the website of a regional newspaper. (v) The websites Zwartelijstartsen.nl and sin-nl.org have been drawn up and are

controller states that the complainant has given his consent via VIP Response B.V. (Netherlands) by participating in a campaign. However, the complainant denies

a claim to rectification of the civil register (cf. VGH Bad.-Württ., Urt. v. 10.03.2020 - 1 S 397/19 - juris.). However, the case at hand is not within

authority of Ireland is competent to act as the lead supervisory authority. V: interested control authority In accordance with the provisions of article

available on https://www.ordredespharmaciens.be/assets/files/PHARMA-Code-double-A4-v.%C3%A9lectronique-avec-liens-r15.pdf 22Exhibits 1 of the plaintiff and 9 of

June 29, 2021. However, the defendant has not carried out allegations to it. V In accordance with the evidence available for the facts presented constitute

judge in the case of Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij N.V. , location: The Hague, plaintiff in the main defendant in the incident, authorized

general by the art. 2049 of the civil code For all matters of civil liability. V. - The fundamental point is that the non-pecuniary damage that can be compensated

dismiss its decisions 6Cf. Court of Justice EU, judgment of 16 July 2020, DPC v. Facebook Ireland & Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, para. 112. 7 Own emphasis

authorized. The costs due are borne by the applicant, cf. art. 527 of the CPC. V.-DECISION In view of the above, the judges of this 7th Chamber of the Lisbon

collected the contact details. 13. The DPA contains enforcement provisions at Part V which are exercisable bythe Commissioner. Those provisions are modified and

last three years, which, however, would not be correct (see LG Heilbronn Urt. v. 11.4.2019 - 13 O 140/18, BeckRS 2019, 9246). A claim for deletion pursuant

point B.5., p. 15. 7cf. Court of Justice EU, Judgment of 16 July 2020, DPC v. Facebook Ireland & Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, para. 112. 8 Own emphasis

he claims in the body of his email that defendant 1 informed by e-mail Mrs. V in charge of recruitment at W (hereinafter "the defendant 3") that he did not

Municipal Executive of Breda of 24 November 2020, reference 1.2020.0174.001. V. orders the Municipal Executive of Breda to reimburse [the appellant] for the

declared committed nor does it imply sufficient justification or exculpation. V Article 6.1 of the GDPR The documentation in the file offers clear indications

the framework of this audit campaign, the head of the investigation 7 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p. 16 __________________

the plaintiff writing exists. 70 (1) According to Sections 253 Para. 4 i. V. m. 129 Para. 1, 130 Para. 1 No. 6 ZPO, determining written documents - such

of eFeide, Identum  Principal at the current school  West police district v / Ronny Haldorsen 2.2 The case includes the following systems The municipality

Dutch subsidiary being the Michael Page entity International - Nederland B.V. The data subject, who is a Dutch citizen that had created an account and had

application, as this proximity entails a risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 3. In its opinion of 24 April 2020, the Commission ruled on the general

disclosed by the respondent to at least the following third parties: Elsa V***, E*** pharmacy Mag. W***, F*** pharmacy Roberta G***, L*** Pharmacy T***

it is clear which (legal) retention periods this applies in practice, and v. the changes that were made as it is not stated when the last change was made

iles/file1/edpb_guidelines_201904_dataprotection_by_design_and_by_default_v 2.0_en.pdf 16The Authority considered the following as an aggravating circumstance:

clear picture, nor source of the breach, iv) the fact that the data subjects v) the fact that the appointment of the DPO by the controller was delayed by

by the payment of damages for pain and suffering (AG Frankfurt a. M. Urt. v. 10.7.2020 - 385 C 155/19 (70); LG Hamburg, judgment of 04.09.2020 - 324 S

the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. 1CJEU December 20, 2017, Peter Nowak v. Data Protection Commissioner, C-434/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:994 2Section 3, Subsection

scope of application of the AO (Article 82(6) and Article 79(2) of the GDPR i.V.m. Section 32 i(2) of the AO). The defendant adhered to this view. Paragraph

Verbraucherzentralen un Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Planet49 GmbH of 1 October 2019; - the Code of Administrative Justice; After

attorney at law M. de Boorder, at the limited liability company ING BANK N.V., based in Amsterdam, defendant, attorney at law Mr. D.J. Posthuma. The parties

of the personal data being processed. In the judgment of May 4, 2023, F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde, C-487/217, the Court of Justice of the

on the above, the Authority considers that there is a case to exercise the v the article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR corrective powers in relation to found violations

judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 April 2017, C-337/15 P, European Ombudsman v Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, point 91.7 Cf. the judgment of the Supreme Court

the complainants with the opportunity to refute the arguments made by the A v . . On the same day, the data subject submitted its arguments, and for the

2017, Nowak v. Data Protection Commissioner, ECLI:EU:C:2017:994, para. 35. 55 CJEU Judgment C-582/14 of 19 October 2016, Patrick Breyer v. Bundesrepublik

of the promotional telephone calls have admitted (as, moreover, TIM itself: v . memory 10 October 2019) unwanted contacts citing, generically, alleged "oversights"

necessary but that belonged to a third party not responsible for the website (v1st; dmvk and nosotrosprivacidad). They also verified that the "disabled cookies"

5 November 2019, from ABN AMRO; - the V6 form with exhibits 3 to 6 by mr. Notenboom of 26 February 2020; - the V6 form with production 7 of mr. Notenboom

netherlands, at the limited liability company limited liability company UBER B. V. , Amsterdam, the netherlands, defendant, a lawyer for mr. G. H. Potjewijd

org J*ED *iWz***V*i_*b4E**8*9i* The “J*ED” cookie is used to display J***Data advertisements on non-J***Data websites. .**more.org pl*v *O*pZ**rT9*A This

municipality processes his personal data and, if so, to allow him to inspect it; V.       determines that this ruling will replace the annulled decision. Adopted

50,000 euros, according to with article 79.1.d) of the aforementioned LGT. V In the present case, it is proven that the defendant is responsible for the

Tessel in Drunen, against the private company with limited liability KPN B.V., established in Rotterdam, defendant, lawyer mr. S.C. van Velze in Amsterdam

in ECLI: EU: C: 2010: 662 (Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährungin, Joined Cases

against the new decision to be taken may only be lodged with the Division; V. orders the Minister for Legal Protection to reimburse [the appellant] the

provides that the new decision to be taken can only be appealed to the Division; V. orders the chief of police to compensate [appellant] for legal costs incurred

incomplete contract (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of February 15, 2019 - V ZR 77 /18, para. 18). 82 There can be no question of this in the case of a

correspond would be an administrative fine. " It was indicated IN THE BASIS OF LAW V: "The alleged infringements of the RGPD for which the complainant is held responsible

of Art. 85 GDPR and leads to the non-applicability of Chapters II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and IX of the previous search term Data Protection Act for media owners

authorized representative: mr. A. Ester in Zwijndrecht, in return for 1 . N.V. UNIVÉ DAMAGE, established in Zwolle, office in Assen, authorized representative:

the interests and rights of the interested parties when the weighing test.” V Limits to the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Information. That said, the Fundamental

Authority rejects the application in this respect as unfounded has become. V. Legal consequences In the Authority's decision, Article 58 (2) (b) of the

and/or uninstalled the systems until it was possession of authorisations; V) in any case, the time limit for storing images has always been limited to

would be able to know that a particular person might be infected by the SARS-CoV-2, as fever is a symptom of covid-19. Therefore, it would be debatable, in

which represents a deviation from the primary purpose of this type of device. V The art. 83.5 GDPR provides the following: “Violation of the following provisions:

activity of the plaintiff's representative was neither presented nor proven. 27 V. The decision on costs is based on § 91 (1) ZPO. 28 The decision on provisional

Whether a cease-and-desist obligation pursuant to Section 167 (1) sentence 1 i. V. m. § 890 ZPO by threatening a fine of up to 250,000 euros (and, in the event

Parliamentary Papers II 2017/18, 34 889, no. 3, p. 16. 8 Judgment of 22 June 2021 (B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima), ECLI:EU:C:2021:504, paragraphs 69-72. 9 Judgment

Dubrovnik 6 and 8 Business number: UsI-4017/23-6 IN I M E R E P U B L I K E H R V A T S K E P R E S U D A The Administrative Court in Zagreb, according to the

was made by mr. M.G.J.M. van Kempen, chairman, and mr. R. den Ouden and mr. V.F.R. Woeltjes, in the presence of mr. P.W.L. van den Bersselaar as clerk. The

obtained or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, through the infringement.” v In accordance with the precepts transcribed, in order to set the amount of

CAIXABANK available on the website of the entity, which is reproduced in Annex V. 2. On the other hand, an inspection visit was made to CAIXABANK on 11/28/2019

was determined by the Authority in accordance with its statutory discretion. V. Other issues: (83) The powers of the Authority are limited by Infotv. Section

appropriate. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 18/23 v The determination of the sanctions that should be imposed in this case requires

is fixed by the texts. (CJEU, n ° T-342/14, Order of the General Court, CR v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, December 12, 2014).

by Member States in the context of activities covered by Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU, (c) by natural persons acting exclusively in the course of their

including the procedural indemnity fixed at the basic amount (€ 1,440.00) ”. V. Means invoked by X1 11 Brussels Court of Appeal -2021 / AR / 163 p. 12 X1

2016/679. " C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 7/12 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on ,Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González'

not possible to obtain the access in question. It is according to Chapter V of Act no. 75/2019, the responsible party is responsible for ensuring adequate

system-oriented approach to Maastricht-Heuvelland taking into account that: V. The (new) forms of cooperation between covenant partners also require cooperation

treatment. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 6/9 v In order to establish the administrative fine to be imposed, they must observe

June 5, 2018, Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v. Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH, C-210/16, § 29. 7 European Data

respect of [the appellant's] objection can only be appealed to the Division; V. orders that the Municipal Executive of Bladel shall reimburse to [the appellant]

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Corrective powers for violation of article 5.1.f) GDPR For the purposes of

administrative sanctions follows from Section 890 of the Code of Civil Procedure. V. 36 As part of the claim for material damages pursuant to Art. 82 Para. 1 GDPR

By a Grand Chamber judgment of 16 July 2020, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, the Court of Justice

commercial communications with the simple notification of your will to the sender." V For the purposes of setting the sanction to impose on the claimed party, it

(“UAVG”) Decided: 12.08.2019 Published: 15.08.2019 Parties: Manfield Schoenen B.V. National Case Number/Name: 7728204 CV VERZ 19-9686 European Case Law Identifier:

the Municipality of Maastricht, defendant (authorized representative: mr. V.L.S. van Cruijningen). Process sequence By decision of August 24, 2018, the

According to what is indicated, the aforementioned modification should be made. V The LOPDGDD in its article 77, Regime applicable to certain categories of res-

privacy of electronic communications users: Leave.EU & Eldon Insurance Services v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 26 (AAC) at paragraph 26. The Commissioner

allegations to the start-up agreement of the present sanctioning procedure. V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/8 In order to

Regulation is compatible with the sanction consisting of a fine administrative. v In accordance with the evidence available and which has not been distorted

shall bear its own costs of the inspection procedure. O b r a z l o ž i t e v I. Indication of the provisions on which the decision is based: Personal data

regardless of the form in which it appears, cf. Case of Oberschlick (No. 1) v. Austria of 23 May 1991 (Series A. 204). It is also clear that any kind of

Contribution increase due to reduced benefit expenditure (cf. BGH, judgment v. October 20, 2021 - IV ZR 148/20). Once the verification of the basis of account

the rights of the interested parties in accordance with articles 12 to 22; V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/9 Without prejudice

been implemented as required by article 32.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

third paragraphs of Article 4 ZP-1, a warning was issued instead of a fine. V. (Costs of the procedure) On the basis of the first paragraph of Article 144

34;CJEUJudgementof5June2018,UnabhängigesLandeszentrumfürDatenschutzSchleswig- Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-HolsteinGmbH, C-210/16, ECLI: EU:C:2017:796,

printed form in this case and must be kept. The relevant provisions of Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (Ptk.): 2:43 a.m. § [Named personality rights] It

the basis of point a) of § 109, paragraph (1), the seizure is terminated. V. Legal Consequences 1. The Authority is the IV of this decision. based on what

10/edpb_guidelines_202007_controllerprocessor_final_nl.pdf, marginal 58 e.v. 5 Primary education decree of February 25, 1997, Belgian Official Gazette

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v, AEPD and Mario Costeja C-131/12), according to which: "There is a basic difference

home isolation in connection with a confirmed infection of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. In the course of the proceedings, Polish DPA established that unauthorized

European Court of Justice of 29 July 2019, Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV, paragraphs 67-85.

decision on provisional enforceability on 708 No. 6, 711 p. 1 and p. 2 ZPO. V. 36. The determination of the amount in dispute follows from § 53, Subsection

this article. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/9 V Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation and assessed the criteria

third claim is also true. The plaintiff instructed the former employee, Ms. V, to provide real care services for at least one customer, Mr. S, although the

and guarantees established in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; (...) V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, as supervisory

DS-GVO - BDSG - TTDSG, Article 12 margin number. 23; Quaas, in Wolff, Brink, v. Ungern-Sternberg, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 12 GDPR margin number 44

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” v Sanction for the infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD For the purposes

mentioned in this section, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

of € 1,068.00. This judgment was made by mr. JEC Vriends, chairman, and mr. V.M. Schotanus and mr. I.M. Josten, members, in the presence of mr. M.A. de Rooij

Decision The court declares the appeal unfounded. This ruling was made by V.E. van der Does, chairman, and P.J.M. Mol and M.E.J. Sprakel, members, in the

makes the following convincing statements by the OLG Munich reference decision v. 24.11.2021 - 14 U 6205/21, BeckRS 2021, 40311 Rn. 36-50 own: 4.2.1 The tariff

ECLI: EU:C:2017:336, para. 28-31; CJEU, judgment of December 11, 2019, TK v. Asociaţia de Proprietari block M5A-ScaraA, C-708/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1064,

days from the provision of the notification without accessing its contents." V Regarding the amount of the administrative fine that would be imposed, there

36 ff .; VG Düsseldorf, court decision of June 23, 2021 - 29 K 7710/19 -, n.v., In connection with his submission of December 15, 2017, the plaintiff is

addition the exposed images come from several years and date back to 2017. V Regarding these two offenses and the penalties, Article 83.5 of the RGPD refers:

ECHR Decided: 09.01.2020 Published: 09.01.2020 Parties: SPEC ENTERTAINMENT B.V. National Case Number/Name: NL19.10328 European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2020:24

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” v The documentation in the file offers clear indications that the claimed violated

to Google Inc. in the US. Considering that the controller violated Chapter V of the GDPR, a data protection association deployed an automated system – a

exemptions from the obligation to provide information provided for in Article 32 V". Article 32 of the same law, in its wording applicable on the date of the

all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR).” In short, the WOG does not exclude that a person other than the data

information required by the articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V In this case, it is stated that the information provided to the claimant by

C-13/16, Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA 'Rīgas satiksme', recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December

be collected and used. Iv the existence of the right to withdraw consent. V information on the use of data for automated decision-making in accordance

and dated 04/30/2008 where it is stated, among others, the following: “[…] V. That the volume of the Loan Portfolio, the heterogeneity of the Credits that

sFJKT01PLUvNK05K LU7OSC3KzcxLL04sLckvyixJzSxRss60MoSqdHd1dw1z9Qt2cg129nAN8vX0cw92DA3xD/IMcfUMAak0gqkkYGYtAFHdLHE = Decision on merits 149/2023 — 11/36

reserves any further decision. This judgment was rendered on 29 May 2020 by V.E. van der Does, chairman, and L.A. Banga and J.L.W. Broeksteeg, members, in

merits 117/2021 - 8/12 with the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR).” The condition is that the complainant appears to have sufficient interest

out activities included in the scope of application of chapter 2 of title V of the TEU; c) carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities

shall bear its own costs of the inspection procedure. O b r a z l o ž i t e v I. Indication of the provisions on which the decision is based: Personal data

technical and organizational measures to guarantee the security of the treatment. V Article 83.4 a) of the RGPD establishes that: Violations of the following provisions

no accredited basis of legitimacy any for the treatment of data of minors. V The infringement attributed to the defendant is typified in the Article 83

Protection Board, Guidelines 5/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679, v. 1.1 [3] The Danish Data Protection Authority's guidance on consent, section

final holiday allowance statement, as stated under point 8 of the application; V. Chetu Inc. to be ordered to pay the salary of € 3,297.00 gross, plus the holiday

28-35. 8 Prim. for example, the provision of Article 84 of the GDPR. 9 Thus V. Trstenjak, M. Brkan: EU Law - Constitutional, Procedural and Commercial Law

readings and was in any case followed by new rulings (Cass . Pen. section V, n. 6110 of 7 February 2019,) - does not appear suitable to support its defenses

Principles), III (Rights of the data subject), IV (Controllers and processors), V (Transfer of personal data to third countries or to international organisations)

Verbraucherzentralen un Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v. Planet49 GmbH of 1 October 2019; - the Code of Administrative Justice and

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V The processing of personal data requires the existence of a database legal

20; also already: Federal Court of Justice, judgment of September 18, 1992 – V ZR 86/91 – para. 13). The tenor of the regional court "step by step against

Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of September 5, 2019, reference 494-30566;V. revokes the decision of 31 October 2018, reference AVG2018_031;VI. determines

Faber and Mag. Pertmayr as additional judges in the case of the plaintiff J* V*, represented by Mag. Robert Haupt, LL.M., lawyer in Vienna, against the defendant

by money order or postal order Based on point b) of paragraph (1) of § 51.V. Other questions: (42) The competence of the Authority is defined by Infotv

para. 38. 9By analogy from CJEU, January 11, 2024, C-231-22, , Belgian State v. Data Protection Authority, (ECLI:EU:C:2024:7), para. 43. Decision 67/2024

"media" branch, managed for Europe by the subsidiary VERIZON MEDIA NETHERLANDS B.V, located in the Netherlands. This company has several subsidiaries, including

The decision on administrative fees from May 2nd, 2019 (decision number: V...) in the form of the objection decision from August 14th, 2019 is lawful

particular the data subjects who are applicants for an insurance offer; and v. " Which involves the processing of personal data ", in this case the license

functions in the general context of the proceedings (see, among others, Mayzit v. Russia, January 20, 2005). 64. The restricted session notes, first of all

conditions of legitimacy established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V For the purposes of deciding on the imposition of an administrative fine and

an end legitimate (D.L. v. Bulgaria, No. 7472/14, May 19, 2016, Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, January 15, 2015, Peck v. United Kingdom, no. 44647/98

Report by LPD [...], BPK [...], PI [...], dated 25.04.2018, GZ. PAD/[...]/VStV, commercial register query on FN [...] of 28.08.2018, online research on the

Number/Name: IC-45844-V2X8 European Case Law Identifier: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2020/2618241/ic-45844-v2x8.pdf Appeal: n/a

April 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91, C- 337/15 P, European Ombudsman v. Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91). 36. Taking into account the above

required. It is up to you to demonstrate the infringement yourself (cf. VGH BW, U.v. 17.2.2014 - 5 S 3254/11 - juris; Hoppe in Eyermann, VwGO, 15th edition 2019

consists of the name, surname and ID of the person who took charge of same. V Article 83.5 b) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of “the rights

operations are implemented in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. V. On breaches of the GDPR 1.A breach of the obligation to have a legal basis

authorities and public employees that may appear in the requested documentation. v With regard to the rest of the information that may be contained in the file

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment", states that: "1.

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (...)” V 1. The documentation in the file offers clear indications that the claimed

position is reflected in decisions of the Human Rights Committee Humans – (Toonen v. Australia case 1994) and in general observations of the Committee on Economic

Court of Justice of the European Union judgement on “Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzáles”

activities established in article 30 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) ”. V The LOPDGDD in its article 77, “Regime applicable to certain categories of

ICO. Information Commissioner's Office Leave.EU & Eldon Insurance Services v InformatioCommissioner [2021] UKUT 26 (AAC) at paragraph 26. The Commissioner

Date: 10 November 2020 Complainant: XX Data Controller: Ryanair DAC RE: XX V Ryanair DAC This document is a decision of the Data Protection Commission of

suitable for justifying the asserted right (cf. BGH, judgment of April 28, 2023 - V ZR 270/21, juris ), however, this text-based lecture does not meet these requirements

Article 48 EC (see, to that effect, Case C-501/11 P Schindler Holding and Others v Commission [2013] ECR, paragraph 102). The Court of Justice has consistently

administrative law. Foundations and principles, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2017, 384-385. 8H.v.J., C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P, Chronopost and La Poste/UFEX and Others, 1 July

18/10/1989, Orkem v. Commission (374/87, 6/57 Recueil) and the judgment of the General Court of 20/2/2001, Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission (T112/98)

Contact and Operating Restrictions Ordinance (hereinafter "CoKoBeV"; also "CoronaVKBBeschrV HE 2020b"). Paragraph2 On 10 March 2021, the applicant applied

that the DPO is able to carry out his tasks in an independent manner and that V was the obvious choice for the DPO. The DPO is based in Dublin but is able

visit, finding 12 (i). 52Minutes relating to the on-site visit, finding 12 (v). 53 Statement of Objections, points 81 and 82. __________________________

61 Draft Decision, paragraph 7.129 (x). 62 Draft Decision, paragraph 7.129 (v). 63 Draft Decision, paragraph 7.98. According to the Draft Decision, an alternative

court Supreme Court Decision date June 23, 2021 Business number 6Ob87 / 21v head The Supreme Court, as a court of appeal by the Senate President Hon.-Prof

(rights of the data subject), Chapter IV (controller and processor) Chapter V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organizations)

judgment. This ruling was given by J.J. Catsburg, chairman, and M.C. Stoové and V.E. van der Does, members, in the presence of M.L. Bressers, registrar. This

of the European Union (CJEU), judgment of 11 November 2019 (C - 708/18) TK v. Asociatia de Porpietari bloc MA-ScaraA, rulings and regarding Article 7 f)

scope of the Council Decree (hereinafter: General Data Protection Decree). III-V of the General Data Protection Regulation. and VI/A. In Chapter, as well as

in the context of activities falling within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU, c) by natural persons for the exercise of exclusively personal

no. 28) - he or she is the sole "subject of protection" (OVG Lüneburg, Urt. v. 20.6.2019, 11 LC 121/17). Consequently, the right to information is only available

the registration relationship of the plaintiff, his wife S. T. and his son V. T. " and in the event an unsuccessful expiry of the deadline by the plaintiff

guarantees established in the Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) ”. V Second, article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1

person in charge, unless required to do so under Union or State law members". V In accordance with the evidence available at the present time of agreement

guarantees established two in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Article 83 “General conditions for the imposition of administrative fines”

See also EDPB – Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights – Right of access (v1.0, 18 January 2022), para. 46 and 104-106. 6 Cf. criterion A.2. in the dismissal

Protection, to certain persons who had not received a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 by a deadline, sent a letter in which he informed about the risk of becoming

offices, for which he provides two PDF files and associated screenshots "(v. note of the XX, p. 7). In particular, the Institute represented that: - the

Member States in the context of activities that fall within the scope of Title V Chapter 2 EUV, c) by natural persons to carry out exclusively personal or family

under the Regulation general data protection policy. The provisions of Chapter V of the Clinical Trials Regulation relating to informed consent, in particular

.......................................... ............................25 V Response to allegations regarding non-compliance with article 35 GDPR27 VI

of the forth Austrian Covid-19 Protection Ordinance (§ 19 4. COVID-19-SchuMaV), it had to check whether customers are wearing face masks and, if not, verify

October 13, 1994 (GVBl. P. 435) - SchuldatenV -, last changed on September 15, 2010 (GVBl. P. 446). The SchuldatenV shows that changing schools does not justify

sentence of Section 6 of the AutomatFahrV). (see also the penultimate and last sentence of paragraph 6, the AutomatFahrV). Requirements 2.d to 2.f serve to

Kulartz/Kus/Marx/Portz/Prieß, VgV, § 53 paragraph 64). According to the justification for the draft bill, Section 53 (7) VgV serves to make the information

track the state of health and the movements of confirmed patients with SARS-CoV-2. The IP opined that a DPIA would be mandatory and that EU member states should

of the original infringement that has implied the commission of the other. V In the event of an infringement of the RGPD precepts, among the corrective

against the private company with limited liability T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS B.V., located in The Hague, defendant, hereinafter referred to as: T-Mobile, lawyer

where the user is informed about the necessary characteristics of cookies. V- Violation of the Cookies Policy The known facts could constitute an infraction

communications services for the supply of such services". 14. The DPA contains, at Part V, enforcement powers which are exercisable by the Commissioner. Under section

correct such error, duly exercising your right to rectify your personal data. V Modalities of exercise of the rights of the interested party Article 12 "Transparency

accordance with as required by article 32.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 ”. (…) " V The RGPD, without prejudice to what is established in its article 83, contemplates

to the regulations in force, indicated in section III of the Legal Basis. V-Initial total sanction: In accordance with the criteria set out in the previous

violations of the right to the protection of personal data required by Art. 8 Para. V. m. 1 Abs. 1 GG derived right to informational self-determination (cf. BVerfG

available in the moment of treatment as technological advances ”(recital 26 RGPD). V With regard to information relating to third parties that may appear in the

public particularly affect their interests (cf. BGH, decision of 27.03.2003 - V ZR 291/02 , juris para. 5). A legal question needs to be clarified if different

have been held with A.N., previously chief negotiator at Livsmedelsföretagen, V.K., former negotiator at The food companies and contract manager for the tobacco

activities of a professional and commercial nature (EIKo 13710/88, Niemietz v. Germany, 16.12.1992). The Data Protection Inspectorate does not agree with

relation to the purposes for those who are processed ("data minimization");" V Treatment for which the claimed party is responsible and nature of the data

2018 - VI ZR 128/18 -, para. 9, juris and judgment of September 18th, 2009 - V ZR 75/08 -, para. 12, juris, each with further references). 82That is what

of Taxes, C-26-62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1; CJEU of 15 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., C-6-64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66; on the legal protection of citizens on

procedures aimed at ascertaining the professional requirement of anti SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (art. 4 of Legislative Decree No. 44 of

administrative work (§ 1 Para. 1 SchuldatenV), and, in accordance with the specific purpose of § 2 Para. 1 Sentence 1 SchuldatenV, serves on the one hand to improve

pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) of the Regulation (cf. OGH 30.01.2017, 6 Ob 178/16v, jusIT 2017/52, 117 (Bergauer), according to which a deletion under section

purposes for the purposes of credit rating without legal basis for the treatment. v. The interested party is not informed about the profiling operation related

Data Protection Regulation) General Data Protection Regulation in Annexes III-V. and VI / A. Chapter and Section 3, Sections 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21

measures to mitigate them in accordance with the provisions of article 35 RGPD. V Biometric data is closely linked to a person, given who can use a certain unique

of the data subject" (art. 9 , paragraph 2, letter b), of the Regulation; v. as well, art. 88, par. 1 and cons. 51-53 of the Regulation). Therefore, although

determined with certainty whether actually personal data of the complainant i. S.v. Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR were processed, or whether it was rather data from a “laboratory

GDPR). In this respect, the CJEU's judgment of 28 June 2018 in M.L. and W.W. v. Germany suggests that the balancing of interests in question may lead to different

the 4 Court adm. February 2, 2016, No. 37452C of the roll, Pas. adm. 2020, V ° Foreigners, n ° 809 7 pleadings, if not the possibility, conferred on him

by Member States in the course of activities covered by Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; (c) by natural persons exclusively in the course of their personal

the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-434/16 Peter Nowak v Commission , C-343/16). For the reasons set out above, the EDPS considers that

and properly carried out”. Since then, according to § 41 sentence 2 TVöD-BT-V, only employees entrusted with the performance of sovereign tasks have had

violation of article 32.1 of the RGPD, offense typified in its article 83.4.a). V The complainant has alleged the non-applicability of the RGPD since when the

sanctions would thus be compromised (Trib. EU, February 29, 2016, Schenker v. European Commission, Case T-265/12, paragraph 193). 200. The restricted session

to the objectives pursued […] (see judgment of 12 December 2012, Electrabel v Commission, T‑332/09, EU:T:2012 :672, paragraph 279 and the case-law cited

the interested party" (art. 9 , paragraph 2, letter b), of the Regulation; v. also: art. 88, par. 1 and cons. 51-53 of the Regulation). Furthermore, the

to the objectives pursued […] (see judgment of 12 December 2012, Electrabel v Commission, T ‑ 332/09, EU: T: 2012: 672, paragraph 279) and the case-law cited

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V 1. It should be noted that data processing requires the existence of a legal

establishment of a temporary information system for the combat against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to the government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Jozef Stefan

an affidavit (Application II.). There is no legal basis for such a claim. V. The plaintiff is entitled to inspect the files relating to the applications

ECLI:EU:C:2012:684. 8 cf. CJEU 4 April 2017, C-337/15 P, European Ombudsman v Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256. 9 cf. ABRvS 1 April 2020, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:898

on questions of law (cf. ECHR 5 September 2002, Appl. no. 42057/98, Speil v. Austria). Also according to the case law of the Constitutional Court, an oral