Search results

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). Although Article 25(1) mentions that the measures

mechanism referred to in Article 63 GDPR (Article 28(8) GDPR). The Commission has made use of its power under Article 28(7) GDPR and published standard contractual

registered letter in violation of article 15 (1) cond. 12 par. 2, 3 and 4 GDPR and c) 30,000 euros for violation of Article 25 (1) GDPR because it did not in practice

processing of personal data meets the legal requirements, in breach of Article 25(1) GDPR. Finally, the DPA stated that the response to the access request was

Vodafone S.p.A in violation of the following GDPR provisions: Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and Article 25(1): for failing to implement control systems of

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

this from happening, in violation with Article 24(1), Article 24(2), and Article 25(1) GDPR. According to Article 24(4) of the Finish Data Protection Act

necessary. For the intentional infringement of Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 5(1)(a), (c), and (e) GDPR, the authority imposed a pecuniary penalty of €14

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

coming into force of the GDPR, the DPA found that the company still did not comply. How do Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR apply to archives? The

of natural persons who decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. The DPA examined the rules for the removal of identification data displayed

HDPA held that COSMOTE violated Article 25(1) GDPR, because the processing for statistical purposes under Article 89(1) GDPR should have been done with anonymised

Commissioner held that CYTA violated articles 5 (1), 24 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and (2) and 32 of the GDPR and instructed CYTA to establish such security measures

violation of article 5 par. 1 item. e' of the GDPR, b) reprimanded the OASA for the violations of the provisions of article 25 par. 1 and article 35 par. 1 of the

information provided to data subjects was less than that required by the GDPR, and the information was not provided in an intelligible and easily accessible

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