Search results

freedoms of individuals", as stated in Article 35(1) and further elucidated in Article 35(3) and Article 35(4) GDPR. The WP29 developed a list of criteria

Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and 35, para. 1. Below

regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letters c and f, and Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, cf. Article 6, subsection 1, and Article

regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, Article 24, cf. Article 28, subsection 1, Article 35, subsection 1, as well as

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

this processing, in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR; It violated Article 13(1) and (1) GDPR, and Article 5(1) GDPR by failing to adequately inform data

of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR -public interest and exercise of official authority vested in it, which falls within the exception of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. It

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

controller €400,000 pursuant of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR for the failure to conduct a DPIA in violation with Articles 35(1), 35(2), and 35(3)(b). The DPA stated that

obligations arising from Article 5(1)(e) of the GDPR. D. On the breach of the transparency obligation 36. Article 12(1) of the GDPR provides that "the controller

of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 6.1.c), 6.3, 9.2.i), 12.1, 13.1.c), 13.2.a), 13.2.d), 13.2.e), 30.1.a) and 30.1.d), 35.1 and 35.7 of the GDPR 9. The applicant

Childrens and Education Board 300,000 SEK (around €26,524) for breaching Article 35(1) GDPR. The Board failed to conduct a data protection impact assesment prior

Galway County Council, the DPC found violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 35(1) GDPR. The Irish DPC started an own volition inquiry

thereby violating Article 13(2) GDPR. The investigated controllers did not comply with the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1) GDPR because the data

airport for violation of Articles 5(1)(c), 6(1)(e), 9(2)(g), 12, 13(1)(c), 13(2)(e), 35(1), 35(3) and 35(7)(b) GDPR. It also fined the medical service €20

measures under Article 24 GDPR and 25 GDPR. However, the DPA considered that in this case, the violations of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and 32 GDPR were sufficient

the decision where it applied Article 35 GDPR in this case. This might imply that there was a confusion with Article 35 data protection impact assessment

violation of Article 24(1) and (2) GDPR (responsibility of the controller), Article 25 GDPR (privacy by design and by default) or of Article 32 GDPR (obligation

be equivalent to a DPIA under Article 35 GDPR. For this reason, the AP held that the controller violated Article 35(1) GDPR. In this, the AP considered it

of: 1. Article 5.1.f) and 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR, Article 25.1 of the GDPR and Articles 32.1 and 32.2 GDPR; 2. Articles 35.1, 35.2, 35