Search results

possible "legitimate interest" under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Equally to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR require that Union or Member State

specialized website. AG Bobek is also of the opinion that Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR do not preclude national rules from laying down, without

Articles 6(1)(c) and (e), 6(3) and 9(1) GDPR. The preliminary questions concern the issue whether the existence of a legal obligation – Article 6(1)(c) GDPR

proportionality of the measure under Article 6(4) GDPR, in accordance with the objectives referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR. It recalled that these objectives

their health status, without appropriate legal grounds, as required by art. 6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against

instruction, under Article 28(1) GDPR. Thus, it has not been decided on whether or not MaCom could process information in accordance with Article 6(3)(a), (1)(a)

par. 1, letter a) and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b) and Article 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, caused by the conduct of the

Articles 6(1)(c) or 6(1)(e). Therefore, the DPA issued a sanction of €2000 against the Municipality for violating Articles 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b).

with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, under Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR. In this case, the compliants' personal data remained published

to be heard by the Authority, within 30 days (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code, and Article 18, paragraph 1, by Law No. 689 of 24/11/1981)

with art. 5 and 6 of the GDPR? The DPA held that Regione Campania violated art 5(1)(a)(c), art. 6(1)(c)(e), art. 6(2) and art. 6(3)(b) GDPR, and concluded

Municipality lawful in accordance with Articles 5(1)(c), 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b) GDPR? The DPA held that the disclosure of the personal data by

Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. c, para. 3 sentence 1, Art. 86 GKG § 47 (1), § 52 (2), § 53 (2) no. 2, § 63 (3) sentence 1 no. 2, § 66 (3) sentence 3, § 68

the processing, together with the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter c or e, cf. Article 6 No. 3, as of Arendal municipality is stated as a basis for

legal basis for processing the data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The Latvian DPA also held that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR could not be relied upon as a legal basis

the present case. Under Article 6.3.b) andof recital 45 of the GDPR, processing based on Article 6.1.e) must fulfill twoconditions:- The data controller

reasons, article 780, 3° of the Judicial Code, article 149 of the Constitution and article 6 of the ECHR - the pleas not explicitly stated. 17.3.3. The Procurement

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

legal obligation within the meaning of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The second and third question Since Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is the legal basis for the controller's

communications under Article 14 GDPR were not legally necessary, as in the present case, Article 23 GDPR restrictions were applicable. Article 23 GDPR establishes