Search results

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction (Article 18 GDPR), notification (Article 19 GDPR) or data

Category:Article 83 GDPR The wording “infringements of this Regulation” in Article 83(1) GDPR is slightly imprecise. In fact, Article 83(5)(d) GDPR also provides

deadline. Therefore, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 58(1) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. The DPA thus fined the controller €300. The Romanian DPA

provisions of Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(f), and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) and €50 (for violating Article 58(1)(a), 58(1)(e) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR). Thus, the

basis in Article 6 GDPR. Neither consent nor any other legal basis were applicable. Consequently, pursuant to the Articles 83(5)(a) and 83(5)(e), the DPA

provide information and allow access to personal data according to Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The controller did not comply. Since the data controller did

Control SA violated the GDPR. The DPA highlighted that failing to provide such information upon request was in breach of Article 83(5)(e) in conjuncture with

typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'. The same Article states that

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

infringement of article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, in an initial assessment, the The following factors are considered to be concurrent: - No direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD

non-compliance with this measure, the sanction referred to in Article 83, paragraph 5, letter e) of the Regulation shall be applied at the administrative level

had violated the provisions of Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR by not granting the information

provide the information requested by the DPA violated Article 58(1) GDPR and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. In conclusion, the Romanian DPA fined the controller

Romanian DPA found that the data controller has violated the provisions of Article 83 (5)(e), by not responding to the Romanian DPA's request of information, during

result, the controller was found in breach of GDPR Article 58(1) and was fined under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR approximately EUR 4,000 (RON 19795.6) and was

responding to the DPA's request for information, Dreamtime Call violated Article 85(3)(e) GDPR. The DPA fined Dreamtime Call approximately €2000 (RON 9.852,2),

to provide the requested information, in violation of Articles 83(5)(e) and 58(1)(a) and (e), and asked for the relevant information to be sent within five

provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. e) of the General Regulation on Data Protection and violation of the provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. b) of the General

liability in Article 83, Clause 5, Sub-paragraph e) of GDPR. 4.9. The official finds that the SIA is guilty of the violation provided for in Article 83, Clause

lit. a) and lit. e) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) Regulation of the