Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the GDPR, this right is defined in various sections of Article 15. There is also a right to access in the GDPR's partner legislation, the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive. [ 5 ] The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has considered it "necessary to provide more precise guidance on how the right of access has to be implemented in ...
The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. [15] ... (ANSPDCP) used a GDPR request to demand information on the RISE Project's sources. ...
The Data Protection Directive, officially Directive 95/46/EC, enacted in October 1995, was a European Union directive which regulated the processing of personal data within the European Union (EU) and the free movement of such data.
[15] In Switzerland, the right to privacy is guaranteed in article 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution. The Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DPA) [16] and the Swiss Federal Data Protection Ordinance (DPO) entered into force on July 1, 1993. The latest amendments of the DPA and the DPO entered into force on January 1, 2008.
Following GDPR: "A copy of your personal data should be provided free. An organisation may charge for additional copies. It can only charge a fee if it thinks the request is 'manifestly unfounded or excessive'. If so, it may ask for a reasonable fee for administrative costs associated with the request." [29]
Directive 2002/58/processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector European Union directive Made by European Parliament & Council Made under Art. 95 Journal reference L201, 2002-07-31, pp. 37 – 47 History Date made 2002-07-12 Entry into force 2002-07-31 Implementation date 2003-10-31 Preparative texts EESC opinion C123, 2001-01-24, p. 53 EP ...
Violating Articles 5(1)(c) and 13 GDPR in relation to a video surveillance system in an apartment building. [58] 2021-04-15 Vodafone Espana, S.A.U. €150,000 (reduced to €90,000) Spain Violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR by processing personal data without consent or any other legal basis. When imposing the fine, the AEPD took into account:
[2] [8] [15] The court considered the material scope of the Directive first. The court rejected Google's submission, supported by the Advocate General, that it could not be regarded as a data controller within the scope of the Data Protection Directive, adopting a literal interpretation of article 2(b), giving definitions and relying on Lindqvist.