General data protection regulation GDPR

GENERAL DATA
PROTECTION
REGULATION (GDPR)
Chapter 1
1

Summary
The General Data Protection Regulation offers a uniform, Europe-wide ability for so-called ‘order processing’. Order
processing is the gathering, processing or use of personal data by an order processor in accordance with the
instructions of those responsible for the data processing based on a contract.
The relevant regulations for order processing are already applied if the processing is connected to activities of a
branch within the EU. This means that it is sufficient if either the person responsible or the order processor operates
a branch in the EU, and the processing is connected to this work. In a constellation of order processing, the joint
persons responsible (Art. 26 of the GDPR) are those who together define the purposes and means for the data
processing, and who are also jointly responsible for these. The persons responsible must ensure, in selecting the
order processor, that it has implemented sufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure that the rules of
the regulation are complied with.
In most cases, order processing proceeds based on a contract. Art. 28, para. 3 of the GDPR sets forth the minimum
requirements. This must contain, among other things, what type of personal data will be processed, as well as the
object and purpose of the processing. In addition, there are further obligations for the order processor. For example,
it must also maintain an index of the processing activities which includes the names and contact data for each
person responsible who is working on which order, as well as the processing categories which are conducted for
them. Furthermore, the index must include, if applicable, the transfer of personal data to third countries and, if
possible, a general description of technical and organisational measures.
Basically, the person responsible is the first contact for those impacted, and for compliance with data processing
legal requirements. This does not mean, however, that the order processor is free of liability. According to Art. 82 of
the GDPR, he is jointly liable with the persons responsible. However, the order processor’s liability is limited as per
para. 2 to violations of duties which are specific to him. Both parties have the ability to exculpate themselves. To do
this, they must prove that they were not responsible in any way for the circumstances leading to the damages.
2

Personal Data
The term ‘personal data’ is the entryway to application of the Data Protection Basic Regulation and is defined in Art. 4 para. 1 no.
1. Personal data are all information which is related to an identified or identifiable natural person.
Those impacted are identifiable if they can be identified, especially using assignment to an identifier such as a name, an
identifying number, location data, an online identifier or one of several special characteristics, which expresses the physical,
physiological, genetic, mental, commercial, cultural or social identity of these natural persons. In practice, these also include all
data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. For example, the telephone number, credit card or personnel
number of a person, account data, number plate, appearance and customer number or address are all personal data.
Since the definition includes “all information,” one must assume that the term “personal data” should be as broadly interpreted as
possible. This is also found in case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. These include also less-clear information,
such as recordings of work times which include information about the time when an employee begins and ends his work day, as
well as breaks or times which do not fall in work time. Also, written answers from a test-taker and any remarks from the test about
these answers are “personal data” if the test-taker can be theoretically identified. The same also applies to IP addresses. If the
processor has the legal option to oblige the provider to publish additional information which can identify the user who is behind the
IP address, this is also personal data. In addition, one must note that personal data need not be objective. Subjective information
such as opinions, judgements or estimates can be personal data. Thus, this includes an assessment of creditworthiness of a
person or an estimate of work performance by an employer.
Last but not least, the law states that the information for a personnel reference must refer to a natural person. In other words, data
protection does not apply to information about legal entities such as corporations, foundations and institutions. For natural
persons, on the other hand, protection begins and is extinguished with legal capacity. Basically, a person obtains this capacity with
his birth, and loses it upon his death. Data must therefore be assignable to specific or specifiable living persons for reference to a
person.
In addition to general personal data, one must consider above all the special categories of personal data (also known as sensitive
personal
data) which are highly relevant because they are subject to a higher level of protection. These data include genetic, biometric and
health data, as well as personal data from which racial and ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or ideological convictions or
membership in a union can be attributed to a person.
3

Data Protection Officer
The concept of a Data Protection Officer was created in Europe with the General Data Protection Regulation. The obligation to
appoint a Data Protection Officer impacts companies depending upon their core activities which are essential to achieving their
goals. This includes processing of personal data or data processing which is particularly decisive to those impacted. These
companies must appoint an operational Data Protection Officer. In addition, the regulation to appoint a Data Protection Officer
also has an escape clause for Member States. These States are free to decide whether to appoint an operating Data Protection
Officer at a company under narrow conditions. If such an obligation exists under the General Data Protection Regulation or a
national law, corporate groups can also appoint a joint operating Data Protection Officer. Their location must be easily reached by
external stakeholders, supervisory authorities and employees.
Groups and companies have two possibilities to meet their obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer. Either they name an
employee as an internal Data Protection Officer, or they appoint an external Data Protection Officer. In selecting such a person,
they must ensure that an internal Data Protection Officer is not subject to conflicts of interest, such as because he is an
employee in the IT Department, HR Department or senior management, and must inspect himself. Regardless of which option is
chosen, a Data Protection Officer must provide some professional knowledge in data protection law and IT security which
includes the complexity of data processing and the size of the company.
Duties of the Data Protection Officer include: Acting on the compliance to all relevant data protection regulations, monitoring
specific processes, such as data protection impact assessments, employee awareness and training employees, as well as
collaboration with authorities. Therefore, the operating Data Protection Officer must not be recalled or disadvantaged due to his
fulfilment of his tasks. Despite the monitoring function, the company itself remains responsible for compliance with data
protection regulations. The Data Protection Officer is therefore bound to “properly and in a timely manner, in all issues which
relate to the protection of personal data”. When the Data Protection Officer is appointed, his superior must publish his contact
data, and communicate his appointment and contact data to authorities.
Wilful or negligent failure to appoint a corporate Data Protection Officer is an offence subject to fines.
4

Email Marketing
Newsletter mailing, and email marketing are part of the fixed online marketing universe. Basically, prohibition with opt-in permission also applies
here for the processing of personal data. Processing is only allowed by law if either there is a consent by those impacted, or a statutory
justification. This could be, for example, preserving the justified interests of the person responsible for sending email marketing. Recital 47 of the
General Data Protection Regulation expressly states that the law also applies to the processing of personal data for direct marketing as a
legitimate interest of the person responsible.
In addition, such an interest could be present, for example, if there is a relevant and proportionate relationship between the persons concerned
and the person responsible. This could be the case if the person involved is a customer of the person responsible or is in the latter’s service.
Therefore, much indicates that email marketing is allowed without consent, at least for existing customers. If the company has a justified interest
in ‘cold’ acquisition through email marketing, the marketing emails can be allowed to potential customers without consent. To receive no further
information by newsletter or email, the customer receiving them need only object to processing for marketing purposes.
One must note, however, that according to Art. 95 of the General Data Protection Regulation, this applies to all data protection-related purposes
unless special rules with the same regulatory target are contained in the ePrivacy directive (see also recital 173). The consequence is that email
marketing is currently only allowed with the consent of those impacted. (Art. 13, para. 1 of RL 2002/58/EC). One must wait to see whether the
coming ePrivacy regulation provides more clarity about this issue.
Regardless of whether a company supports the marketing measures afterwards on its justified interest or on consent, the obligation arises for the
person responsible to adhere to comprehensive information obligations. Their contents are differentiated using which justification reason is
selected.
5

Privacy by Design
“Privacy by Design” and “Privacy by Default” have been frequently-discussed topics related to data protection. The first thoughts of “Privacy by
Design” were expressed in the 1970s and were incorporated in the 1990s into the RL 95/46/EC data protection directive. According to recital 46
in this Directive, technical and organisational measures (TOM) must be taken already at the time of planning a processing system to protect data
safety.
The term “Privacy by Design” means nothing more than “data protection through technology design.” Behind this is the thought that data
protection in data processing procedures is best adhered to when it is already integrated in the technology when created. Nevertheless, there is
still uncertainty about what “Privacy by Design” means, and how one can implement it. This is due, on the one hand, to incomplete
implementation of the Directive in some Member States and, on the other hand, that the principle “Privacy by Design” which is in the General Data
Protection Regulation, that the current approach in the data protection guidelines, which requires persons responsible already to include
definitions of the means for processing TOMs at the time that they are defined in order to fulfil the basics and requirements of “Privacy by Design”.
Legislation leaves completely open which exact protective measures are to be taken. As an example, one only need name pseudonymisation. No
more detail is given in recital 78 of the regulation. At least in other parts of the law, encryption is named, as well as anonymisation of data as
possible protective measures. Furthermore, user authentication and technical implementation of the right to object must be considered. In
addition, when selecting precautions, one can use other standards, such as ISO standards. When selecting in individual cases, one must ensure
that the state of the art as well as reasonable implementation costs are included.
In addition to the named criteria, the type, scope, circumstances and purpose of the processing must be considered. This must be contrasted with
the various probability of occurrence and the severity of the risks connected to the processing. The text of the law leads one to conclude that often
several protective measures must be used with one another to satisfy statutory requirements. In practice, this consideration is already performed
in an early development phase when setting technology decisions. Recognised certification can serve as an indicator to authorities that the
persons responsible have complied with the statutory requirements of “Privacy by Design”.
6

Privacy Impact Assessments
The instrument for a privacy impact assessment (PIA) or data protection impact assessment (DPIA) was introduced
with the EU data protection basic regulation (Art. 35 of the GDPR). This has to do with the obligation of persons
responsible to conduct an impact assessment and to document it before starting planned data processing. One can
bundle the assessment for several processing procedures.
Basically, a data protection impact assessment must always be conducted when the processing could result in a high
risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. In addition, it must be performed if one of the rule examples set
forth in Art. 35 (3) of the GDPR is relevant. The supervisory authorities should specify the formulation adhered to for
the basic implementation obligation. In a first draft, the Article 29 Working Party created ten criteria which form an
index for high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person, such as scoring/profiling, automatic decisions,
which lead to legal consequences for those impacted, systematic monitoring, processing of special personal data,
data which is processed in a large scope, the putting together or combining of data which was gathered by various
processes, data about incapacitated people, or those with limited ability to act, use of newer technologies or
biometric procedures, data transfer to countries outside the EU/EEC, and data processing which hinders those
involved in exercising their rights. A privacy impact assessment is not necessary if a processing procedure fulfil only
one of these criteria. If several criteria are met, however, the risk to those involved is higher, and a data protection
impact assessment is absolutely required. If there is doubt, and it is difficult to find the limits, a DPIA must always be
conducted. This must be repeated at least every three years.
In addition, authorities must be given a list in their area of responsibility and be published, and the procedural
operations must be displayed in which a privacy impact assessment must be performed. They are also free to
publish procedural operations must be published that do not specifically require publication. If a company has
appointed a Data Protection Officer, his advice must be used when conducting the DPIA. How and by what criteria
the impacts and risks for those impacted are assessed are open for the most part. The first templates were related
to the inspection schemes of ISO standards or standard data protection models.
7

Records of Processing Activities
The data protection basic regulation obligates, as per Art. 30 of the GDPR, written documentation and overview of
procedures by which personal data are processed. Records of processing activities must include significant
information about data processing, including data categories, the group of impacted people, the purpose of the
processing and the data receivers. This must be completely provided to authorities upon request.
The obligation to create records of processing activities is not only incumbent upon persons responsible and their
representative, but also directly on processing employees and their representatives as in Art. 30(2) of the GDPR.
Companies or institutions with fewer than 250 employees are exceptionally freed from creating an index if the
processing undertaken does not pose a risk to the rights and freedoms of those concerned, if no processing of
special data categories is done, or if the processing is done only occasionally as it is indicated in Art. 30(5) GDPR. In
practice, this waiver is rarely applicable. Apart from any difficulties which occur in designing what is “only
occasional,” most companies – even with a broad interpretation of the term – must clearly create regular data
processing procedures, including for the website, their web shop, salary calculation or CRM systems. Above all,
companies which have had no procedural index, will be subject to additional bureaucratic expense. Thus, one must
note that the obligation for documentation and therefore records of processing activities will be a focus of
authorities’ inspections within the data protection basic regulation.
If a company does not maintain records of processing activities and/or does not provide a complete index to
authorities, they are subject to fines according to Art. 83(4)(a) of the GDPR. The possible fines can be up to 10
million euros or 2% of their annual turnover. This total is, as a rule, only assessed by the authorities in exceptional
cases. For this, the authorities must, as set forth in recital 13, “consider the special needs of the smallest
companies as well as small and medium companies in the application of this regulation.”
8

Right of Access
The right of access plays a
central role in the General
Data Protection
Regulation. On the one
hand, as soon as the right
of access becomes
possible, further rights
(such as authorisation and
erasure) must apply. On
the other hand,
information that is omitted
or incomplete is subject to
fine.
The answer to a request for information includes two
stages. First, the responsible person must check
whether any personal data of the person seeking
information is being processed at all. In this case,
one must report a positive or negative result. Should
the answer be positive, the second stage includes a
bandwidth of information. The right of access
includes information about the processing purposes,
the processing category of personal data, the
receiver or categories of receivers, the planned
duration of storage or criteria for their definition,
information about the rights of those impacted such
as correction, erasure or restrictions to processing,
the right to object to this processing, instructions on
the complaint rights to the authorities, information
about the origin of the data, as long as these were
not given by the person himself, and any existence of
an automated decision-taking process, including
profiling with meaningful information about the logic
involved as well as the implications and intended
effects of such procedures. Finally, if the personal
data is transmitted to an unsecure third country, they
must be informed of all suitable guarantees which
were made.
Information can be
transmitted to the
impacted person as per
Art. 12 para. 1 sentences
2 and 3 of the GDPR
depending upon the facts
in writing, electronically or
verbally. According to the
Art. 12(3) Information
must be communicated
quickly but at latest within
one month. Only in
justified exceptional cases
may this one-month
deadline be exceeded. The
information is, as a rule,
given without payment. If,
in addition, further copies
are requested, one can
request a reasonable
payment which reflects
administrative costs. In
addition, the responsible
party can also refuse
granting information to an
affected person in the
case of unjustified or
excessive requests.
Responsible parties
additionally have the right,
if there is a large volume of
information about the
impacted person being
processed, that they share
their right of access
regarding processing or
information.
9

Right to be Forgotten
The correspondingly-named standard primarily regulates erasure obligations. According to this, personal data must be erased immediately as long
as the data are no longer needed for their original processing purpose, or the impacted person has withdrawn his consent and there is no other
reason for justification, the impacted person has objected and there is no preferential justified reason for the processing, or erasure is required to
fulfil a statutory obligation under the EU law or the right of the Member States. In addition, data must of course be erased if the processing itself
was against the law.
The responsible person is therefore subject on the one hand to automatic statutory erasure obligations, and must, on the other hand, comply with
the impacted person’s desire to be erased. The law does not further describe how the data must be erased in individual cases. The decisive
element is that the result is that it is no longer possible to see the data without disproportionate expense. One regards this effort as sufficient if the
media has been physically destroyed, or the data is permanently over-written using special software.
In addition, the right to be forgotten is found in Art. 17 para. 2 of the GDPR. If the responsible party has published the personal data, and if one of
the above reasons to erasure is present, he must take suitable measures with consideration of the circumstances to inform all those who are
further responsible for the data processing that all links to this personal data or copies or replicates of the personal data must be erased.
An application of erasure is not subject to any form, and the responsible party need not link it to such a form. However, the identity of the impacted person must be
proven in a suitable way, as otherwise additional information could be requested from the responsible party, or the erasure could be refused. If there is an application
to erase or a statutory obligation to erase, this must be implemented quickly. This means that the responsible party only has a suitable time to check the conditions
for erasure. In the case of an application for erasure, the impacted party must be informed within one month about the measures taken or the reasons for refusal.
Once again, the right to be forgotten is reflected in the obligation to notify. In addition to erasure, according to Art. 19 of the GDPR the responsible entity must inform
all receivers of the data. For this, he must use all means available and exhaust all appropriate measures.
10

Third
Countries
It is essential these days to transmit data to third countries as part of international
trade and cooperation. Examining the permissibility of such a transfer is done in two
stages.
First, the data transfer itself must be permissible. Any processing of personal data is
subject to a prohibition if permission is reserved. In addition to consent, Art. 6 of the
GDPR sets forth further justification reasons, such as fulfilling a contract or
protecting vital interests. For special personal data which requires a higher level of
protection, the permission text of Art. 9 of the GDPR applies.
If the planned data transfer meets the general conditions, one must check in a
second step whether transfer to the third country is permitted. One must
differentiate between secure and unsecure third countries. Secure third countries
are those for which the European Commission has confirmed a suitable level of
protection in a decision of appropriateness. They provide in their national laws for
protection of personal data which are comparable to those of EU law. At the time that
the General Data Protection Regulation became applicable, the third countries which
are counted as secure countries are: Andorra, Argentina, Canada (only commercial
organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand,
Switzerland, Uruguay and USA (if the receiver belongs to the Privacy Shield). Data
transfer to these countries is expressly permitted.
If there is no decision of appropriateness for a country, this does not necessarily
exclude data transfer to this country. Rather, the processor must ensure in another
way that the personal data will be sufficiently protected by the recipient. This can be
assured using standard data protection clauses, for data transfers within a Group
through so-called “binding corporate rules,” through obligation to comply with rules of
behaviour which have been declared by the European Commission as being generally
applicable, or by certification of the processing procedure.
Furthermore, there are several exceptions which legitimise data transfer to a third
country, even if protection of personal data cannot be sufficiently assured. Most
frequently, the consent of those impacted is relevant here. Thus, one must note the
requirements for their voluntary nature. Further exceptions, such as transmitting to
fulfil contracts, important reasons of public interest and the assertion of legal rights
are less relevant in practice.
11

Encryption
Using encryption of personal data, companies can reduce the probability of a
data failure, and therefore also fines, in the future. The processing of personal
data is naturally associated with a certain degree of risk. Especially these days,
cyber-attacks are nearly unavoidable for companies above a given size.
Therefore, risk management plays an ever-larger role in IT security. Data
encryption is therefore suited, among other means, for these companies.
In general, one understands encryption as a procedure that converts clear text
into a hashed code using a key, as that the outgoing information can only
become readable again by using the correct key. This minimises the risk of an
incident during data processing, as encrypted contents are basically unreadable
for third parties who don’t have the correct key. Encryption is the best means to
protect data during transfer, and a way to secure stored personal data. This
reduces the abuse risk within a company, as access is limited only to authorised
people with the right key.
The regulation also recognises risks when processing personal data and places
the responsibility on the responsible parties in Art. 32 (1) of the General Data
Protection Regulation to use suitable technical and organisational measures to
secure personal data. One must consider the state of the art, implementation
costs and the type, scope, circumstances and purpose of the processing. In
addition to these criteria, various access probabilities and the severity of the
risks to the rights and freedoms of those impacted must be considered. One
must adjust the degree of the security measures taken because of the above
consideration. Encryption is therefore explicitly mentioned as such a measure in
the list of Art. 32(1) of the GDPR, which is not exhaustive.
Encryption of personal data has additional benefits for responsible parties
and/or order processors. So, if one loses a mobile medium on which data are
encrypted using state of the art methods need not be reported, as a rule. In
addition, the authorities must positively consider the use of encryption in their
decision on whether and to what level a sanction is assessed as per Art. 83,
para. 2 let. C of the GDPR.
12

Fines/Penalties
National authorities can or must assess fines for specific data protection violations in
accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation. The fines are applied additionally or
instead of further remedies or powers, such as the order to end a violation, an instruction to
adjust the data processing to statutory requirements, as well as the granting of a prohibition
which is limited in time or permanently, to perform data processing. For the provisions which
relate to order processors, they can be directly and/or in conjunction with the person
responsible, subject to sanctions.
The fines must be effective, reasonable and dissuasive for each individual case. For the
decision of whether and what amount of sanctions can be assessed, the authorities have a
statutory catalogue of criteria which must be used in taking a decision. Among other things,
intentional infringement, a failure to take measures to mitigate the damage which occurred,
or lack of collaboration with authorities can increase the penalties. For the especially severe
violations listed in Art. 83, para. 5 of the GDPR, the fine framework can be up to 20 million
euros, or in the case of a company, up to 4% of their total global turnover in the previous fiscal
year, whichever is higher. But even the catalogue of less severe violations (Art. 83, para. 4)
sets forth fines of up to 10,000,000 euros, or, in the case of a company, up to 2% of its entire
global turnover of the previous fiscal year, whichever is higher. Especially important here is
that the term “company” is equivalent to that used in Art. 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). According to case law from the Court of Justice of
the European Union, this refers to the broad, functional corporate term as a company which is
a unit which exercises a commercial activity, independent of its legal form and its type of
financing. This commercial unit can therefore consist of one individual company in the sense
of a legal subject, but out of several natural or legal persons. Thus, a whole group can be
treated as one company. To calculate fines, the entire group’s turnover is used to calculate a
penalty based on the company’s turnover. In addition, Member States have rules for
sanctions for other violations against the Regulation. This applies to those violations to which
a fine has not already been assessed. Therefore, one must ensure that these penalties are
also effective, proportional and act as a deterrent.
An objectionable fact in the company can be found through proactive inspection activities
conducted by the assigned authorities, by an unsatisfied employee who complains to the
authorities or by customers or potential customers who register a notice to the authorities,
13

Information
Obligation
One requires transparency in gathering and using data in order to allow EU citizens to exercise their
rights to personal data. Therefore, the General Data Protection Regulation sets forth a variety of
information obligations.
The law differentiates between two cases: On the one hand, if personal data is directly obtained
from the impacted party (Art. 13 of the GDPR) and, on the other hand, if this is not directly obtained
from the impacted person (Art. 14 of the GDPR). For direct obtaining of information, the person
must be immediately informed.
In terms of content, the obligation to inform of the responsible party include identity, contact data of
the Data Protection Officer (if available), the processing purposes and the legal bases, any justified
interest, about the receiver when transmitting the data, and also about any transfer to third
countries. In addition, the information obligation also includes information about the duration of
storage, the rights of the impacted parties, the ability to withdraw consents, the right to complain to
the authorities, as well as the statutory or contractual obligation to provide personal data. In
addition, they must be informed of any automated decision-taking or other profiling activities. This
information requirement can be dispensed for direct collection only if the impacted person already
has this information.
If the information gathering is not done with the impacted person, this person must be informed
within a reasonable period, but at latest after a month, when using this information for
communication, inform them through direct contact. As far as content is concerned, the responsible
party is also subject to the same information obligations with this type of information gathering. The
only exception is only information about the obligation to provide, as the responsible party cannot
decide about this on his own. In addition, he has the obligation to inform from what sources the
data originated, and whether it was publicly available. The information obligations must be provided
in a precise, transparent, comprehensible and easily accessible form. This can be communicated to
the impacted person in writing or electronic form. It is explicitly explained that also so-called
‘standardised image symbols’ can be used in order to convey a meaningful overview of the intended
processing in an easily comprehended, understandable and clear form.
In the case that the personal data is not gathered from the impacted party, the information
obligation need not be fulfilled in exceptional cases. This applies if this is either impossible or
unreasonably expensive, the gathering and/or transmission is required by law, or if professional
secrecy or other statutory secrecy obligation is in place.
14

Order Processing
The General Data Protection Regulation offers a
uniform, Europe-wide ability for so-called ‘order
processing’. Order processing is the gathering,
processing or use of personal data by an order
processor in accordance with the instructions of
those responsible for the data processing
based on a contract.
The relevant regulations for order processing
are already applied if the processing is
connected to activities of a branch within the
EU. This means that it is sufficient if either the
person responsible or the order processor
operates a branch in the EU, and the processing
is connected to this work. In a constellation of
order processing, the joint persons responsible
(Art. 26 of the GDPR) are those who together
define the purposes and means for the data
processing, and who are also jointly responsible
for these. The persons responsible must
ensure, in selecting the order processor, that it
has implemented sufficient technical and
organisational measures to ensure that the
rules of the regulation are complied with.
In most cases, order processing proceeds
based on a contract. Art. 28, para. 3 of the
GDPR sets forth the minimum requirements.
This must contain, among other things, what
type of personal data will be processed, as well
as the object and purpose of the processing. In
addition, there are further obligations for the
order processor. For example, it must also
maintain an index of the processing activities
which includes the names and contact data for
each person responsible who is working on
which order, as well as the processing
categories which are conducted for them.
Furthermore, the index must include, if
applicable, the transfer of personal data to third
countries and, if possible, a general description
of technical and organisational measures.
Basically, the person responsible is the first
contact for those impacted, and for compliance
with data processing legal requirements. This
does not mean, however, that the order
processor is free of liability. According to Art. 82
of the GDPR, he is jointly liable with the persons
responsible. However, the order processor’s
liability is limited as per para. 2 to violations of
duties which are specific to him. Both parties
can exculpate themselves. To do this, they must
prove that they were not responsible in any way
for the circumstances leading to the damages.
15

General data protection regulation GDPR

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to General data protection regulation GDPR

Recently uploaded

General data protection regulation GDPR