Enforcement · Icelandic data protection authority ('Persónuvernd') EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

Reykjanesbær municipality: Non-compliance with general data processing principles

€16,600 Fine
Reykjanesbær municipality
ICELAND
Art. 5 GDPR Art. 24 GDPR Art. 28 GDPR
Processing Agreement Education Processors Public Authority Controllers IP Address Storage Limitation Retention Period
Dec 6, 2023 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Literature General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ambiguity, national diversity and data protection officer certification: Implementing Art. 39(1) GDPR in France, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain Journal of Data Protection Privacy Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Hungary: Introduction to the GDPR Application and a Brief History of Data Protection European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Netherlands: The GDPR Implementation Act European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Romania: Overview of the GDPR Implementation European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ United Kingdom: Heading Towards Brexit but with a Data Protection Bill Implementing GDPR European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Spain: Preparations for a New Law on Data Protection to Implement the GDPR European Data Protection Law Review

Full text

The Icelandic DPA has imposed a fine of EUR 16,600 on the municipality of Reykjanesbær. The municipality had used the Google Education system without sufficiently complying with data protection regulations. In particular, the municipality did not fulfill its obligations when selecting Google as a processor and the processing agreement with Google did not comply with data protection requirements. Furthermore, the municipality did not ensure that the student data was not processed for purposes other than those specified by the municipality. Furthermore, the retention period was not considered appropriate but rather too extensive. In imposing the fine, particular consideration was given to the protection of sensitive children's data. Although no demonstrable damage had occurred, it was criticized that Reykjanesbær had not sufficiently ensured the secure transfer of data to the US in the past. However, the municipality cooperated transparently with the data protection authority and revised its data protection practices.

Industry: Public Sector and Education

Original document at the source www.personuvernd.is

Similar Content