USR - Reference number I-755/2025-8
Facts. Finally, the court reiterated that consent was not required, because Article 6 of the GDPR provides alternative, legal grounds for data processing.
Since the requirements of Article 6(1)(f) were met, the absence of consent was irrelevant. The court ruled that AZOP had correctly applied the law and that the infringement on the individual's privacy was proportionate, and therefore upheld the decision. The court dismissed the individual's claim and the associated costs. Finally, the court reiterated that consent was not required, because Article 6 of the GDPR...
Full text
Facts. Finally, the court reiterated that consent was not required, as Article 6 of the GDPR provides alternative, legitimate grounds for processing. Since the requirements of Article 6(1)(f) were met, the absence of consent was irrelevant. The court concluded that AZOP had correctly applied the law and that the infringement on the data subject's privacy was proportionate, and therefore upheld the decision and dismissed the claim and the data subject's costs. Finally, the court reiterated that consent was not required, as Article 6 of the GDPR provides alternative, legitimate grounds for processing. Since the requirements of Article 6(1)(f) were met, the absence of consent was irrelevant. The court concluded that AZOP had correctly applied the law and that the infringement on the data subject's privacy was proportionate, and therefore upheld the decision and dismissed the claim and the data subject's costs. The court ruled that the processing of the data subject's personal data was lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, as it was necessary for the protection of a legitimate interest. --- This content has been automatically translated using machine translation. The original version is available in the source language. --- This content was automatically translated using machine translation. The original version is available in the source language.