Valid CIPP-E Dumps shared by ExamDiscuss.com for Helping Passing CIPP-E Exam! ExamDiscuss.com now offer the newest CIPP-E exam dumps, the ExamDiscuss.com CIPP-E exam questions have been updated and answers have been corrected get the newest ExamDiscuss.com CIPP-E dumps with Test Engine here:
Access CIPP-E Dumps Premium Version
(298 Q&As Dumps, 35%OFF Special Discount Code: freecram)
<< Prev Question Next Question >>
Question 4/123
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Javier is a member of the fitness club EVERFIT. This company has branches in many EU member states, but for the purposes of the GDPR maintains its primary establishment in France. Javier lives in Newry, Northern Ireland (part of the U.K.), and commutes across the border to work in Dundalk, Ireland. Two years ago while on a business trip, Javier was photographed while working out at a branch of EVERFIT in Frankfurt, Germany. At the time, Javier gave his consent to being included in the photograph, since he was told that it would be used for promotional purposes only. Since then, the photograph has been used in the club's U.K. brochures, and it features in the landing page of its U.K. website. However, the fitness club has recently fallen into disrepute due to widespread mistreatment of members at various branches of the club in several EU member states. As a result, Javier no longer feels comfortable with his photograph being publicly associated with the fitness club.
After numerous failed attempts to book an appointment with the manager of the local branch to discuss this matter, Javier sends a letter to EVETFIT requesting that his image be removed from the website and all promotional materials. Months pass and Javier, having received no acknowledgment of his request, becomes very anxious about this matter. After repeatedly failing to contact EVETFIT through alternate channels, he decides to take action against the company.
Javier contacts the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO' - the U.K.'s supervisory authority) to lodge a complaint about this matter. The ICO, pursuant to Article 56 (3) of the GDPR, informs the CNIL (i.e. the supervisory authority of EVERFIT's main establishment) about this matter. Despite the fact that EVERFIT has an establishment in the U.K., the CNIL decides to handle the case in accordance with Article 60 of the GDPR. The CNIL liaises with the ICO, as relevant under the cooperation procedure. In light of issues amongst the supervisory authorities to reach a decision, the European Data Protection Board becomes involved and, pursuant to the consistency mechanism, issues a binding decision.
Additionally, Javier sues EVERFIT for the damages caused as a result of its failure to honor his request to have his photograph removed from the brochure and website.
Assuming that multiple EVETFIT branches across several EU countries are acting as separate data controllers, and that each of those branches were responsible for mishandling Javier's request, how may Javier proceed in order to seek compensation?
Please use the following to answer the next question:
Javier is a member of the fitness club EVERFIT. This company has branches in many EU member states, but for the purposes of the GDPR maintains its primary establishment in France. Javier lives in Newry, Northern Ireland (part of the U.K.), and commutes across the border to work in Dundalk, Ireland. Two years ago while on a business trip, Javier was photographed while working out at a branch of EVERFIT in Frankfurt, Germany. At the time, Javier gave his consent to being included in the photograph, since he was told that it would be used for promotional purposes only. Since then, the photograph has been used in the club's U.K. brochures, and it features in the landing page of its U.K. website. However, the fitness club has recently fallen into disrepute due to widespread mistreatment of members at various branches of the club in several EU member states. As a result, Javier no longer feels comfortable with his photograph being publicly associated with the fitness club.
After numerous failed attempts to book an appointment with the manager of the local branch to discuss this matter, Javier sends a letter to EVETFIT requesting that his image be removed from the website and all promotional materials. Months pass and Javier, having received no acknowledgment of his request, becomes very anxious about this matter. After repeatedly failing to contact EVETFIT through alternate channels, he decides to take action against the company.
Javier contacts the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office ('ICO' - the U.K.'s supervisory authority) to lodge a complaint about this matter. The ICO, pursuant to Article 56 (3) of the GDPR, informs the CNIL (i.e. the supervisory authority of EVERFIT's main establishment) about this matter. Despite the fact that EVERFIT has an establishment in the U.K., the CNIL decides to handle the case in accordance with Article 60 of the GDPR. The CNIL liaises with the ICO, as relevant under the cooperation procedure. In light of issues amongst the supervisory authorities to reach a decision, the European Data Protection Board becomes involved and, pursuant to the consistency mechanism, issues a binding decision.
Additionally, Javier sues EVERFIT for the damages caused as a result of its failure to honor his request to have his photograph removed from the brochure and website.
Assuming that multiple EVETFIT branches across several EU countries are acting as separate data controllers, and that each of those branches were responsible for mishandling Javier's request, how may Javier proceed in order to seek compensation?
