Free CIPP-E Exam Braindumps (page: 18)

Page 18 of 68

Under Article 58 of the GDPR, which of the following describes a power of supervisory authorities in European Union (EU) member states?

  1. The ability to enact new laws by executive order.
  2. The right to access data for investigative purposes.
  3. The discretion to carry out goals of elected officials within the member state.
  4. The authority to select penalties when a controller is found guilty in a court of law.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Article 58 of the GDPR lists the powers of supervisory authorities in EU member states. Among these powers are the investigative powers, which include the right to access data and information from controllers and processors, as well as to access their premises and equipment. This power enables the supervisory authorities to perform their tasks of monitoring and enforcing the GDPR. The other options are not powers of supervisory authorities under Article 58 of the GDPR.


Reference:

Art. 58 GDPR ­ Powers, Article 58 Powers - GDPR, Article 58 GDPR - GDPRhub



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

  1. 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.
    Under the cooperation mechanism, what should the lead authority (the CNIL) do after it has formed its view on the matter?
  2. Submit a draft decision to other supervisory authorities for their opinion.
  3. Request that the other supervisory authorities provide the lead authority with a draft decision for its consideration.
  4. Submit a draft decision directly to the Commission to ensure the effectiveness of the consistency mechanism.
  5. Request that members of the seconding supervisory authority and the host supervisory authority co-draft a decision.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

: According to Article 60 of the GDPR, the lead authority (the CNIL in this case) shall cooperate with the other concerned supervisory authorities (the ICO and any other authority where EVERFIT has an establishment or where data subjects are affected) to reach a consensus on the case. The lead authority shall submit a draft decision to the other authorities for their opinion and take due account of their views. If the other authorities agree with the draft decision, the lead authority shall adopt and notify it to the controller (EVERFIT) and the complainant (Javier). If the other authorities object to the draft decision, they shall express their objections within a specified period and try to reach a consensus with the lead authority. If no consensus is reached, the matter shall be referred to the EDPB for a binding decision under the consistency mechanism (Article 65 of the GDPR).


Reference:

GDPR Cooperation and Enforcement, First overview on the implementation of the GDPR and the roles and means of the national supervisory authorities, Data protection: Commission adopts new rules to ensure stronger cooperation and enforcement, Article 65 FAQ



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

  1. 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?
  2. He will have to sue the EVETFIT's head office in France, where EVETFIT has its main establishment.
  3. He will be able to sue any one of the relevant EVETFIT branches, as each one may be held liable for the entire damage.
  4. He will have to sue each EVETFIT branch so that each branch provides proportionate compensation commensurate with its contribution to the damage or distress suffered by Javier.
  5. He will be able to apply to the European Data Protection Board in order to determine which particular EVETFIT branch is liable for damages, based on the decision that was made by the board.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

According to Article 82 of the GDPR1, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the GDPR shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered. Any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes the GDPR.
Where more than one controller or processor, or both a controller and a processor, are involved in the same processing and where they are responsible for any damage caused by processing, each controller or processor shall be held liable for the entire damage in order to ensure effective compensation of the data subject. Therefore, Javier can sue any one of the EVETFIT branches that were involved in processing his personal data without his consent and in violation of his rights, and he can claim full compensation from that branch. The branch that pays the compensation can then claim back from the other branches involved in the same processing that part of the compensation corresponding to their part of responsibility for the damage.


Reference:

1 Art. 82 GDPR ­ Right to compensation and liability - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)



The GDPR specifies fines that may be levied against data controllers for certain infringements.
Which of the following infringements would be subject to the less severe administrative fine of up to 10 million euros (or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year)?

  1. Failure to demonstrate that consent was given by the data subject to the processing of their personal data where it is used as the basis for processing.
  2. Failure to implement technical and organizational measures to ensure data protection is enshrined by design and default.
  3. Failure to process personal information in a manner compatible with its original purpose.
  4. Failure to provide the means for a data subject to rectify inaccuracies in personal data.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

According to Article 83 of the GDPR, the less severe administrative fines of up to 10 million euros or 2% of the annual worldwide turnover apply to infringements of the articles governing controllers and processors, certification bodies, and monitoring bodies. These include Articles 8, 11, 25-39, 42, and
43. Among the answer choices, only option B falls under this category, as Article 25 requires controllers to implement data protection by design and by default. Option A is related to Article 7,

which governs the conditions for consent. Option C is related to Article 5, which sets out the principles for processing personal data. Option D is related to Article 16, which grants the right to rectification to data subjects. These articles are subject to the more severe administrative fines of up to 20 million euros or 4% of the annual worldwide turnover.


Reference:

GDPR Article 83
GDPR Article 25
GDPR Article 7
GDPR Article 5
GDPR Article 16



Page 18 of 68



Post your Comments and Discuss IAPP CIPP-E exam with other Community members:

Martinez commented on September 21, 2024
This exam was so hard, I thought I'd need a miracle. Turns out, exam dumps are the next best thing.
NETHERLANDS
upvote

Filipa commented on August 27, 2024
Question 143 is incorrect, the answer is should be B, and the explanation is unrelated to the scenario. Other than that great work
PORTUGAL
upvote

Nell commented on August 18, 2024
Hello. This is very helpful
UNITED KINGDOM
upvote

X commented on August 08, 2024
answers are correct
Anonymous
upvote