Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 101kWORD 19k
28 November 2018
Question for written answer E-006016-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Jiří Payne (EFDD)

 Subject:  Unintended consequences of the GDPR
 Answer in writing 

The provisions of Article 9 of the GDPR prohibit the processing of biometric data for the purpose of identifying individuals. Paradoxically, however, the processing of biometric data is often the least intrusive measure for controlling entry into establishments to which certain categories of consumers should not be allowed access.

These are, in particular, premises where gambling takes place, nightclubs and shops selling tobacco. State-of-the-art systems, such as Play Safe (formerly known as Face-Check), which was presented to Parliament at the end of 2017, are now facing a potential ban due to the possible contradiction with GDPR requirements.

Given the absence of regulations that take into account the specific features of each sector, can the Commission say:

Whether it is aware of the impact of the GDPR on these specific market sectors?
How it intends to regulate access to these modern establishments without, at the same time, limiting their functions while also ensuring the protection of minors and the most vulnerable groups of people?

Original language of question: CS 
Last updated: 12 December 2018Legal notice