logo czasopisma

Glosy

Tom 58 Nr 5 (2025): Prawo i Więź nr 5 (58) 2025

Przetwarzanie danych biometrycznych dzieci w związku z korzystaniem ze szkolnej stołówki. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 10 października 2024 r., III OSK 4804/21

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/p1phm606
Przesłane
14 kwietnia 2025
Opublikowane
18 listopada 2025

Abstrakt

The commentary is a critical analysis of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) ruling, which found that the processing of students’ biometric data by a school for verifying payments for the use of the school canteen services complies with the requirements of the GDPR. The analysis elaborates in detail on the court’s interpretation of the principle of data minimization, purpose limitation, and the criterion of „freely given” consent. The author points out inaccuracies in the court’s assessment, arguing that the processing of children’s biometric data in this manner constitutes a disproportionate interference with their privacy. The author discusses the court’s reasoning regarding the relationship between the consent of the data subject and the data processing principles outlined in Article 5 of the GDPR. Concerns are also raised about the court’s assessment that the legal guardians’ consent was „freely given”, which, according to the author, fails to sufficiently account for the relationship between the school and students and the potential imbalance of power between the parties.

Bibliografia

  1. Finck, Michèle, i Asja Biega. “Reviving Purpose Limitation and Data Minimisation in Data-Driven Systems.” Technology and Regulation, nr 1 (2021): 44 – 61. https://doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2021.004.
  2. Frenzel, Eike Michael. “Art. 5 Grundsätze für die Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten.” W Datenschutzgrundverordnung. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, red. Boris Paal i Daniel Pauly, [bez numerów stron]. München: C.H. Beck, 2021.
  3. Gayrel, Claire. “The Principle of Proportionality Applied to Biometrics in France: Review of Ten Years of CNIL’s Deliberations.” Computer Law & Security Review 32, nr 3 (2016): 455 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.01.013.
  4. Lubasz, Dominik. “5. Przesłanki legalizacyjne przetwarzania danych osobowych.” W Meritum. Ochrona danych osobowych, red. Dominik Lubasz, 119 – 142. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2022.
  5. Mednis, Arwid. “Wykorzystanie danych biometrycznych w szkole. Wyrok Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 7 sierpnia 2020 r., II SA/Wa 809/20.” Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, nr 4 (2021): 129 – 137. https://doi.org/10.26881/gsp.2021.4.08.
  6. Rauhofer, Judith, i Burkhard Schafer. “Article 4(11). Consent.” W General Data Protection Regulation Article-by-Article Commentary, red. Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Vagelis Papakonstantinou, Gerrit Hornung i Paul De Hert, 195 – 216.Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2023.
  7. Roßnagel, Alexander i Philipp Richter. “Article 5. Principles Relating to Processing of Personal Data.” W General Data Protection Regulation Article-by-Article Commentary, red. Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Vagelis Papakonstantinou, Gerrit Hornung i Paul De Hert, [bez numerów stron]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2023.
  8. Sartor, Giovanni. “Article 6. Lawfulness of Processing.” W General Data Protection Regulation Article-by-Article Commentary, red. Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Vagelis Papakonstantinou, Gerrit Hornung i Paul De Hert, 291 – 328. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2023.
  9. Wendehorst, Christiane, i Yannik Duller. Biometric Recognition and Behavioural Detection: Assessing the Ethical Aspects of Biometric Recognition and Behavioural Detection Techniques with a Focus on Their Current and Future Use in Public Spaces. Brussels: European Parliament, 2021. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2021)696968.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.