That is the third submit on this collection on using facial recognition in soccer stadiums. Within the first, which may be learn HERE, the extra normal questions on facial recognition have been analyzed. Within the second, out there HERE, the significance of the Information Safety Influence Evaluation (DPIA) was addressed, after which the Danish case was analyzed. We now proceed to current the French regulation on the matter.

9) Metz (France)

Lately, a video evaluation software geared up with synthetic intelligence and machine studying sparked an important controversy in France. With out being particularly named, FC Metz acquired a warning from the CNIL (Nationwide Fee for Computing and Liberties). In its assertion, the CNIL explains how the follow carried out by the French membership contravenes present laws, stating that the facial recognition system to routinely establish followers on the soccer stadium doesn’t adjust to knowledge safety laws.

As reported by the membership FC Metz on Twitter “to implement the stadium bans, a face-matching answer has been examined[1] (“facial comparability »). Due to this fact, it solely applies to those that can’t entry the stadium ”.

The talk turned even thornier when the French sports activities minister commented on January 31, 2021 that “These experiments [de reconocimiento facial] they need to promote themselves in main sporting occasions organized by France and in different sporting occasions the place France can export its information. “

What’s the regulatory framework in France?

Along with the GDPR and French knowledge safety legal guidelines, the French sports activities code applies.

Article L. 332-1 of the Sport Code establishes that organizers of sporting occasions can reject or cancel the issuance of tickets for such occasions or deny entry to those that have infringed the provisions of the final circumstances of sale or inner rules referring to the safety of such occasions.

The identical article authorizes sporting occasion organizers to use “automated processing of private knowledge associated to offenses” to ensure the safety of sporting occasions. This therapy should be offered for within the normal circumstances of sale or within the inner rules.

These bans on entry to soccer stadiums, that are supposed to contribute to the safety of sporting occasions by stopping entry to sure folks and that are determined by the organizers of sporting occasions, should be distinguished from judicial or administrative bans on entry to stadiums, which may solely be imposed by judicial authorities.

In follow, registering an individual in a banning course of at a soccer stadium will enable the stadium’s ticketing system to routinely refuse to difficulty a ticket on their behalf. As well as, the safety guards can deny entry to the sports activities facility to an individual registered on this therapy, even when they’ve a sound ticket.

Specifically, the circumstances of utility of those remedies are specified within the provisions of articles L. 332-1 and R. 332-14 and following of the Sport Code, specifically with regard to:

  • The aim of stated therapy;
  • The classes of information that may be processed
  • The period of this knowledge
  • The classes of recipients of this knowledge;
  • In addition to the foundations relevant to the knowledge of people (by means of the publication or supply of a selected doc).

On this regard, though article R. 332-15 of the French Sport Code offers that the related {photograph} of an individual could also be processed for the administration of entry bans to soccer stadiums, it doesn’t expressly enable the implementation of a biometric system based mostly, specifically, on these images.

Let’s examine what article R332-15 cited above says:

“Within the therapy offered for in article R. 332-14, solely the next private knowledge and data could also be registered:
1 ° Identification knowledge: surnames; Title; date and fatherland; handle or place of residence; Electronic mail handle; cellphone quantity; subscription card quantity and related {photograph}, if relevant;
2 ° The explanations for registration that represent a violation of the provisions of the final circumstances or of the inner rules referring to the security of sporting occasions, specifically these arising from the next information:

a) An act which will provoke hatred or violence on or close to sports activities fields;

b) An act that would endanger the security of individuals and property within the sports activities venue or within the neighborhood of the sports activities occasion;

c) Getting into the sports activities area in a drunken state or underneath the obvious affect of medication; introduce and devour alcoholic drinks and / or medication on the sports activities grounds;

d) Introducing into the sports activities area any object which will represent a weapon or endanger the security of individuals or property;

3 ° Choices taken:

a) Nature of the measure: suspension, cancellation or impossibility of subscribing a brand new subscription; refusal to promote a ticket; cancellation of stated entry; denial of entry to a sports activities venue;

b) Date of the choice;

(c) Period of the measure ”.

These knowledge are recorded by the individuals answerable for safety underneath the authority of the organizer of for-profit sporting occasions.

Lastly, article R. 332-18 of the Sport Code explicitly signifies that the events can’t oppose the processing of the information in these instances.

Particularly: Article R332-18 “The particular person answerable for the therapy will inform the events by mail, by sending or delivering a doc, or by another equal means, indicating the identification of the particular person answerable for the therapy, the aim of the identical, the duty of the responses, the attainable penalties of the shortage of response, the recipients of the information, the conservation interval and the procedures for the train of the rights of the events

The precise of opposition offered for in article 38 of the Legislation of January 6, 1978 doesn’t apply to the remedies contemplated in article R. 332-14.

The rights of entry and rectification offered for in articles 39 and 40 of the Legislation of January 6, 1978 are exercised immediately earlier than the particular person answerable for the therapy. “

Due to this fact, in response to the CNIL, “within the absence of a particular legislative or regulatory provision, the implementation of such a scheme by a sports activities membership for anti-terrorism functions is prohibited“, as the gathering and use of such biometric knowledge is prohibited, with exceptions, by the Common Information Safety Regulation (RGPD) and the Information Safety Legislation (Information Safety Act). In different phrases, “as regards the authorized framework, the supposed therapy can’t be legally utilized”.

On this sense, the CNIL has warned the membership that if it decides to implement its facial recognition system, “it is going to be uncovered to a number of of the corrective measures offered for within the Information Safety Laws and within the Information Safety and Civil Liberties Legislation , together with a monetary penalty ”.


[1] (…), Solely as a way to implement the business stadium bans, a facial comparability answer was examined. It subsequently completely considerations folks prohibited from getting into the stadium. (21) FC Metz ☨ on Twitter: “@streetpress @oliviertesquet @A_N_Supporters Within the framework of the Larrivé law, only in order to enforce the commercial stadium bans, a facial comparison solution was tested. It therefore exclusively concerns people prohibited from entering the stadium. ” / Twitter



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here