Cite as https://mymun.com/ppdb/18787
Case M-621/18: Piontek vs. Romania
To: Court of Justice of the European Union
From: Maxime Eljon - Advocate General E. Sharpton
Date: 1 May 2019
Re: Pontiak v. Romania
Mr. Pontiak, a Bulgarian National, moved to Vulgaria for work and once there, fell in love with, married and had a child with a Vulgarian national. His wife consequently died from a severe allergy attack after eating peanut baklava, which Mr. Pontiak had brought back from Bulgaria. Mr. Pontiak was then charged the murder of his wife, but eventually acquitted. After the ordeal he wanted to leave Vulgaria, so he and his daughter, Zeynep, moved to Romania. Here the border authorities collected their fingerprints upon entry into the country, at which point they saw that Mr. Pontiak had been acquitted of murder charges back in Vulgaria. After 3 months and 1 day the Romanian authorities issued Zeynep an eviction notice.
Was the processing of Mr. Piontek’s data in line with Art. 9 of the GDPR?
If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, can Mr. Piontek still ask for erasure of his data?
Can the Romanian authorities issue an eviction order for Zeynep?
Collecting biometric data in order to identify a person is illegal under Article 9 (1) of the GDPR. However this is a generalization, as there are many exceptions, multiple of which this case could fall under. The first exception that could apply here is the one laid down in Article 9 (2)(a):
“the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject;”