Annex III expert page
For biometric identification, categorisation and emotion recognition, the right order matters: prohibition first, then high-risk, then evidence.
Have a biometric AI use case reviewed against Article 5, Annex III point 1, GDPR and required safeguards.
Annex III point 1
The Commission guidelines treat biometrics as a separate high-risk area with three routes: remote biometric identification, biometric categorisation and emotion recognition. The first question is whether Article 5 prohibits the system, and only then whether Annex III point 1 makes it high-risk.
Can this biometric system be used at all, or does Article 5 need to be checked first?
AI systems that identify natural persons remotely based on biometric data.
Systems that categorise persons using biometric data, with a strict boundary against prohibited practices.
AI systems that infer emotions or intentions, with special attention to work and education where prohibitions may apply.
Short answers for classification, evidence and next steps under Annex III.
Expert review is useful when the core question is not straightforward: Can this biometric system be used at all, or does Article 5 need to be checked first? This is especially relevant when the outcome may affect access, assessment, safety, oversight or fundamental rights.
A classification intake maps the intended purpose, Annex III route, Article 6(3) filter, profiling, provider/deployer roles and the first evidence items.
This page provides general explanation based on the AI Act and the Commission guidelines. Concrete classification depends on system design, use context, role allocation and available documentation.
Have a biometric AI use case reviewed against Article 5, Annex III point 1, GDPR and required safeguards.