CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 10 December 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 51594/10 Margaret MURPHY against the United Kingdom lodged on 1 September 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Margaret Murphy, is a British national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Leeds. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In March 2003 the applicant, who worked in a children’s home, was accused of force-feeding a young girl but the police took no further action in respect of the allegations made. Although her employer was informed, she was not dismissed from her employment. In May 2006 the applicant was arrested following an allegation that she had slapped a young girl across the face. Her biometric data was taken. No subsequent charges were brought and the police decided to take no further action. Her employer was informed of the allegations made but no action was taken to terminate the applicant’s employment. On 1 September 2010 the applicant lodged an application against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). On 23 August 2013 the Registry requested that the applicant make a Subject Access Request to determine whether her biometric data continued to be held by the United Kingdom authorities. In a letter dated 6 September 2013 West Yorkshire Police informed the applicant that her DNA profile had been destroyed. Although it was not possible to provide an exact date for destruction, the police stated that the latest such would have taken place was 29 June 2013. No indication was given as to whether the applicant’s fingerprints or photograph have been retained or destroyed. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Biometric data The relevant domestic law and practice at the time the applicant’s data was taken is set out in the Court’s judgment in S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008. Following that decision and the Court’s subsequent decision in Goggins   and Others v. the United Kingdom (striking out), nos. 30089/04, 14449/06, 24968/07, 13870/08, 36363/08, 23499/09, 43852/09 and 64027/09, 19   July   2011, the United Kingdom Government introduced new legislation, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sections 1 to 25 of which created a   new regime for the retention of biometric samples and data. All   relevant sections of that Act had come into force by 31 October 2013. 2.     Photographs The policy regarding the retention of photographs is contained in the Management of Police Information Code of Practice and the Management of Police Information guidance and is currently under domestic review. In   RMC & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2012] EWHC 1681 (Admin) (22 June 2012), the High Court found that the policy existing at the time (namely, to apply the Management of Police Information Code of Practice and the Management of Police Information guidance) was unlawful and that its application amounted to an unjustified interference with the right to respect for private life in breach of Article 8. The High Court decided to allow the defendant, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, a “reasonable further period” within which to revise the existing policy but stressed that such a period should be measured in months, not years. On 14 November 2012 the High Court in R (V) v Commissioner of Police for the City of London [2012] EWHC 3430 (Admin), having been advised that the Association of Chief Police Officers (“ACPO”) “is in the process of devising a fresh policy” held that the “reasonable period” referred to in RMC was fast approaching but that it had not yet expired. Under a Freedom of Information Request, no. 000245/13, ACPO stated that the College of Police and the Home Office were jointly reviewing information management arrangements within the police service and anticipated to report on the issue in April 2014. No such report has been identified. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the retention of her DNA data, her fingerprints and her photograph.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     In light of well-established case-law of the Court ( S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008), did the retention of the applicant’s DNA data breach Article 8?   2.     What is the current domestic position regarding the destruction ofcustody photographs in respect of individuals arrested but not charged with an offence?   3.     Does the historical and/or continued retention of the applicant’s fingerprints and photograph constitute a breach of Article 8?