CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 January 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 74440/17 P.N. against Germany lodged on 16 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an order by the Dresden police for the applicant to be fingerprinted and photographed on the basis of Article 81b alt. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Strafprozessordnung ). The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the arbitrary interference with his private life. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Did Article 81b alt. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute a sufficiently precise legal basis in view of the requirements established in Malone v. the United Kingdom (2 August 1984, § 68, Series A no. 82) and S.   and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §   99, ECHR 2008)?   4.     Did the German law afford appropriate safeguards to the applicant to prevent any such use of his personal data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 (see S. and Marper , cited above, § 103)?   5.     Were the decisions of the Dresden police and the administrative courts proportionate, since they relied on information concerning discontinued criminal investigations against the applicant?