CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 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 10 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 67657/17 Aytaç UÇKAN against Turkey lodged on 4 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the retention and use of the applicant’s personal data, which was taken in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against him for blackmailing and threat, following his acquittal from those charges in 2004. In 2006 the applicant was questioned by the police on suspicion of theft, on the basis of his identification by the victim from the archives of the Directorate of Security. He was later cleared by the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute as it was established that he had been misidentified. Following the Directorate of Security’s refusal of his request to have his personal data, including his photograph and fingerprints, deleted, he lodged an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court. The domestic court eventually dismissed the case on the grounds that the data had been transferred to another database which was solely used for identification purposes. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention on account of the retention of his personal data in the official files, and its use in connection with an incident which occurred following his acquittal from the initial charges against him (see M.K. v. France , no. 19522/09, 18   April 2013)?   In particular, taking account of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 9 November 2012, does the possibility of deletion laid down in Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law   no. 5271) provide a safeguard which is “practical and effective” rather than “theoretical and illusory” (ibid., §44).