CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 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 26 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22906/18 Frank Alexander SIMONIS against Germany lodged on 4 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an order by the Trier police for the applicant to be finger- and palmprinted, photographed, measured and his outward physical characteristics recorded on the basis of Article 81b alt. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The applicant complains under Article 8 (private life) of the Convention that recording and storing this data would not be proportionate. 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? In particular, 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)?   3.     Did the German law afford appropriate safeguards to the applicant to prevent any such use of his personal data as might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 (see S. and Marper, cited above, § 103)? What were the domestic rules on processing and storing the data, in particular in respect of time-limits for their retention and authorisation for their consultation?   4.     To what extent did the law of the Land Rhineland-Palatinate supplement Article 81b alt. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?   5.     Did the Trier police and the administrative courts strike a fair balance between the competing interests, taking into account possible detrimental effects on the applicant’s well-being?