CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 January 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1935/23 Ender İMREK against Türkiye lodged on 2 December 2022 communicated on 12 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the taking of the applicant’s fingerprints and photograph while in police custody and their retention by the authorities. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court’s decision dismissing his individual application lacked reasoning. He further complains that the taking and retention of his fingerprints and photograph amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in the context of the individual application he had lodged with the Constitutional Court? In particular, did the Constitutional Court’s decision of 29 July 2022 contain adequate reasoning with respect to the applicant’s main complaint concerning the taking and retention of his personal data (see García Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999 ‑ I, and Paun Jovanović   v.   Serbia , no.   41394/15, §§ 100-101 and 108-109, 7   February 2023)?   2.     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 taking and retention of his fingerprints and photograph (see S. and Marper v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 66-67,   78-86 and 101 ‑ 104, ECHR 2008, and M.K. v. France , no. 19522/09, §§   29-47, 18   April 2013; see also Uçkan v. Türkiye [Committee], no.   67657/17, §§   15 ‑ 30, 18 April 2023)?