Brussels, 18/10/2013 (Agence Europe) - Although the taking and storing of fingerprints in passports constitutes an infringement of the rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, such measures are nonetheless justified for the purpose of preventing any fraudulent use of passports and they are therefore lawful under EU law, ruled the European Court of Justice in Case C-291/12 on 17 October, in response to a question from the administrative court in Gelsenkirchen (Germany) about the validity vis-à-vis the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU Regulation 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents) which requires people requesting a passport to give their fingerprints and for the fingerprints to be kept for use regarding the passport.
In its ruling, the Court of Justice says that the regulation is valid. Recognising that the taking and storing of fingerprints in passports is an infringement of the rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data, the court says the measures pursue a public interest objective (preventing illegal entry into the EU) and preventing the counterfeiting and misuse of passports. The Court finds that the contested measures are appropriate for attaining the aim of protecting against the fraudulent use of passports, by significantly reducing the likelihood that, owing to an error, unauthorised persons will be allowed to enter the EU. The Court has not been made aware of any measure which would be sufficiently effective and less of a threat than the taking of fingerprints. The Court observes in particular that iris-recognition technology is not yet as advanced as fingerprint-recognition technology and that, owing to the significantly higher costs currently involved in using the former technology, it is less suitable for general use. With regard to the processing of fingerprints, the Court notes that fingerprints play a particular role in the field of identifying persons in general. Thus, comparing fingerprints taken in a particular place with those stored in a database makes it possible to establish whether a certain person has been in that particular place, whether in the context of a criminal investigation or in order to monitor that person indirectly. However, the Court also notes that the regulation explicitly states that fingerprints may be used only for verifying the authenticity of a passport and the identity of its holder. Moreover, the regulation does not provide for the storage of fingerprints except within the passport itself, which belongs to the holder alone. The regulation not providing for any other form or method of storing those fingerprints, it cannot in and of itself be interpreted as providing a legal basis for the centralised storage of data collected thereunder or for the use of such data for purposes other than that of preventing illegal entry into the EU. (FG/transl.fl)