## Facts

- England and Wales permitted police to retain fingerprints, DNA profiles, and underlying DNA samples taken upon arrest for any recordable offense, even if the person was not convicted.
- The retention policy was, in practice, indefinite and aimed at preventing and detecting crime.
- S., arrested at age 11 for attempted robbery, provided fingerprints and a DNA sample and was later acquitted.
- Michael Marper, arrested and charged with harassment, provided fingerprints and a DNA sample; the prosecution was discontinued after reconciliation with the complainant.
- Both applicants requested destruction of their retained biometric data; police refused under statutory authority.
- Domestic courts rejected the applicants’ challenges and accepted the asserted crime-control value of retention.
- The applicants complained that retention of their biometric data, despite non-conviction, violated the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also alleged discrimination under Article 14.

## Issues

1. Whether the blanket, indefinite retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles, and DNA samples from persons not convicted of an offense constitutes an interference with private life under Article 8.
2. If there is an interference, whether it is justified as lawful, pursuing legitimate aims, and necessary in a democratic society (proportionate) under Article 8(2).
3. Whether the retention regime involves unjustified differential treatment contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber unanimously held that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the applicants’ fingerprints, DNA profiles, and DNA samples violated Article 8.
- The Court accepted that the scheme had a basis in domestic law and pursued legitimate aims, including the prevention and detection of crime.
- The Court found the scheme disproportionate because it applied without distinction by offense seriousness or age and provided no meaningful mechanism for deletion for unconvicted persons.
- The Court emphasized the sensitivity of genetic and biometric information and the stigmatizing effect of retaining such data from unconvicted individuals.
- The Court gave particular weight to the heightened impact of indefinite retention on minors.
- Having found an Article 8 violation, the Court did not find it necessary to decide the Article 14 complaint separately.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction and indicated that domestic law and practice should be brought into conformity with Convention requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles, and especially DNA samples constitutes an interference with private life because it involves protection of personal data; interference can exist even without proof of misuse.
- Even where data retention pursues legitimate law-enforcement aims and is authorized by law, Article 8 requires that retention be proportionate and accompanied by adequate safeguards.
- A blanket, indiscriminate, and indefinite retention regime for persons not convicted fails to strike a fair balance between public safety and individual privacy.
- The absence of individualized assessment, time limits, or effective review/erasure mechanisms weighs strongly against proportionality, particularly for unconvicted persons.
- Special consideration is required for minors in criminal-justice measures affecting privacy and future reintegration.
- Comparative practice across member states may narrow the margin of appreciation where there is a strong consensus against the challenged measure.

## Conclusion

The Court held that indefinite, undifferentiated retention of biometric identifiers and biological samples taken from unconvicted persons is a disproportionate interference with private life under Article 8, requiring retention rules to include meaningful limits and safeguards, especially for children.


S. & Marper v. United Kingdom, [2008] E.C.H.R. 1581 (2008)