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
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.