{"id":2217,"date":"2021-12-19T21:23:28","date_gmt":"2021-12-19T20:23:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/?p=2217"},"modified":"2022-02-11T21:42:14","modified_gmt":"2022-02-11T20:42:14","slug":"bosphorus-presumption-applicable-to-the-storing-of-biometric-data-on-a-passport-decision-of-the-echr-in-the-case-of-willems-v-the-netherlands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/bosphorus-presumption-applicable-to-the-storing-of-biometric-data-on-a-passport-decision-of-the-echr-in-the-case-of-willems-v-the-netherlands\/","title":{"rendered":"Bosphorus presumption applicable to the storing of biometric data on a passport: decision of the ECHR in the case of Willems v. the Netherlands"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The case of <em>Willems v. the Netherlands<\/em> (57294\/16, 9.11.2021) concerned the refusal by the applicant to provide fingerprints that would be digitised and saved in his passport and in a database. Applying Regulation 2252\/2004 on standards for <strong>security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents<\/strong> issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation 444\/2009, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Dutch Council of State dismissed as ill-founded the objections which the applicant had raised in this connection. The applicant then complained before the ECHR <em>inter alia <\/em>about a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In respect of the applicable EU legislation, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division considered, after referring questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, that it left <strong>no room for the Member States to use alternatives<\/strong> to the prescribed way of storing the biometric data, nor did it provide for any applicable exceptions to the obligation to provide fingerprints. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In light of this finding, the ECHR recalled the requirements for the <strong>presumption of equivalent protection<\/strong> (&#8222;Bosphorus presumption&#8220;) to apply and concluded that they were fulfilled in the present case. As a consequence, there would only be a violation of the Convention in case of a &#8222;<strong>manifest deficiency<\/strong>&#8220; in the protection afforded by it (on this notion, see also <em><a href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/manifest-deficiency-in-the-execution-of-a-european-arrest-warrant-judgment-of-the-european-court-of-human-rights-in-the-case-of-bivolaru-and-moldovan-v-france\/\">Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France<\/a>).<\/em> As such a manifest deficiency had not been shown to exist by the applicant, the ECHR declared manifestly ill-founded the applicant&#8217;s complaint about a violation of Article 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-file\"><a href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/WILLEMS-v.-THE-NETHERLANDS.pdf\">WILLEMS-v.-THE-NETHERLANDS<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/WILLEMS-v.-THE-NETHERLANDS.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button\" download>Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The case of Willems v. the Netherlands (57294\/16, 9.11.2021) concerned the refusal by the applicant to provide fingerprints that would be digitised and saved in his passport and in a database. Applying Regulation 2252\/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation 444\/2009, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-european-court-of-human-rights","category-recent-case-law"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"de","enabled_languages":["en","de","fr"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2217"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2217\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2226,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2217\/revisions\/2226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}