Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62018CN0070

Case C-70/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others

OJ C 161, 7.5.2018, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others

(Case C-70/18)

(2018/C 161/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: A, B, P

Questions referred

1.

(a)

Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 1 be interpreted as not precluding a national rule providing for the general processing and storage of the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, in a filing system within the meaning of Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281[, p. 31]) on the ground that that national rule does not go further than is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective, pursued by that rule, of preventing and combating identity fraud and document fraud?

(b)

Is it significant in this regard that the duration of the storage of the biometric data is linked to the duration of the lawful and/or illegal stay of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals?

2.

Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that a national rule does not constitute a restriction, within the meaning of those provisions, if the effect of that national rule on access to employment, as referred to in those provisions, is too uncertain and too indirect to be regarded as constituting an obstacle to such access?

3.

(a)

If the answer to Question 2 is that a national rule which makes it possible to make available to third parties the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, contained in a filing system, with a view to the prevention, detection and investigation of offences — whether or not of a terrorist nature — constitutes a new restriction, must Article 52(1), read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding such a national rule?

(b)

Is it significant in this regard that that third-country national, at the time when he is detained on suspicion of having committed an offence, has in his possession the residence document on which his biometric data are stored?

(1)  Decisions of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.

Top