A recent obligation enforced in Germany mandates the collection of fingerprints (left and right index fingers) through a scanner for Germans when applying for a new ID card. This decision is still facing legal complications, with the Administrative Court of Hamburg recently issuing an interim order requiring the competent authority in the Hanseatic city to issue ID cards without fingerprints stored on the radio chip, along with a biometric facial image. This card may only be valid for one year. The decision was made due to doubts about the legality of the EU regulation, which requires all member states to store such fingerprint data.
The Hamburg judges consider it urgent to avoid any harm that may befall applicants, particularly privacy issues associated with sensitive data. Without the interim order, they would be forced to provide fingerprints when applying for a new identity card, which would be a considerable disadvantage, as such data is protected. The competent authority still has the right to appeal.
Every German over the age of 16 must carry an ID card or passport; otherwise, there’s a risk of being fined up to 5,000 euros. The Digitalcourage, a civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit against the Hamburg regulation for fingerprint collection and the EU law on which it is based. The Administrative Court in Wiesbaden also raised concerns over the same regulation at the beginning of this year, citing a conflict with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that protect privacy.
The case was submitted to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), who discussed it for the first time with many participants. However, the judges at the ECJ also had concerns over the regulation, particularly over the deletion period and data exchange. Biometric data may be stored in government offices for up to 90 days, and the data may be used for purposes other than issuing ID cards, creating new security gaps. The Digitalcourage has stated a high level of interest in the process, where many individuals have rejected the storage obligation and refused to provide their fingerprints.
