Summaries of judgments: Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden | NADA e o.

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

 ▪

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 March 2024, Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden, Case C-61/22, EU:C:2024:251

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 – Strengthening the security of identity cards of EU citizens – Validity – Legal basis – Article 21(2) TFEU – Article 77(3) TFEU – Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 – Article 3(5) – Obligation for Member States to include two fingerprints in interoperable digital formats in the storage medium of identity cards – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Respect for private and family life – Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 35 – Obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment – Maintaining the effects for a certain time of a regulation which has been declared invalid

Facts

The request for a preliminary ruling was made in proceedings between RL, a German national, and the Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden (City of Wiesbaden, Land capital, Germany) concerning the rejection by the latter of RL’s application for an identity card which does not include RL’s fingerprints. The application was rejected due to a national provision according to which the inclusion of two fingerprints in the storage medium of identity cards is mandatory. This national provision transposes Article 3(5) of Regulation 2019/1157, on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement.

RL brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Administrative Court, Wiesbaden, Germany), seeking an order requiring the Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden to issue him with an identity card with no fingerprints being collected. The referring court had doubts regarding the validity of Regulation 2019/1157 or, at least, the validity of Article 3(5) thereof, on the grounds that, firstly, it was adopted on an incorrect legal basis, secondly, it violates Article 35 of the GDPR and, thirdly, it violates Articles 7 and 8 CFREU.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden | NADA e o.”