(AGENPARL) – Thu 20 November 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 145/25
Luxembourg, 20 November 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-57/23 | Policejní prezidium (Storage of biometric and genetic data)
The police of a Member State may decide, on the basis of internal rules,
whether it is necessary to store the biometric and genetic data of a person
accused or suspected of a criminal offence
Where national law sets appropriate time limits for a review of the need to store those data, it does not
necessarily need to provide for a maximum period of storage
A Czech public official was interviewed by the police in the context of criminal proceedings involving him. Despite his
objections, the police ordered the taking of his fingerprints, the taking of a buccal smear on the basis of which the
police established a genetic profile, the taking of photographs and the drawing up of a description of him. That
information was entered into various databases. In 2017, the public official was convicted by final judgment of, inter
alia, misconduct in public office. In separate proceedings, he challenged the identification procedures carried out by
the police under Czech law 1 and the storage of the data resulting from those procedures, in that that they
constituted an unlawful interference with his fundamental right to respect for private life. The Czech court upheld
that action and ordered the police to erase all the personal data resulting from those procedures from its
databases. The Czech police lodged an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Czech Supreme
Administrative Court.
It is in that context that that court asked whether the legal regime established by the Law on the Czech Police is
compatible with Directive 2016/680. 2 In the first place, that court asks whether the case-law of the Czech
administrative courts may be classified as ‘Member State law’. 3 In the second place, it asks whether the
requirements laid down in that directive preclude the indiscriminate collection of biometric and genetic data for any
person suspected of having committed an intentional criminal offence. In the third place, it asks whether that
directive precludes the storage of biometric and genetic data where no maximum period of storage is expressly laid
down.
In its judgment delivered today, the Court of Justice holds that, as regards the collection, storage and erasure of
biometric and genetic data, the concept of ‘Member State law’ refers to a provision of general application laying
down the minimum conditions for collection, storage and erasure of those data, as interpreted by the case-law of
the national courts, in so far as that case-law is accessible and sufficiently foreseeable.
Furthermore, EU law 4 does not preclude national legislation which allows for the indiscriminate collection of
biometric and genetic data of any person accused of having committed an intentional criminal offence or
suspected of having committed such an offence. However, the Court attaches two conditions: first, the purposes of
that collection must not require a distinction to be made between those two categories of persons. Second,
the controllers must be required, in accordance with national law, including the case-law of the national courts, to
comply with all of the principles and the specific requirements 5 applicable to the processing of sensitive
personal data.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Lastly, the Court holds that EU law 6 permits, subject to certain conditions, the existence of national legislation
under which the need for the continued storage of biometric and genetic data is assessed by the police on
the basis of internal rules.
In so far as the national legislation sets appropriate time limits for a periodic review of the need to store those data
and, at the time of that review, the strict necessity of extending their storage is assessed, that national legislation
need not lay down a maximum period of storage.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Article 65 of the Law on the Czech Police.
Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences
or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.
Within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2016/680, which lays down conditions for the lawful processing of personal data.
Article 6 and Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 10 of that directive.
Laid down in Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 2016/680.
Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2016/680.
Communications Directorate