Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost v V.S.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Celex Number | 62021CJ0205 |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2023:49 |
| Date | 26 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | C-205/21 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
26 January 2023 (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive (EU) 2016/680 – Article 4(1)(a) to (c) – Principles relating to processing of personal data – Purpose limitation – Data minimisation – Article 6(a) – Clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects – Article 8 – Lawfulness of processing – Article 10 – Transposition – Processing of biometric data and genetic data – Concept of ‘processing authorised by Member State law’ – Concept of ‘strictly necessary’ – Discretion – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7, 8, 47, 48 and 52 – Right to effective judicial protection – Presumption of innocence – Limitation – Intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution – Accused persons – Collection of photographic and dactyloscopic data in order for them to be entered in a record and taking of a biological sample for the purpose of creating a DNA profile – Procedure for enforcement of collection – Systematic nature of the collection)
In Case C‑205/21,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 31 March 2021, received at the Court on 31 March 2021, in the criminal proceedings against
V.S.,
third party:
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost,
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of E. Regan, President of the Chamber, D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, I. Jarukaitis and Z. Csehi, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Pitruzzella,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– the Bulgarian Government, by M. Georgieva and T. Mitova, acting as Agents,
– the French Government, by R. Bénard, A.-L. Desjonquères, D. Dubois and T. Stéhelin, acting as Agents,
– the European Commission, by H. Kranenborg, M. Wasmeier and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 June 2022,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), Article 6(a) and Articles 8 and 10 of 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 (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89), and of Articles 3, 8, 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in criminal proceedings instituted against V.S., who, after being accused, refused to consent to collection by the police of her biometric and genetic data in order for them to be entered in a record.
Legal context
European Union law
The GDPR
3 Recital 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 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 and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1; ‘the GDPR’), states:
‘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, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security and the free movement of such data, is the subject of a specific Union legal act. This Regulation should not, therefore, apply to processing activities for those purposes. …’
4Article 2 of the GDPR, headed ‘Material scope’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2:
‘1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
(a) in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law;
…
(d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.’
5Article 9 of the GDPR, headed ‘Processing of special categories of personal data’, provides in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4:
‘1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies:
(a) the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, …
(b) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law …
(c) processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person …
(d) processing is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities with appropriate safeguards by a foundation, association or any other not-for-profit body with a political, philosophical, religious or trade union aim …
(e) processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject;
(f) processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims or whenever courts are acting in their judicial capacity;
(g) processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject;
(h) processing is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine, for the assessment of the working capacity of the employee, medical diagnosis, the provision of health or social care or treatment or the management of health or social care systems and services …
(i) processing is necessary for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, such as protecting against serious cross-border threats to health or ensuring high standards of quality and safety of health care and of medicinal products or medical devices, on the basis of Union or Member State law which provides for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject, in particular professional secrecy;
(j) processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes …
…
4. Member States may maintain or introduce further conditions, including limitations, with regard to the processing of genetic data, biometric data or data concerning health.’
6 Recitals 9 to 12, 14, 26, 27, 31 and 37 of Directive 2016/680 state:
‘(9) … [the GDPR] lays down general rules to protect natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data and to ensure the free movement of personal data within the Union.
(10) In Declaration No 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the conference acknowledged that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 TFEU may prove necessary because of the specific nature of those fields.
(11) It is therefore appropriate for those fields to be addressed by a directive that lays down the specific rules relating to 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, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, respecting the specific nature of those activities. …
(12) The activities carried out by the police or other law-enforcement authorities are focused mainly on the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, including police activities without prior knowledge if an incident is a criminal offence or not. … Member States may entrust competent authorities with other tasks which are not necessarily carried out for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, so that the processing of personal data for those other purposes, in so far as it is within the scope of Union law, falls within the scope of [the GDPR].
…
(14) Since this Directive should not apply to the processing of personal data in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law, activities concerning national security, activities of agencies or units dealing with national security issues and the processing of personal...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 1 August 2025.
...freien Datenverkehr und zur Aufhebung des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/977/JI des Rates (ABl. 2016, L 119, S. 89). 3 Urteil vom 26. Januar 2023 (C‑205/21, im Folgenden: Urteil Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti I, 4 Der Gerichtshof kam in Rn. 135 des Urteils Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti I z......
-
ZR and PI v Banco Santander, SA.
...del 26 gennaio 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Registrazione di dati biometrici e di dati genetici da parte della polizia), C‑205/21, EU:C:2023:49, punto 55 e giurisprudenza ivi 36 Le questioni prima, seconda, terza e quinta che sono state poste presuppongono che la direttiva 2005......
-
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost v V.S.
...de l’arrêt du 26 janvier 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Enregistrement de données biométriques et génétiques par la police) (C‑205/21, EU:C:2023:49) – Obligation d’interprétation conforme – Appréciation de la “nécessité absolue” du traitement des données sensibles – Rôle des auto......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Spielmann delivered on 29 April 2025.
...alia, sentenza del 26 gennaio 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Registrazione di dati biometrici e genetici da parte della polizia) (C‑205/21, EU:C:2023:49, punto 77), in cui la Corte ha riformulato la terza questione pregiudiziale sollevata dal giudice del 6 V., per analogia, sente......