European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> S. AND MICHAEL MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 30562/04 [2008] ECHR 178 (27 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/178.html
Cite as: [2008] ECHR 178

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

139

27.2.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

GRAND CHAMBER HEARING
S. AND MICHAEL MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 9 a.m., in the case of S. and Michael Marper v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04).

The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

The applicants

The applicants S. and Michael Marper, were born in 1989 and 1963. They are both British nationals who live in Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Summary of the facts

The case concerns the decision to continue storing fingerprints and DNA samples taken from the applicants after unsuccessful criminal proceedings against them were closed.

On 19 January 2001 S. was arrested and charged with attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. He was acquitted on 14 June 2001. Mr Marper was arrested on 13 March 2001, charged with harassing his partner. His fingerprints and DNA samples were also taken. The charges were dropped following reconciliation with his partner and the case against him was discontinued, also on 14 June 2001.

Both applicants unsuccessfully requested that their fingerprints and DNA samples be destroyed.

Complaints

The applicants both complain about the retention of their fingerprints and DNA samples and the fact that they are being used in ongoing criminal investigations. They are also concerned about the possible future uses of those samples and, in general, that their retention casts suspicion on people who have been acquitted or discharged of crimes. They further contend that, as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in the same way as the rest of the unconvicted population of the United Kingdom. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 August 2004 and declared admissible on 16 January 2007. The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on 10 July 2007^¹.

Composition of the Court

The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
Giovanni Bonello (Maltese)
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
Anatoli Kovler (Russian),
Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan),
Egbert Myjer (Dutch),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian),
Ján Šikuta (Slovak),
Mark Villiger (Swiss)^²,
Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish),
Ledi Bianku (Albanian), judges,
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese),
Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), substitute judges,

and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar.

Representatives of the parties

Government: Emily Willmott, Agent,

Rabinder Singh, James Strachan, Counsel,

Nick Fussel, Patricia McFarlane, Mike Prior, Simon Bramble,
Eleanor Rees, Sudip Sen, Advisers;

Applicants: Stephen Cragg, Azeem Suterwalla, Counsel;

Peter Mahy, Solicitor.

***

After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date^³.

Press contacts

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)
Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

1 Under Article 30 of the Convention, where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.

2 Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.

3 This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.