Romania (Case A) and Estonia (Case B)


Tobias Hinderks

Cite as


Advocate:         Tobias Hinderks
Delegation:       HanseMUN e.V.
Representing:   Romania
Issue:               Case M-621/18

Alternative 1:


We doubt the material scope of Reg. No. 2016/679 (Ground Data Protection Regulation, herein after: GDPR) is opened in this case. We therefore do not think GDPR is applicable in this case.

Art. 2 II No. 4 GDPR states that the regulation does not apply 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.

Processing the fingerprint of Mr. Piontek was in line with Art. 20 II f of Reg. No. 1987/2006. This legal basis aims to constitute a compensatory measure contributing to maintaining a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the European Union.[1]

The purpose of processing fingerprints in matters regarding the Schengen Information System (SIS II) is therefore a purpose of guaranteeing safety and hindering threats in the respective member states. The purpose of processing personal data in line with the Schengen Information System purpose is therefore to ensure law enforcement and effective systems for security, borders and migration.[2] Processing data in this regard serves the detection of criminals crossing border, hindering their free movement which they misuse to offend against innocent civilians and possibly prevent any offences by not allowing the entry of a criminal subject in the first place.

Processing personal data purposes in the matter at hand is safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security especially. Due to Art. ...