5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris. 6.  On 10 February 2004 an investigation was launched in respect of the applicant for book theft. The investigating authorities took his fingerprints. 7. By a judgment handed down on 15 February 2005 following an appeal against a sentence delivered on 28 April 2004 by the Paris Criminal Court, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. 8.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was taken into police custody under the flagrante delicto procedure, also for book theft. He was again fingerprinted. 9.  On 2 February 2006 the proceedings were discontinued by the Paris public prosecutor. 10.  The fingerprints taken during these proceedings were entered into the national fingerprint database (fichier automatisé des empreintes digitales - “the FAED”). 11.  In a letter of 21 April 2006 to the Paris public prosecutor, the applicant requested the removal of his fingerprints from the FAED. 12.  On 31 May 2006 the public prosecutor ordered the deletion only of the fingerprints taken during the first set of proceedings. He argued that retaining one specimen of the applicant’s fingerprints was justified in the latter’s interests, as it could rule out his involvement in acts committed by a third person stealing his identity. 13.  On 26 June 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the judge of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters. 14.  By order of 25 August 2006, the judge with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters dismissed his appeal. He held that retaining the fingerprints was in the interests of the investigating authorities, as it provided them with a database comprising as full a set of references as possible. Furthermore, this measure was not prejudicial to the applicant thanks to the confidentiality of the database, which prevented any impact on the applicant’s private or social life. 15.  On 21 December 2006 the President of the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld this order. 16.  In a judgment of 1 October 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on the grounds that since the procedure was written he had been in a position to put forward his arguments and take cognisance of the reasons for the public prosecutor’s objection to the complete deletion of the fingerprints. It added that thanks to the evidence produced during the proceedings, it could verify that the request had been addressed in accordance with the legislation and international treaties cited by the applicant, which included Article 8 of the Convention.
 
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW