en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 16.01.2026,
  • Revised 14.04.2026,
  • Accepted 26.05.2026
  • Published 01.06.2026
Download article Download article
Vol. 31, No. 2, 2026
  • biometric registration; personal data protection; civil service integrity; right to privacy; identification of the fallen
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/2.2026.47
  • Pages 47-58

This article examines the legal regulation of mandatory fingerprinting of civil servants as a mechanism for identity verification, integrity assurance, and security in public administration. Using comparative legal and formal legal methods, legislation of Ukraine, European Union member states, and the United States is analysed with respect to the collection and processing of fingerprint data of persons holding or applying for public service positions. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights in “S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom” and “Gaughran v. the United Kingdom”, and the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case No. C-371/24 “Comdribus”, are systematised. The principal results are as follows. Ukraine has no statutory provision for fingerprinting upon entry to public service – for civilian servants, police officers, or military personnel alike – constituting a structural vulnerability of the public administration integrity system. The approach that the General Data Protection Regulation prohibits such registration is shown to be doctrinally erroneous: Article 9(2)(g) General Data Protection Regulation expressly permits processing of biometric data on grounds of substantial public interest where a proper statutory basis exists. A differentiated model for introducing fingerprinting compatible with European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of European Union, and General Data Protection Regulation standards is substantiated. The wartime dimension – identification of fallen military personnel – is identified and its normative resolution proposed. The adoption of a Law of Ukraine “On Biometric Registration” with a differentiated approach to position categories, clear data protection guarantees, and phased implementation is the primary legislative step required

References

  1. Ashbourn, J. (2014). Biometrics in the new world: The cloud, mobile technology and pervasive identity. Journal of Information Security, 6(2).
  2. Bennett, C.J. (2010). The privacy advocates: Resisting the spread of surveillance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  3. Bidniak, H. (2017). Legal regulation of fingerprinting of persons in Ukraine. Journal of Criminalistics, 2(28), 446-450. https://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/vkk_2017_2_77.
  4. Brownsword, R., & Goodwin, M. (2012). Law and the technologies of the twenty-first century: Text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. datenshutz. (2020). Dutch DPA imposes fine on company using fingerprint technology for attendance and time registration. Retrieved from https://www.datenschutz-notizen.de/dutch-dpa-imposes-fine-on-company-using-fingerprint-technology-for-attendance-and-time-registration-4325764/#_ftn1.
  6. De Hert, P., & Sprokkereef, A. (2008). Data protection and the use of biometric data in the EU. In C. Fischer-Hübner, P. Duquenoy, A. Zuccato & L. Martucci (Eds.), The future of identity in the information society (IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 262) (pp. 213-228). Karlstad: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-79026-8_19.
  7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2023). National fingerprint-based background checks: Steps for success. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/cjis/steps-for-success.pdf.
  8. Haggerty, K.D., & Ericson, R.V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. doi: 10.1080/00071310020015280.
  9. Jain, A.K., Ross, A.A., & Nandakumar, K. (2011). Introduction to biometrics. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77326-1.
  10. Kindt, E.J. (2013). Privacy and data protection issues of biometric applications: A comparative legal analysis. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7522-0.
  11. Knyzhenko, S., & Sharaban, O. (2023). Fingerprint registration in Ukraine: Legal regulation and development trends. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University: Law Series, 2(79), 237-244. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2023.79.2.36.
  12. Koops, B.-J., & Leenes, R. (2013). Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded: A critical comment on the ‘privacy by design’ provision in data-protection law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 27(1-2), 159-171. doi: 10.1080/13600869.2013.764010.
  13. Loomis, B., & Bowerman, K. (2025). Anonymous no more: Countering the gray zone threat through biometrics-enabled intelligence. Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Military-Intelligence/Military-Intelligence-Archive/Continuous-Transformation-Special-Edition/Anonymous-No-More/.
  14. Lyon, D. (2009). Identifying citizens: ID cards as surveillance. Ontario: Polity.
  15. Media Initiative for Human Rights. (2024). How to accelerate the identification of those killed or missing in the war. Retrieved from https://mipl.org.ua/en/how-to-accelerate-the-identification-of-those-killed-or-missing-in-the-war/.
  16. Mordini, E., & Tzovaras, D. (Eds.). (2012). Second generation biometrics: The ethical, legal and social context. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3892-8.
  17. National Research Council. (2010). Biometric recognition: Challenges and opportunities. Washington: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12720.
  18. Orlov, Y. & Pribytkova, N.O. (2022). War and criminal law policy of Ukraine: Challenges and responses. Law and Safety, 85(2), 40-49. doi: 10.32631/pb.2022.2.04.
  19. Solove, D.J., & Schwartz, P.M. (2019). Privacy law fundamentals. Portsmouth: International Association of Privacy Professionals.
  20. U.S. Army. (2022). Army unveils new Army Biometric Program Directive. Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/262016/army_unveils_new_army_biometric_program_directive.
  21. U.S. Department of Defense. (2023). DoD biometrics enterprise strategy 2025-2030. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD-Biometrics-Enterprise-Strategy.pdf.
  22. U.S. Department of the Interior. (2023). Personnel security and credentialing services. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/ibc/personnel-security-and-credentialing-services.
  23. U.S. Office of Justice Programs. (1982). Abandonment of fingerprint identification by United States Department of Defense (NCJ 77543). Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/abandonment-fingerprint-identification-united-states-department.
  24. Westin, A.F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 431-453. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00072.
  25. Zakharov, V., & Rudeshko, V. (2015). Biometric technologies in the 21st century and their use by law enforcement (2nd ed.). Lviv: LvDUVS.
  26. ZMINA – Media Initiative for Human Rights. (2025). How Ukraine searches for and identifies the missing during the war. https://zmina.info/instructions/yak-v-ukrayini-shukayut-ta-identyfikuyut-znyklyh-bezvisti-pid-chas-vijny-vidpovidi-na-poshyreni-pytannya/.
  27. Zouhar, L., & Bartoszewicz, M.G. (2022). The smoking gun: How gun policies influence types of firearms involved in violent crimes in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(10-11), 1180-1199. doi: 10.1177/17488958221134059.
  28. Zwanenburg, M. (2012). International humanitarian law and the use of biometric data. In E. Mordini & D. Tzovaras (Eds.), Second generation biometrics: The ethical, legal and social context (pp. 275-294). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3892-8_13.