Help us make the FRA website better for you!
Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
Non-EU nationals from non-EU countries must provide their fingerprints and facial images the first time they enter the Schengen area. During subsequent entries and exits the biometric information collected will be verified and – unless the biometric data needs to be updated – no new biometric information is captured. Border guards may face challenges, for example taking facial images of babies. Although accuracy standards are high, wrong biometric matching can never be fully excluded. Adequate safeguards help to ensure that every person is treated with dignity in these situations.
The following findings were achieved through qualitative research.
- It is a common opinion among border guards at researched BCPs that fingerprints are easier to capture compared to facial images, when, for example, people do not stand still.
- The border guard’s attitude is pivotal in the biometric data collection process, as this affects the cooperation of the individual. As a shift leader in Poland noted ‘if you approach someone with a smile, they also somehow approach you with a smile. People don’t make problems.’
- At least in one BCP (Marseille airport), border guards were equipped with tablets that enable mobile EES checks, a measure which may facilitate checks of people with reduced mobility.
- Border guards rely on their judgment and experience to handle complex situations effectively. A shift leader in Bulgaria noted ‘we did not receive specific training or instruction on how to assess hand impairments. We just act according to our own experience.’
- Flexibility is key when handling unique circumstances involving cultural factors. A shift leader at Rome Fiumicino airport said in relation to a woman wearing a burqa or a particular veil that does not allow for facial biometric verification: ‘we will not force her to remove it or send her to the second line … if her fingerprints provide a match, that will be sufficient.’
- Concerns by experts in Germany about respect for human dignity focus on three main issues: the use of biometric data, the attitude and style of communication by border guards and support mechanisms for travellers with special needs.
The border guards survey revealed the following findings.
-
87 % of border guards consider the availability of a comfortable setting that ensures privacy to be an important safeguard for data quality (besides adequate equipment, confirmed by 91 % of border guards) (n = 176) [4] ‘n’ denotes the number of border guards who responded to the specific question across all nine border crossing points in which the fieldwork was carried out, out of a total of 177 participants to the survey. The total number of respondents for each question takes into account both respondents who gave substantial answers to the questions and those who selected the answer options ‘I do not know’ or ‘I prefer not to say’. It does not take into account questionnaire responses in which no answer option was selected.
. - 36 % of border guards said they needed training on obtaining biometric data from people with special needs (n = 173).
- Border guards with experience in processing biometrics at borders say that explaining the consequences of a refusal to provide biometric data and providing more information on the use of the data (56 %), giving the passenger more time to consider the options (31 %), calling a colleague for support (21 %), referral to a shift manager (16 %) and calling an interpreter (14 %) have helped them in situations when passengers refused to provide their biometric data (n = 48).
Article 39(1)(a) of the EES Regulation requires Member States to ensure that data are collected lawfully and in full respect of human dignity.
Under Article 10 of the EES Regulation, the capturing of biometric data must respect the Charter, the ECHR and, for children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. When capturing a child’s data, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. Article 17(3) exempts children under 12 years of age from the duty to give fingerprints but facial images must be collected from all children, including babies. Article 17(4) and (5) guides the authorities in situations when fingerprints cannot be physically taken either temporarily, for example due to an injured hand, or permanently.
These safeguards in the EES Regulation flow from Article 1 of the Charter, in accordance with which human dignity is inviolable, and from Articles 24 to 26 of the Charter, protecting children, the elderly and people with disabilities.
Fingerprints and facial images must be of sufficient quality to obtain correct matches. Article 15 of the EES Regulation requires that the facial image must have sufficient image resolution and quality to be used in automated biometric matching. Under Article 39 – which mirrors a more general duty in Article 5(1)d of the GDPR – Member States must ensure that data collected are accurate. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/329 of 25 February 2019 lays down the specifications for the quality, resolution and use of fingerprints and facial image for biometric verification and identification in the EES.
The following guidance may help national authorities to take fingerprints and facial images from non-EU nationals in a manner that respects human dignity.
- Guidance 4.1: Ensuring that any data quality guidance to capture biometric data, is strictly in line with EU quality standards.
The following guidance may also fall into the remit of senior officers at BCPs.
- Guidance 4.2: Providing guidance to front-line officers on how to capture biometric data in a dignified and non-discriminatory manner, paying particular attention to cultural and/or religious considerations and to the categories of people for whom capturing biometrics may be more challenging, such as small children, people with darker skin tones, or those with facial or hand injuries.
- Guidance 4.3: Providing guidance to front-line officers on how to ensure that non-EU nationals with specific needs are provided with the privacy, time or assistance they need to submit their biometric data.
- Guidance 4.4: Providing guidance to frontline officers on how to respond to non-EU nationals refusing to provide biometric data.
- Guidance 4.5: Supporting BCPs to have sufficient staff to monitor self-service registration systems and provide assistance when required.
- Guidance 4.6: Providing guidance to front-line officers on how to address biometric reliability challenges affecting people with diverse physical characteristics (e.g. children, older people, people of colour or other people with less distinct facial features).
- Guidance 4.7: Applying high-quality IT infrastructure and software capable of promptly capturing accurate and high-resolution images and fingerprints.
- The European Commission’s ‘EES Practical Handbook’ for national authorities (not publicly available).
- Annex to the Commission Recommendation establishing a common ‘Practical Handbook for Border Guards (Schengen Handbook)’ to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out the border control of persons and replacing Recommendation (C(2019) 7131 final), C(2022) 7591 final of 28 October 2022’., pp. 14, 16.
- Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights and European Agency for Fundamental Rights, Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration – Edition 2020, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, in particular Chapter 2. Update forthcoming in 2026.
- Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, European Data Protection Supervisor and European Agency for Fundamental Rights, Handbook on European data protection law – 2018 edition, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018.
- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Fundamental rights complications of the obligation to provide fingerprints for Eurodac, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2015.