A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems e) The Judicial Yuan of Taiwan identified the issuance of national identity cards incorporating fingerprints as implicating the right to informational privacy.73 f) The European Court of Justice identifies fingerprint data as unique personal data implicating the right to a private life (albeit not in the context of a challenge to an identity system).74 The court’s analysis focuses on the personal data protections necessary to ensuring the right to a private life,75 a focus closely resembling informational privacy arguments employed by the other courts discussed earlier. g) The European Court of Human Rights concluded that Article 8 of the European Convention on Fundamental Rights, ie the right to private life, family life, correspondence, and home, provided “for the right to a form of informational self-determination, allowing individuals to rely on their right to privacy as regards data which, albeit neutral, are collected, processed and disseminated collectively and in such a form or manner that their Article 8 rights may be engaged.”76 34. The mandatory collection of personal data as part of an identity system interferes with the right to privacy because it interferes with an individual’s autonomy and freedom of choice. a) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment focuses its proportionality around the idea that the identity system places personal autonomy at odds with the public interest.77 The majority’s conception of personal autonomy is “the free exercise of the will according to one’s own values, interests, and desires.”78 73 Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 603, Taiwan, Holding (2005). 74 Michael Schwarz v. Stadt Bochum, ECJ C-291/12, ¶ 27–30 (2013). 75 See Michael Schwarz, ¶ 24–25. 76 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy V. Finland, Application No. 931/13, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, 27 June 2017. 77 See Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 285 at 355. 78 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 116 at 199. 23