Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
31.07.2012
Facts:
The applicant, Mr. van der Velden, a Dutch national, was convicted in 2003 of multiple bank robberies and car thefts. He was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment and placed under an order, requiring confinement in a custodial psychiatric clinic. In 2005, after the entry into force of the DNA Testing (Convicted Persons) Act, the public prosecutor ordered the applicant to provide a DNA sample for inclusion in the national DNA database, based on his criminal conviction. A mouth swab was taken, and his DNA profile was stored.
The applicant objected to the measure, arguing that it amounted to an additional penalty applied retroactively, as the Act came into force after his conviction. He also claimed that the collection and storage of his DNA profile was a disproportionate interference with his private life and discriminatory, as he was treated differently from individuals not subject to DNA collection.
Complaint:
The applicant complained that the DNA collection and storage imposed on him after his conviction violated Article 7 (no punishment without law), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Court’s ruling:
The Court found the application inadmissible. It held that the measure did not amount to a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7, since its purpose was not to punish the applicant but to aid in the detection and prevention of crime. The collection of DNA data was based on a new law and applied automatically to certain categories of convicted persons. The measure did not increase the sentence imposed and was not retroactively punitive.
Under Article 8, the Court accepted that both the taking of the DNA sample and its storage interfered with the applicant’s private life. However, it found the interference justified. The measure was lawful, pursued legitimate aims of preventing crime and protecting the rights of others, and was proportionate. The Court noted that the interference was minimal - limited to a mouth swab and data storage - and that DNA databases are a valuable tool for law enforcement. It also emphasized that the applicant might benefit from the inclusion of his DNA profile by being excluded more easily from suspicion in future investigations.
Finally, the Court rejected the discrimination claim under Article 14. It noted that the applicant was not treated differently from other convicted persons in similar circumstances, and even if there were a distinction between him and those not subject to DNA profiling, that distinction was justified by the serious nature of the crimes and the legitimate aim of preventing reoffending.