Европейский суд по правам человека
4 июня 2013 года
Facts:
The applicants, Mr. Peruzzo and Mr. Martens, were German nationals with previous criminal convictions. Following their convictions for serious offences, German courts ordered each of them to provide a DNA sample for inclusion in a national database used to identify suspects in future criminal investigations. The orders were made under German Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits such measures when a person has committed an offence of considerable significance and is deemed likely to reoffend. Both applicants challenged these orders, arguing that they interfered with their right to respect for privacy.
Complaint:
The applicants claimed that under Article 8 the compulsory collection and storage of their DNA profiles for the purpose of establishing their identity within the scope of potential future criminal proceedings, constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for private life, namely their right to informational privacy.
Court’s ruling:
The Court accepted that the collection and retention of DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ private life under Article 8. However, it found that this interference was justified. The Court noted that the measure had a clear basis in national law, pursued a legitimate aim - namely, the prevention of crime - and was proportional to that aim. The German system contained significant safeguards, such as clear limitations on the storage and use of DNA data, restrictions on access, and periodic review of necessity, with a maximum storage period of 10 years for adults. Moreover, the measure applied only to individuals convicted of serious offences and assessed to present a risk of reoffending. Given these safeguards and the state’s margin of appreciation, the Court found the interference proportionate and declared the applications inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.