Published on 1 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 21040/23
G.C.A. against the Netherlands
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the taking, processing and retention of the applicants’ DNA data following their criminal convictions under the DNA Testing of Convicted Persons Act (‘Wet DNA onderzoek bij veroordeelden’).
Application no. 21040/23: The applicant (see appended list) was subjected to a community service order following a final penalty order issued by the Public Prosecution Service (strafbeschikking) on 28 June 2022, due to her use of forged documents in civil proceedings. She did not contest the penalty decision.
Application nos. 13310/24, 13311/24, 13315/24, 13654/24, 13747/24 and 13751/24: The applicants (see appended list) are associated with Extinction Rebellion (XR), an international activist movement organising protests aimed at prompting governmental action on climate change. On 2 August 2023, they were convicted, at first instance, by the Regional Court of The Hague and sentenced to community service orders for repeatedly inciting, online, participation in a demonstration during which a motorway was blocked, thereby seriously disrupting public order. Applicants 4 and 5 were additionally convicted of damaging public property by painting slogans on such property.
Application no. 19531/24: The applicant (see appended list) was convicted by the Regional Court of Amsterdam on 16 November 2023 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the use of a false identity document.
Application no. 18971/25: The applicant (see appended list) was convicted on 30 August 2024 by the Central Netherlands Regional Court of unlawful trespass and occupation of property (squatting) and was sentenced to a community service order. On appeal, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, on 14 May 2025, commuted that sentence to a fully suspended fine.
Following their convictions at first instance, all applicants were ordered, pursuant to section 2 (1) of the DNA Testing of Convicted Persons Act, to provide DNA samples, which were to be processed and retained. The applicants objected to those orders, arguing, inter alia, that they fell within the scope of the exception contained in section 2 (1) (b) of that Act. Under that provision, DNA sampling and processing do not take place where, having regard to the nature of the offence or the particular circumstances in which it was committed, it may reasonably be assumed that such measures will not be of relevance to the prevention, detection, prosecution or adjudication of further criminal offences by the person concerned. All the applicants argued that, given the nature of the offences for which they had been convicted, and/or the particular circumstances in which they were committed, DNA evidence would not be of significance in the prevention of further offending by the applicants. The applicants’ objections were dismissed in various decisions of the Regional Courts.
In respect of the applicant in application no. 21040/23 (see appended list), the Procurator General to the Supreme Court lodged an appeal in cassation in the interest of the law (an extraordinary remedy) with a view to clarifying the scope of section 2 (1) (b) of the Act, which had given rise to divergent interpretations in the case-law of the Regional Courts. In a judgment of 19 November 2024, the Supreme Court held that the exception relating to the nature of the offence was to be applied only where DNA evidence could not be of any relevance for the detection of further criminal offences.
The applicants complained that the taking, processing and retention of their DNA data had violated their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the Convention as it had not been lawful and/or necessary. The applicants in application nos. 13310/24, 13311/24, 13315/24, 13654/24, 13747/24 and 13751/24 further relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention to make the same complaint.
COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, arising from the taking, processing and retention of their DNA data, taking into account the Court’s judgments in Van der Velden v. the Netherlands ((dec.) no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-XV); W. v. the Netherlands ((dec.) no. 20689/08, ECHR 2008); S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008); Aycaguer v. France (no. 8806/12, 22 June 2017); Gaughran v. the United Kingdom (no. 45245/15, 13 February 2020); and Trajkovski and Chipovski v. North Macedonia (nos. 53205/13 and 63320/13, 13 February 2020).
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Applications nos. 13310/24, 13311/24, 13315/24, 13654/24, 13747/24 and 13751/24: Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, arising from the taking, processing and retention of their DNA data (see mutatis mutandis, Catt v. the United Kingdom (no. 43514/15, 24 January 2019); Glukhin v. Russia (no. 11519/20, 4 July 2023); and Selishcheva and Others v. Russia (nos. 39056/22 and 9 others, 27 May 2025))?
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
21040/23
G.C.A.
v. the Netherlands
25/05/2023
1967
Dutch
Th.O.M. DIEBEN
2.
13310/24
De Graaf v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Jelle DE GRAAF
1989
Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
3.
13311/24
Hofstede v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Tessel HOFSTEDE
1975
Olst
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
4.
13315/24
Sloot
v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Sieger Gerjan SLOOT
1977
Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
5.
13654/24
Winnips
v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Lucas Pieter Adriaan WINNIPS
1975
Castricum
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
6.
13747/24
Hendriksen v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Paul Johan HENDRIKSEN
1967
Olst
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
7.
13751/24
Hofstede v. the Netherlands
08/05/2024
Anne Petra HOFSTEDE
1973
Groenlo
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
8.
19531/24
Ikegwuri v. the Netherlands
04/07/2024
Samuel Achinike IKEGWURI
1997
Amsterdam
Nigerian
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
9.
18971/25
Richardson v. the Netherlands
18/06/2025
Kathleen Clare RICHARDSON
1995
Amsterdam
American
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK