CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } 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