in-cyprus 28 May 2025 - by Michalis Hadjivasilis
A Supreme Court judge has referred a constitutional question to the Supreme Constitutional Court regarding whether police powers to collect DNA samples conflict with privacy rights protections.
The referral could affect numerous police investigations involving the collection of fingerprints and genetic material if the law is found to breach constitutional protections of private and family life.
The case arose when a citizen arrested on drug charges refused to provide a saliva sample for DNA testing. After the suspect declined consent, police obtained a court order compelling him to provide saliva for DNA examination and identification purposes relating to a bag containing cannabis.
The citizen sought and received permission to challenge the court order. Supreme Court Judge Ch. Malachtos, examining the application, determined a legal constitutional issue required referral before making his decision.
The specific question referred asks whether Article 25 of the Police Laws 2004-2023 violates Article 15 of the Constitution and is consequently unconstitutional.
Article 25 empowers police officers to take measurements, photographs, fingerprints, palm and sole prints, handwriting samples, nail clippings, hair samples, saliva, and foreign substance residues from suspects with their consent or following a court order if consent is refused.
The Constitutional Court will examine whether this provision conflicts with Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
Case background
The applicant was arrested on February 13, 2025 under a judicial warrant as a suspect in drug and other offences. He refused consent for genetic material collection through cheek swabs.
Police applied to Nicosia District Court on February 20, 2025 under Article 25 of the Police Laws 2004-2023.
The same day, a district court judge issued an order for “collection of cheek swabs (saliva) for comparison, identification and investigation purposes of the offences included in this application”.
The applicant complied with the court order.
Legal implications
The court considered the referral appropriate since finding the law unconstitutional would mean the disputed order was issued under unconstitutional legislation.
The constitutional question is therefore essential for determining the Supreme Court application seeking to annul the court order.
Following these findings, the judge instructed the Registrar to take appropriate action according to Regulation 5 of the Supreme Constitutional Court Procedural Rules 2023.
The application proceedings have been suspended pending the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the referred question.
