Nicosia, Cyprus. The Supreme Court on Tuesday annulled a Nicosia district court order authorising the compulsory collection of biometric data from a man arrested on suspicion of arson. The court ruled the lower court acted ultra vires and failed to justify the necessity and proportionality of the measure.
Arrest and district court order
The case concerned an individual arrested last February on suspicion of arson who refused to consent to providing saliva samples, fingerprints, palm prints and photographs. Police applied to the Nicosia district court, which issued an order on February 24 authorising the collection of the biometric material.
Challenge to the order
Although the applicant initially complied with the order, he later filed to seek its annulment.
Supreme Court findings on legal assessment
The Supreme Court found that the district court failed to carry out the required assessment under domestic law and European directives incorporated into legislation governing the processing of personal data. The judgment said European law requires a strict examination of “necessity and proportionality” before biometric or genetic data can be collected without consent.
Lack of reasoning and judicial role
The Supreme Court said the district court provided no reasoning explaining why collecting saliva, fingerprints and photographs was proportionate in this case. It stated that a judge does not act automatically in such cases and must be fully satisfied that both reasonable suspicion and necessity exist.
Reasonable suspicion and uncertainty
The court said reasonable suspicion is not determined by the police officer who administers the oath, but is established by the judge after careful examination of all the evidence. It also said the absence of recorded judicial reasoning created uncertainty as to whether the district court undertook the required legal assessment before issuing the order.
What do you think courts should be required to document before authorising the collection of biometric data without consent?
