The judgments/rulings are organised in chronological order starting with the most recent.
 
Summary: "I. Unlike equivalent legislation in other countries, the Portuguese legislator fully assumed the responsibility of establishing, with exemplary foresight, the limit defining at what point the genetic data of a convicted person becomes part of the database, namely: those sentenced to a prison term of three years of more, even if it is suspended.
II. The concrete term of three years of prison is much more than an inconsequential sentence and is also undoubtedly greater than normally expected for low-intensity crime. For these reasons, there is no doubt that the legislator was also careful in this respect, to the point that it is not reasonable to see a disproportionate infringement of the convicted person's personal rights in this matter.
III. Therefore, when that legal condition is found (a concrete prison term of three years or more, even if suspended), the judge shall order, in a court order (to be executed only after the judgment has transited in rem judicatam), the collection of samples from the convicted person (Article 8(2)), and it is the judge's responsibility to determine that the collection of samples has been performed. The judge should not (correction: cannot) replace the legislator and alter the rules fixed by it.
IV. The judge, in doing so, goes beyond his/her role as applier of the law to the case in question, violating the principle of separation of powers because in this case the interpreter would not be dealing with legal interpretation, but rather correction of legislative choices, which is unconstitutional according to the principle of separation of powers established in Article 2 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
V. Faced with a rule that contains a meaning expressing an unambiguous but unconstitutional will of the legislator, the applier is not responsible for shaping it to the stipulations of the Fundamental Law. The applier is instead responsible for not applying it for being unconstitutional (Article 204 of the Constitution) and the legislator responsible for rescinding it or altering it to remove the plight of unconstitutionality."

Rapporteur: Justice Castela Rio
Summary: "I - The order to collect a biological sample containing DNA when a "substantive effect" of a criminal conviction may only be determined by an order from the judge after one of the following has transited: i) sentence or judgment ordering an effective prison term of no less than 3 years or ii) an order that repeals the suspension of a prison term and establishes fulfilment of a prison term of no less than 3 years.
II - The subject of the wilful crime of domestic violence, in Article 152 of the Criminal Code, involves the perpetrator creating and maintaining - in the manner and under the terms of his/her actions as spouse or equivalent and throughout their cohabitation - a living situation that affects (although not necessarily through constant aggression) at least one aspect of the victim's psychosomatic well-being.
III - The Court of 1st Instance's own decision to award €2,500 in damages to the victim of the crime of domestic violence [set under the terms of Article 82A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 21(1) and (2) of Law no. 112/2009 of 16/9] is not open to appeal."
Rapporteur: Justice Joaquim Correia Gomes
Summary: "I - Bodily interventions as a way of obtaining evidence, such as collecting saliva using a mouth swab, may be forcibly carried out to establish the DNA profile and subsequently compare it with traces collected at the scene of the crime.
II - They are acceptable and legitimate if they are provided for by the law (i), if they pursue a legitimate objective (ii), if the restriction of fundamental rights in question (personal integrity; intimacy; self-determination of personal data) is balanced with the objectives sought and (iii), if they are suitable (a), necessary (b) and proportional (c). 
III - For this purpose, these bodily interventions should be determined by the court (iv) and be duly justified (v)... and they are not admissable when they involve, during execution, inhumane or degrading treatment (vi), in which case, as a replacement, any other organic fluid sample that can be duly collected to determine DNA shall be chosen (vii)."
 
Judgment from the Évora Court of Appeal of 13/11/2012 
Rapporteur: Justice Fernando Paiva Gomes M. Pina
Summary: (partial) "I. Since a DNA sample of the official suspects was not collected as evidence for this case, collection of the sample can only, under the terms of Article 8(2) of Law no. 5/2008 of 12 February 2008, be determined by reasoned order and with respect for the adversarial process after the convicting sentence for comitting a wilful crime punishable by a prison sentence of three years of more has transited in rem judicatam.
II. The appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor is therefore dismissed, as there are no failures in the judgment issued on the collection of DNA samples from official suspects and, as a result, it is not flawed by the invalidity established in Article 379(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
 
Judgment from the Évora Court of Appeal of 15/05/2012 
Rapporteur: Justice António João Latas
Summary: "Article 8(2) of Law no. 5/2008 of 12 February 2008, in the interpretation reflected in the appealed decision, that is, in the sense that the collection of biological samples established in that article, for insertion into the DNA profile database, depends only on the formal requirements mentioned in the article, is not materially unconstitutional.
II. Therefore, the court did not have to materially justify its decision in the part where it ordered the collection of biological samples and their subsequent insertion into the DNA profile database after the judgment had transited in rem judicatam, and therefore the invalidity of the sentence claimed due to lack of reasoning is not found - Article 379(1)(1) and Article 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
 
Judgment from the Évora Court of Appeal of 13/12/2011
Rapporteur: Justice Alberto João Borges
Summary: "I. The collection established in Article 8(1) of Law no. 5/2008 of 12 February 2008 implies the existence of a concrete investigation and and involves the judicial authority deeming necessary to carry out, in light of consideration of the interests in the conflict. This decision should be reasoned; i.e., the right to privacy and freedom of the official suspect should give way to the public interest of the investigation, a situation which is in no way related to the collection established in Article 8(2) of Law no. 5/2008.
II. Article 8(2) does not allow, in the event of refusal, the convicted person to be forced to provide the samples mentioned; if this was the legislator's intent, it would have been stated, as said in clause 1."
 
Rapporteur: Justice Agostinho Torres
Summary: “I. The collection of DNA samples referred to by Article 8(2) of Law no. 5/2008 of 12 February 2008 is not automatic relative to a decision that has transited in rem judicatam, presuming there is serious risk of continued criminality or other relevant fears that may imply or make it possible to infer there is a need for such collection and subsequent storage.
II. If such collection is decided upon, the judgment must state sound reasons for that risk so as to convince that it is necessary and proportionate.”
 
Rapporteur: Justice Maria Augusta
Summary: “The results of the analysis of a sample collected by mouth swab taken in the context of a case can be compared with the results of the analysis of a trace of blood collected in other proceedings prior to the date of the sample collection.”
 
Judgment from the Évora Court of Appeal of 16/12/2008 
Rapporteur: Justice Alberto João Borges
Summary: “I. If the official suspect has expressly refused to cooperate or allow any collection of personal biological evidence, in particular saliva, for DNA testing, the judge in charge of preliminary enquiries pursuant to Article 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), with reference to Article 172(1)(2) of that Code, may decide whether there are reasons to force the official suspect to have such samples taken for DNA testing, considering the need for this to be done, taking into account the right to personal integrity and privacy of the subject. 
II. Nowhere in these principles, in particular Article 154(2) of the CPP, is it required that the test should prove essential for the discovery of the truth (as an essential means of discovering the truth) ... as with the provisions of Articles 135(3) and 187(1) of the CPP, or that the facts that the test aims to prove are established.
III. It is merely required that, in the event of a conflict of interest - and naturally taking into account the nature and seriousness of the crime or crimes under investigation - the need to carry it out is considered, as a useful, relevant, part of the enquiry, necessary step to ascertaining the truth, in accordance with other evidence collected or to be collected, and if, given such need, the right of the official suspect to self-determination is justifiably restricted (‘self-determination’ because the collection of saliva does not constitute any violation of the official suspect's physical integrity).
IV. In the present case the intervention of the judge – required by Article 154(2) of the CPP – before the conflict of interests in question (on the one hand, the right of the official suspect to self-determination – Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP) – and, on the other, the investigation of the very serious facts of the unlawful acts reported, if we take into account the charge brought, that is, the proper administration of justice), carefully considered both the need to perform the test and the prevalence of the interest of the investigation over the right to self-determination of the official suspect in question, bearing in mind, in fact, that the collection of saliva is a minimal, almost irrelevant, restriction of that right of the official suspect. Accordingly, the compelled performance of the test authorised by the order under appeal is found justified and legitimated as it does not violate any constitutional principle, specifically Articles 25, 26, 32(4) of the CRP and 126 of the CPP.
V. Article 154(2) of the CPP does not cover the requirement to indicate the day, time, place and entity undertaking the test, either because the application of this principle follows from the express reference in Article 172(2) of that law (which expressly refers to Article 154(2) and only to (1)), or because the test provided for in Article 172(1) of the CPP, as a means of (forcibly) obtaining evidence should not be confused with the expertise provided for in Article 154 of the CPP, as a means of evidence, an issue on which the order under appeal made no comment.
VI. As the Public Prosecutor is conducting the enquiry it is up to them, in their own right, once the test has been authorised, to take the necessary steps for the purpose, as established in Article 156(5) ex vi Article 172(2), both of the CPP.”
 
Rapporteur: Justice Maria Elisa da Silva Marques Matos Silva
Summary: “The rule in Article 172(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unconstitutional when interpreted as meaning that it is legitimate to use physical force to obtain, via a mouth swab, biological evidence from an official suspect for the purposes of comparison with that found in the underpants of the victim if it concerns the investigation of a rape and there is no other evidence except the statements of the victim, who has severe learning difficulties."
 
Ruling no. 155/2007 from the Constitutional Court of 10/04/2007*
Rapporteur: Counsellor Judge Gil Galvão
Ruling: The Constitutional Court rules: “I. The rule established in Article 172(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is deemed unconstitutional since it violates the provisions in Articles 25, 26 and 32(4) of the Constitution when construed to permit, without the permission of the judge, the coercive collection of biological evidence from an official suspect to determine their genetic profile when said official suspect has expressly refused to cooperate or allow such collection.
II. As a result, the rule established in Article 126(1)(2)(a)(c) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is deemed unconstitutional, for violation of Article 32(4) of the Constitution, when construed in terms of evidence obtained through the collection carried out in the manner described in the preceding paragraph being considered valid and therefore capable of further use and appreciation."
 
Ruling no. 288/2007 from the Constitutional Court of 28/03/2007*
Rapporteur: Counsellor Judge Maria Fernanda Palma
Ruling: The Constitutional Court rules:
(Explanation of vote of Counsellor Judge Paulo Mota Pinto)
“a)   The rule established in Article 172(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is deemed unconstitutional since it violates the provisions in Articles 25, 26 and 32(4) of the Constitution when construed to permit, without the permission of the judge, the coercive collection of biological evidence from an official suspect to determine their genetic profile when said official suspect has expressly refused to cooperate or allow such collection;
b)   As a result, the rule established in Article 126(1)(2)(a)(c) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is deemed unconstitutional, for violation of Article 32(4) of the Constitution, when construed in terms of evidence obtained through the collection carried out in the manner described in the preceding paragraph being considered valid and therefore capable of further use and appreciation.
c)   Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the restoration of the decision under appeal in compliance with the ruling of unconstitutionality formulated presently is ordered.”
 
*Judgments prior to the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by Law no. 48/2007 of 29 August 2007.