Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
4 June 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Police cooperation – Schengen Information System – Decision 2007/533/JHA – Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 – Alert on a motor vehicle for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings – Order to surrender a vehicle for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System – National legislation precluding the person who was in possession of the object for which an alert has been issued from participating in the administrative and judicial procedure for the surrender of the object to the issuing Member State )
In Case C‑326/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 9 May 2025, received at the Court on 13 May 2025, in the proceedings
CY
v
Vremenno prenaznachen na dlazhnost nachalnik na 03 Rayonno upravlenie na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of I. Ziemele, President of the Chamber, A. Kumin and M. Bošnjak (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: D. Spielmann,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– the European Commission, by N. Schaeffer and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1, Article 38(1) and Article 39(1) of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (OJ 2007 L 205, p. 63; ‘the SIS II Decision’), read in the light of the protection of fundamental rights conferred by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between CY, a Bulgarian national registered in accordance with Bulgarian law as the rightful owner of a vehicle that was seized after an alert had been entered in the Schengen Information System (‘SIS’) by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the vremenno prenaznachen na dlazhnost nachalnik na 03 Rayonno upravlenie pri Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti (temporary Head of the 3rd District Police Department at the Sofia Directorate for Internal Affairs, Bulgaria), concerning the lawfulness of the order made by that authority to repatriate that vehicle to Germany.
Legal context
European Union law
The SIS II Decision
3 Recital 34 of the SIS II Decision stated:
‘This Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by [the Charter].’
4 Article 1 of that decision provided:
‘1. A second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) is hereby established.
2. The purpose of SIS II shall be, in accordance with this Decision, to ensure a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the European Union including the maintenance of public security and public policy and the safeguarding of security in the territories of the Member States, and to apply the provisions of Title IV of Part Three of the EC Treaty relating to the movement of persons in their territories, using information communicated via this system.’
5 Article 38 of that decision, entitled ‘Objectives and conditions for issuing alerts’, provided:
‘1. Data on objects sought for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings shall be entered in SIS II.
2. The following categories of readily identifiable objects shall be entered:
(a) motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity exceeding 50cc, boats and aircrafts;
…’
6 Under Article 39 of that decision, entitled ‘Execution of the action based on an alert’:
‘1. If a search brings to light an alert for an object which has been located, the authority which matched the two items of data shall contact the authority which issued the alert in order to agree on the measures to be taken. For this purpose, personal data may also be communicated in accordance with this Decision.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated through the exchange of supplementary information.
3. The Member State which located the object shall take measures in accordance with national law.’
Regulation (EU) 2018/1862
7 Recitals 1, 7, 38 and 72 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU (OJ 2018 L 312, p. 56), are worded as follows:
‘(1) The Schengen Information System (SIS) constitutes an essential tool for the application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis as integrated into the framework of the European Union. SIS is one of the major compensatory measures contributing to maintaining a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the Union by supporting operational cooperation between national competent authorities, in particular border guards, the police, customs authorities, immigration authorities, and authorities responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or execution of criminal penalties.
…
(7) Alerts in SIS contain only the information necessary to identify a person or an object and for the action to be taken. Member States should therefore exchange supplementary information related to alerts where required.
…
(38) In the case of alerts on objects for seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings, the objects concerned should be seized in accordance with national law that determines if and in accordance with which conditions an object is to be seized, particularly if it is in the possession of its rightful owner.
…
(72) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by [the Charter]. …’
8 Under Article 1 of Regulation 2018/1862, entitled ‘General purpose of SIS’:
‘The purpose of SIS shall be to ensure a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the Union including the maintenance of public security and public policy and the safeguarding of security in the territories of the Member States, and to ensure the application of the provisions of Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three TFEU relating to the movement of persons on their territories, using information communicated through this system.’
9 Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘This Regulation establishes the conditions and procedures for the entry and processing of alerts in SIS on persons and objects and for the exchange of supplementary information and additional data for the purpose of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.’
10 Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, is worded as follows:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:
(1) “alert” means a set of data entered into SIS allowing the competent authorities to identify a person or an object with a view to taking specific action;
(2) “supplementary information” means information not forming part of the alert data stored in SIS, but connected to alerts in SIS, which is to be exchanged through the SIRENE Bureaux:
…
(b) following a hit in order to allow the appropriate action to be taken;
…
(7) a “hit” means any match which fulfils the following criteria:
(a) it has been confirmed by:
(i) the end-user; or
(ii) the competent authority in accordance with national procedures, where the match concerned was based on the comparison of biometric data;
and
(b) further actions are requested;
…
(9) “issuing Member State” means the Member State which entered the alert into SIS;
(10) “executing Member State” means the Member State which takes or has taken the required actions following a hit;
…’
11 Article 7 of that regulation, entitled ‘N.SIS Office and SIRENE Bureau’, provides, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 thereof:
‘Each Member State shall designate a national authority which shall be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and which shall ensure the exchange and availability of all supplementary information (the SIRENE Bureau) in accordance with the SIRENE Manual. Each SIRENE Bureau shall serve as a single contact point for its Member State to exchange supplementary information regarding alerts and to facilitate the requested actions to be taken when alerts on persons or objects have been entered in SIS and those persons or objects are located following a hit.’
12 Article 38 of Regulation 2018/1862, entitled ‘Objectives and conditions for entering alerts’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:
‘1. Member States shall enter into SIS alerts on objects sought for the purposes of seizure or for use as evidence in criminal proceedings.
2. Alerts shall be entered on the following categories of readily identifiable objects:
(a) motor vehicles regardless of the propulsion system;
…’
13 Under Article 39 of that regulation, entitled ‘Execution of the action based on an alert’:
‘1. Where a search brings to light an alert on an object which has been located, the competent authority shall in accordance with its national law seize the object and contact the authority of the issuing Member State in order to agree on the measures to be taken. For this purpose, personal data may also be communicated in accordance with this Regulation.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated through the exchange of supplementary information.
3. The executing Member State shall take the requested measures in accordance with national law.’
14 Article 55 of that regulation, entitled ‘Deletion of alerts’, provides, in paragraph 5 thereof:
‘Alerts on objects for seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 38, shall be deleted upon:
(a) the seizure of the object or equivalent measure once the necessary follow-up exchange of supplementary information has taken place between the SIRENE Bureaux concerned or the object becomes the subject of another judicial or administrative procedure;
(b) the expiry of the alert in accordance with Article 53; or
(c) a decision to delete them by the competent authority of the issuing Member State.’
15 Article 68 of that regulation, entitled ‘Remedies’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘Without prejudice to the provisions on remedies of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1)] and of Directive (EU) 2016/680 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89)], any person may bring an action before any competent authority, including a court, under the law of any Member State to access, rectify, erase, obtain information or obtain compensation in connection with an alert relating to him or her.’
16 Article 78 of Regulation 2018/1862, entitled ‘Repeal’, provides, in the first paragraph thereof:
‘Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 and Decisions 2007/533/JHA and 2010/261/EU are repealed from the date of application of this Regulation as set out in the first subparagraph of Article 79(5).’
17 Article 79 of that regulation, entitled ‘Entry into force, start of operation and application’, provides, in paragraphs 2 and 5 thereof:
‘2. No later than 28 December 2021 the [European] Commission shall adopt a decision setting the date on which SIS operations start pursuant to this Regulation, after verification that the following conditions have been met:
(a) the implementing acts necessary for the application of this Regulation have been adopted;
(b) Member States have notified the Commission that they have made the necessary technical and legal arrangements to process SIS data and exchange supplementary information pursuant to this Regulation; …
…
5. This Regulation shall apply from the date determined in accordance with paragraph 2.’
Implementing Decision C(2021) 92
18 Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 92 final of 15 January 2021 laying down the technical rules necessary for entering, updating, deleting and searching data in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and other implementing measures in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (‘Implementing Decision C(2021) 92’), entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides:
‘This Decision lays down technical rules required to ensure uniform implementation of [SIS] in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, in particular:
…
(b) rules, including on data quality and on flagging, for entering, updating, deleting and searching data on persons and objects in SIS;
…’
19 Article 3 of Implementing Decision C(2021) 92, entitled ‘Data quality control mechanisms for entering alphanumeric data in SIS’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘SIS shall contain the following data quality control mechanisms for the entry of alphanumeric data:
(a) the use of code tables to ensure that data is entered in a uniform way, as set out in Article 4;
…’
20 Article 4 of that implementing decision, entitled ‘Code tables’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘The code tables related to the “reason for the alert”, the “action to be taken” and the “type of offence” are set out in Annex I, Parts A and B to this Decision.’
21 Article 5 of that implementing decision, entitled ‘Correspondence between “reason for the alert” and “action to be taken”’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘For each “reason for the alert” set out in the first column of the table in Part A of Annex I, the requested “action to be taken” shall be one of the corresponding actions set out in the second column of that table.’
22 Annex I to that implementing decision is entitled ‘Code tables’. Part A of that annex, entitled ‘“Reason for the alert” and “Action to be taken”’, describes, inter alia, the action to be taken in the case of a hit on an alert on objects for seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings. That annex is shown as follows:
‘Reason for the alert | Action to be taken |
… | … |
Object for seizure – Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 | In accordance with national law: – Seize the object or take all the necessary protective measures; – Establish the identity of the person in possession of the object; – Contact the national SIRENE Bureau. |
Object to use as evidence in criminal proceedings – Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 | In accordance with national law: – Seize the object or take all the necessary protective measures; – Take care not to destroy evidence for the purposes of a criminal investigation as part of criminal proceedings; – Establish the identity of the person in possession of the object; – Contact the national SIRENE Bureau.’ |
The SIRENE Manual (Police)
23 Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 7901 final of 18 November 2021 laying down detailed rules for the tasks of the SIRENE Bureaux and the exchange of supplementary information regarding alerts in the Schengen Information System in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (‘SIRENE Manual – Police’) (‘the SIRENE Manual (Police)’), entitled ‘Subject Matter – SIRENE Manual (Police)’, provides:
‘This Decision establishes the SIRENE Manual laying down:
(a) rules regarding the tasks of the SIRENE Bureaux in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
(b) rules and procedures governing the bilateral or multilateral exchange of supplementary information between SIRENE Bureaux in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
(c) rules and procedures governing the exchange of supplementary information between SIRENE Bureaux and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and
(d) rules on the compatibility and priority of alerts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.’
24 Article 50 of the SIRENE Manual (Police), entitled ‘Procedures for the exchange of supplementary information following a hit on alert on an object for seizure or use as evidence’, sets out the steps to be taken, respectively, by the issuing Member State and by the executing Member State in the case of a hit on an alert entered in SIS pursuant to Article 38 of Regulation 2018/1862, specifying the forms to be used for those purposes.
Annex to Commission Recommendation C(2023) 2152
25 Subsection 6.5, entitled ‘Specific provisions on the actions to be taken (per alert category)’, of the annex to Commission Recommendation C(2023) 2152 of 31 March 2023 establishing a Practical Handbook to be used by Member States’ competent authorities and SIRENE Bureaux when carrying out tasks related to the Schengen Information System (‘the SIS Handbook’), is worded as follows:
‘…
6.5.7 Alerts on objects for seizure or use as evidence
…
Repatriation of objects
Repatriation of objects (vehicles, aircraft, boats, containers etc.) is a procedure in which an object is handed over to the rightful owner or moved from the Member State of discovery to the Member State of investigation. It occurs after a hit in SIS and after the official proceedings would have taken place.
In general, SIRENE Bureaux are not in charge of exchanging information during repatriation procedures (as it falls outside the scope of the SIS procedure). …
…’
Bulgarian law
Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria
26 Article 120 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria provides:
‘(1) The courts shall review the lawfulness of the acts and actions of the administrative authorities.
(2) Citizens and legal persons may challenge all administrative acts concerning them, except those expressly listed by law.’
The Law on the Ministry of the Interior
27 Article 84 of the Zakon za Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Law on the Ministry of the Interior) of 28 May 2014 (DV No 53 of 27 June 2014, p. 2), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides:
‘(1) Police authorities may temporarily seize an object for which an alert has been issued in SIS and/or in the databases of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).
(2) The person in whose possession the object sought for the purposes of paragraph 1 is found shall be asked to surrender that object voluntarily. A report regarding the voluntary surrender of that object shall be drawn up and that report shall be signed by the person surrendering the discovered object. A copy of that report shall be provided to the person in question.
…
(5) … During the period of the temporary seizure, the object shall be kept at the territorial unit of the Glavna Direktsia ‘Granichna politisia’ [(General Directorate ‘Border Police’, Bulgaria)], at the border police department, at the base for vessels of the border police, or at the district police department under a regional directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs where it was surrendered or seized.
(6) … The written record under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 shall be submitted for approval without delay but not later than 24 hours to the head of the territorial unit of the General Directorate ‘Border Police’, the border police department, the base for vessels of the border police, or the district police department under a regional directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs where the object is being kept. The surrender or seizure shall be notified to the Member State which entered the alert in SIS and/or in Interpol.
(7) The Member State which entered the search alert in SIS and/or in Interpol shall be notified by the competent specialised unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
(8) … If, within a period of 60 days, the Member State which entered the alert requests the return of the object sought, that object shall, by decision of the respective head referred to in paragraph 6, be returned to the person named in the request within a period of seven days.
(9) … If, within a period of 60 days, the Member State which entered the alert does not request the return of the object sought, that object shall, by decision of the respective head referred to in paragraph 6, be returned to the person from whom it was received or seized.
(10) … A report shall be drawn up regarding a return under paragraphs 8 and 9.
…’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
28 On 6 June 2024, CY was stopped for a police check while he was driving a vehicle bearing a Bulgarian registration plate, which he had acquired from a dealer (‘the vehicle at issue’).
29 That check revealed that the chassis number of the vehicle at issue was identical to that provided in an alert entered in SIS by the German authorities on 14 May 2024, relating to a vehicle sought for use as evidence in criminal proceedings.
30 On 7 June 2024, the German SIRENE Bureau was informed of CY’s voluntary surrender of the vehicle at issue to the Bulgarian authorities.
31 In its reply, the German SIRENE Bureau informed the Bulgarian SIRENE Bureau that, in its national databases, the vehicle at issue had been declared as being sought in connection with a criminal offence of unlawful appropriation committed on 13 August 2022 and declared to the German police authorities on 14 May 2024. The German SIRENE Bureau also stated that AutoEuropa Ldnk, which is also the rightful owner of the vehicle at issue, had expressed the wish that that vehicle be returned to it, and that, by virtue of successive powers of attorney, KL was representing that company in Bulgaria for the purposes of the return of that vehicle.
32 By an order made on the basis of Article 84(8) of the Law on the Ministry of the Interior, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, the temporary Head of the 3rd District Police Department at the Sofia Directorate for Internal Affairs ordered that the vehicle at issue be returned to KL.
33 CY challenged the lawfulness of that surrender order before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia City Administrative Court, Bulgaria), which refused to hear and determine the action. In accordance with settled national case-law, that court held that CY was not the addressee of that order; Bulgarian legislation, in particular the provisions of Article 120(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, makes the right of action subject not to having the formal status of addressee of the administrative act in question, but to there being an infringement of the subjective rights of the person concerned.
34 CY lodged an appeal against that decision with the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court), which is the referring court.
35 The referring court is uncertain as regards the compatibility with the SIS II Decision of a Member State’s legislation that does not allow a person who is registered, in that Member State, as the owner of an object for which an alert has been issued in SIS by another Member State to participate in the administrative and judicial procedure implementing measures for the repatriation of that object to the issuing Member State.
36 In those circumstances the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Are Articles 39 and 38(1) of [the SIS II Decision], in conjunction with recital 34 of that decision, to be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which does not provide for the participation of a person registered under national law as the owner of an object within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that decision in the administrative and judicial [procedure] concerning the application of measures (by which he or she is affected) to return the object on the basis of an alert under Article 39(1) of that decision, regard being had to the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed in [the Charter] and also in recital 34 of that decision?
(2) Does the purpose of [SIS] as referred to in Article 1 of [the SIS II Decision] preclude the application of the effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter in the case where the measures adopted in accordance with national law by the authorities of the Member State in which the object was discovered have the consequence of adversely affecting the rights and legitimate interests of the person in whose possession [that] object was found?’
The provisions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings
37 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that a request for a preliminary ruling must be examined in the light of all the provisions of the Treaties and of secondary legislation which may be relevant to the issue raised. The fact that a national court’s question refers to certain provisions of EU law does not mean therefore that the Court of Justice may not provide the national court with all the guidance on points of interpretation that may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has referred to those points in its question (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2022, Obshtina Razlog, C‑376/21, EU:C:2022:472, paragraph 51).
38 In its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court points to Article 1, Article 38(1), Article 39(1) and recital 34 of the SIS II Decision. As regards the applicability ratione temporis of those provisions, it must be noted that that decision was repealed by Regulation 2018/1862, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 78 of that regulation, and that it follows from Article 79(2) and (5) thereof that that repeal took effect on 7 March 2023, following the adoption of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/201 of 30 January 2023 setting the date on which operations of the Schengen Information System start pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2023 L 27, p. 29).
39 It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the alert relating to the vehicle at issue was entered in SIS on 14 May 2024, that is to say, after the date on which the repeal of the relevant provisions of the SIS II Decision took effect. Consequently, it is Regulation 2018/1862 that applies to the dispute in the main proceedings.
40 It must be noted, however, that the wording of Articles 1, 38 and 39 of the SIS II Decision corresponds, in essence, save for a few amendments that are of no relevance in the present case, to that of Articles 1, 38 and 39 of Regulation 2018/1862, respectively. The same is true, respectively, of recital 34 of the SIS II Decision and recital 72 of that regulation.
41 It is also important to point out that on 14 May 2024, that is to say, on the date of entry in SIS of the alert concerning the vehicle at issue, Implementing Decision C(2021) 92 was applicable.
42 Lastly, the SIRENE Manual (Police) that is applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings is that resulting from Implementing Decision C(2021) 7901 final, which was subsequently repealed by Commission Implementing Decision C(2025) 3011 final of 21 May 2025 laying down detailed rules for the tasks of the SIRENE Bureaux and the exchange of supplementary information regarding alerts in the Schengen Information System in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (‘SIRENE Manual – Police’) and repealing Implementing Decision C(2024) 290 and Implementing Decision C(2021) 7901 final.
43 It follows that the present request for a preliminary ruling is to be answered in the light of Articles 1, 38 and 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 and the relevant provisions of Implementing Decision C(2021) 92 and the SIRENE Manual (Police).
The first question
44 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 38 and 39 of Regulation 2018/1862, read in the light of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that does not grant a person who, in that Member State, has the status of legal owner of an object for which an alert has been issued in SIS by the competent authorities of another Member State, the right to intervene in the administrative and judicial procedures relating to the repatriation of that object to that other Member State.
45 In order to answer that question, it is necessary, first of all, to determine whether such a legal restriction, relating to the procedure for the surrender, in the executing Member State, of an object for which an alert has been issued in SIS for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings in the issuing Member State, comes within the scope of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862.
46 Although Article 38(2)(a) of Regulation 2018/1862 does provide that an alert may be entered in SIS for motor vehicles, such as the vehicle at issue, the action to be taken by the Member States in respect of such an alert is governed by Article 39 of that regulation.
47 As regards that provision, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, when interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 26 March 2026, Isergartler, C‑618/24, EU:C:2026:251, paragraph 29).
48 As regards, in the first place, the wording of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862, that provision states that, where a search brings to light an alert on an object which has been located, the competent authority is to seize the object in accordance with its national law and contact the authority of the issuing Member State in order to agree on the measures to be taken. However, nothing is said about the nature or content of those measures, since Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 merely states, in paragraph 3 thereof, that the executing Member State is to take in accordance with its national law the measures requested by the issuing Member State.
49 It therefore follows from the wording of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 that the EU legislature intended to impose on the competent authorities of the executing Member State the obligation to seize the object for which the alert has been issued and to contact the authorities of the issuing State in order to decide on the measures to be taken subsequently, leaving the Member States a broad discretion in that regard.
50 As has been noted in paragraph 40 above, the wording of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 corresponds, in essence, to that of Article 39 of the SIS II Decision, in respect of which the Court previously held that it merely describes, in general terms, how the competent authorities of the executing Member State must respond to a hit on an alert in SIS II issued on the basis of Article 38 of that decision, and that, by choosing not to set out in detail in Article 39 of the SIS II Decision the exact measures that the Member States are to adopt for the purpose of executing an alert entered in SIS II under Article 38 of that decision, the EU legislature intended to leave them a broad discretion in that regard (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 2022, Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija (Registration of reported vehicles), C‑88/21, EU:C:2022:982, paragraphs 37 and 38).
51 As regards, in the second place, the context in which Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 occurs, it must be noted that no other provision of that regulation specifies the type of measures that the Member State which has found the object for which the alert has been issued must take, beyond the seizure of that object.
52 Furthermore, whereas, under Article 55(1) of Regulation 2018/1862, alerts for the arrest of a person for surrender or extradition purposes, in accordance with Article 26 of that regulation, are to be deleted from the system only after surrender or extradition has taken place, Article 55(5)(a) of that regulation provides that an alert entered in SIS on the basis of Article 38 of that regulation is to be deleted from the moment the object is seized, once the necessary follow-up exchange of supplementary information has taken place between the SIRENE Bureaux concerned. Therefore, it must be understood that, as a result of that exchange alone, the alert based on Article 38 of Regulation 2018/1862 has achieved its objective and that, consequently, the repatriation of an object for which an alert has been issued is not a matter pertaining to the execution of the action to be taken, under that regulation, by the competent authority of the Member State in which that object has been located.
53 In addition, Implementing Decision C(2021) 92, the objective of which is, inter alia, to ensure that end-users entering an alert in SIS select the appropriate action to be taken vis-à-vis the reason for the alert, does not provide that, in the case of an alert based on Article 38 of Regulation 2018/1862, that action includes the return of the object for which an alert has been issued. Under Article 5 of Implementing Decision C(2021) 92, read in conjunction with Part A of Annex I thereto, the action to be taken by the Member State in whose territory the object for which the alert has been issued was found consists in seizing that object, taking the protective measures necessary to preserve it for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, identifying the person in possession of that object, and contacting the SIRENE Bureau of the issuing Member State.
54 Nor does the SIRENE Manual (Police), which lays down rules regarding the tasks of the SIRENE Bureaux in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, contain any provision or form relating to the exchange of information for the surrender of the object for which the alert has been issued or concerning the practical aspects of such a surrender.
55 To the above considerations should be added that the SIS Handbook, set out in the annex to Recommendation C(2023) 2152, which, although it has no binding force, serves as an aid to the interpretation of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862, states, under the heading ‘Repatriation of objects’, that such repatriation ‘occurs after a hit in SIS and after the official proceedings would have taken place’, and that, ‘in general, SIRENE Bureaux are not in charge of exchanging information during repatriation procedures (as it falls outside the scope of the SIS procedure)’.
56 In the third place, as regards the objective pursued by Regulation 2018/1862, it is clear from Articles 1 and 2 thereof, read in the light of recital 1 thereof, that the purpose of that regulation is, in general, to contribute to maintaining a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the European Union and, more specifically, to that end, to lay down the rules which enable the operation of SIS and the exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, by promoting operational cooperation between police and judicial authorities in criminal matters, using information communicated through SIS.
57 An interpretation of Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 to the effect that that article does not impose predetermined measures on the Member States but leaves them a broad discretion to agree on the measures to be adopted regarding the object for which an alert has been issued after that object has been seized is not contrary to that objective and preserves the contribution to strengthening the level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the European Union entailed by the communication of information concerning objects for seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings and the conduct of exchanges between the Member States concerned for the purpose of agreeing on the measures to be taken (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 2022, Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija (Registration of reported vehicles), C‑88/21, EU:C:2022:982, paragraph 42).
58 In those circumstances, it must be stated that, as regards objects for which an alert has been issued in SIS under Article 38 of Regulation 2018/1862, there is no obligation under Article 39 thereof as regards the measures to be taken other than those relating to the seizure of the object for which the alert has been issued and the contact between the competent authorities of the executing Member State and the issuing Member State. Consequently, Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 does not govern the decision to repatriate the object for which such an alert has been issued, nor does it define procedural rules relating to the adoption of such a decision, which come within the scope of national law.
59 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 39 of Regulation 2018/1862 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules relating to the adoption of a measure for the surrender of an object for which an alert has been issued in SIS on the basis of Article 38 of that regulation, by a decision of the competent authorities of the executing Member State in response to the request of the issuing Member State, do not come within the scope of that regulation.
The second question
60 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the objective of SIS, as set out in Article 1 of Regulation 2018/1862, must prevail over the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter in a situation where, following an alert in SIS, measures taken in accordance with the law of the executing Member State can adversely affect, in that Member State, the rights and legitimate interests of the person who was in possession of the object for which that alert has been issued.
61 It must be recalled at the outset that, under Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In that regard, the Court has stated that the concept of ‘implementing Union law’ requires a degree of connection above and beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other (judgments of 6 March 2014, Siragusa, C‑206/13, EU:C:2014:126, paragraph 24, and of 5 March 2026, AESTE, C‑210/24, EU:C:2026:145, paragraph 66).
62 It follows that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations (judgments of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 19, and of 15 January 2026, Imballaggi Piemontesi, C‑588/24, EU:C:2026:14, paragraph 37).
63 Thus, where the provisions of EU law in the area concerned do not govern an aspect of a given situation and do not impose any specific obligation on the Member States with regard thereto, the national rule enacted by a Member State as regards that aspect falls outside the scope of the Charter and the situation concerned cannot be assessed in the light of the provisions of the Charter.
64 In the present case, it is clear from the answer to the first question that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as being designed to implement Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
65 Accordingly, there is no need to answer the second question referred.
Costs
66 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU,
must be interpreted as meaning that national rules relating to the adoption of a measure for the surrender of an object for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System on the basis of Article 38 of that regulation, by a decision of the competent authorities of the executing Member State in response to the request of the issuing Member State, do not come within the scope of that regulation.
[Signatures]