CJEU Case C-326/25 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C-326/25 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
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
Outcome of the case:
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.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
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.
...
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. t 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).
...
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.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)