- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-88/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0088
62021CN0088
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
3.5.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 163/14
(Case C-88/21)
(2021/C 163/19)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Party to the main proceedings
Questions referred
1.Must Article 39 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), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as imposing an obligation to prohibit the registration of objects for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System notwithstanding the fact that the alert is no longer relevant (the vehicle has been located; the criminal procedure in the Member State where the vehicle was located has been discontinued in the absence of a criminal offence committed in that Member State; the State that entered the alert has been informed but fails to take action to remove the alert from the system)?
2.Must Article 39 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), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as obliging a Member State which has located an object for which an alert was issued pursuant to Article 38(1) of the decision to lay down rules of national law that would prohibit any actions with the located object other than actions by which an objective referred to in Article 38 (seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings) would be attained?
3.Must Article 39 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), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as allowing Member States to lay down legal rules which would provide for exceptions to the prohibition on registering vehicles for which an alert has been entered in SIS pursuant to Article 38 of the decision, after the competent authorities of the Member State have taken steps in order for the State which entered the alert to be informed about the located object?