VG Stuttgart - 1 K 12737/25

VG Stuttgart - 1 K 12737/25
Court:	VG Stuttgart (Germany)
Jurisdiction:	Germany
Relevant Law:	Article 17(1) GDPR Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 Article 24(1) Regulation 2018/1861 Article 24(2) Regulation 2018/1861
Decided:	14.07.2026
Published:	29.07.2026
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	1 K 12737/25
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:DE:VGSTUTT:2026:0714.1K12737.25.00
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	German
Original Source:	Landesrecht BW (in German)
Initial Contributor:	av

A court ordered a federal police directorate to delete an alert for refusal of entry and stay from the Schengen Information System. The alert was deemed disproportionate due to a change in behaviour.

English Summary

Facts

A resident of North Macedonia (the data subject) was expelled from German territory in September 2021, and a two-year ban on entry and residence was imposed on him. The data subject subsequently re-entered German territory without a visa in December 2024 and travelled back to North Macedonia in July 2025. A federal police directorate (the controller) assumed that the data subject had violated the ban on entry and residence.

The controller determined that the data subject posed a threat within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861, ordered an alert for refusal of entry and stay, and entered it into the Schengen Information System (SIS) in August 2025. The data subject filed a lawsuit with the Stuttgart Administrative Court in October 2025, requesting that the controller be ordered to delete the alert and alternatively to correct it or to impose a time limit on it.

Holding

The court held that the lawsuit was admissible and well-founded and ordered the controller to delete the alert for refusal of entry and stay from the SIS pursuant to Articles 53(1), 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 in conjunction with Article 17(1) GDPR. In the present case, the personal data of the data subject was inaccurate as the requirements for the alert were no longer fulfilled: the court held it could not be assumed that the data subject’s presence on German territory posed a threat to public order or security.

In addition, the court referred to the principle of proportionality and pointed out that alerts may not be stored in the SIS for longer than necessary. The data subject had clearly changed his behaviour by marrying a German citizen and filing a visa application for family reunification since his expulsion from Germany. Therefore, the court held that the grounds for erasure laid down in Article 17(1)(a) and (d) GDPR were applicable.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.

Court: Stuttgart Administrative Court, 1st Chamber
Date of Decision: July 14, 2026
Case Number: 1 K 12737/25
ECLI: ECLI:DE:VGSTUTT:2026:0714.1K12737.25.00
Document Type: Judgement
Source:
Legal Provisions: Art. 24(1) TEU 2018/1861, Art. 53(2) TEU 2018/1861, Art. 53(1)
TEU 2016/679, § 42(1) VwGO
Alert in the Schengen Information System
Headnote
1. An action to enforce a legal obligation may be admissible for a request for the erasure of data stored in the Schengen Information System.
2. A claim for the erasure of personal data pursuant to Art. 53(1), Art. 24(1)
and (2) of Regulation 2018/1861/EU is admissible.
2. A right to the erasure of personal data pursuant to Art. 53(1), Art. 24(1)
and (2) Regulation 2018/1861/EU in conjunction with Art. 17(1) of the GDPR may also arise from the fact that the
Tenor
The defendant is ordered to delete the alert concerning the plaintiff regarding the
refusal of entry and residence from the Schengen Information System.
The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
Facts
1 The plaintiff seeks the erasure of personal data stored about him in the
Schengen Information System.
2 The plaintiff is a national of North Macedonia. He has previously stayed in the
Federal Republic of Germany on several occasions, at times with a residence permit pursuant to para 18(3) of the Residence Act (AufenthG). By
a decision dated September 2, 2021, he was expelled from the territory of the Federal Republic
and a two-year ban on entry and residence was imposed on him.
According According to the entry stamp in his passport, he re-entered the Federal Republic on December 2, 2024, without a visa
via B. Airport. On July 27, 2025, the plaintiff
departed for North Macedonia again via the
Karlsruhe-Baden-Baden Airport, together with his then-fiancée and now-wife. As part of the departure
procedure, he presented himself at the border police exit control.
3 Officers from the O. Federal Police Station assumed that the
plaintiff had stayed in German territory for more than 90 days within a 180-day period,
which is why, on July 28, 2025, an alert denying entry was entered into the
Police Information System (INPOL) and the Schengen Information System (hereinafter: SIS)
.
- Page 1 of 7 -
4 In a letter dated April 2, 2025, the plaintiff was informed of his
alert in the SIS, which was valid until April 1, 2028. He was informed that the Federal
Police had determined that he met the requirements of Art. 24(2) of Regulation
(EU) 2018/1861 and that he posed a threat within the meaning of that provision. The
letter was handed to the plaintiff as he was leaving the country. On August 1, 2025,
the Stuttgart Federal Police Directorate ordered the alert and entered it into both
systems.
5 In an email dated August 13, 2025, the plaintiff’s then-fiancée stated that a
wedding ceremony was scheduled to take place at a registry office in Germany, which is why
the entry ban must be lifted. In a letter dated August 20, 2025,
she essentially reiterated her request to lift the entry ban. In a letter dated
September 3, 2025, received on September 4, 2025, the plaintiff applied to the Federal Police
Directorate in Stuttgart to have the entry ban and the international alert
regarding the entry ban removed, or, alternatively, to have the refusal of entry
limited to a specific period. He complained that he had not received any notice of an entry ban since his departure
. The wedding was scheduled for September 26, 2025.
6 In a letter dated September 8, 2025, the Stuttgart Federal Police Directorate rejected the request
to perform the erasure of the wanted notice and stated that the wanted notice
would remain in effect until April 1, 2028. It provided the following reasoning:
He is accused of unlawful residence without a residence permit pursuant to § 95
(1)(2) of the Residence Act (AufenthG). In the past, he had already been ordered to leave the country on multiple occasions by the
Immigration Office and had also been subject to an entry and residence
ban. Repeated disregard for the provisions of immigration law
necessarily results in an entry ban pursuant to Art. 24 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861.
Through his conduct, he poses a threat to public safety and
order. The conditions for revoking the alert
were not met. The notice regarding the alert for denial of entry pursuant to
Art 52(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 had been served on him.
7 In a brief filed by his attorney on October 9, 2025, the plaintiff requested that the alert
for denial of entry be corrected due to incorrect data entry,
in the alternative, to have it deleted, and, in the further alternative, to impose a time limit on it retroactively. The unauthorized
stay prior to departure was not punishable under para 95(1)(2) of the Residence Act (AufenthG) because he
was a so-called “positive-status national.” Apart from the notification from the O. Federal Police Station, apparently
no official decision had been issued. For the entry of an alert, it is always
necessary that an administrative or Court decision denying entry and
residence have been issued. A mere notification of the alert
is therefore insufficient. He has since married his German partner
and wishes to file a visa application for spousal reunification as soon as possible. In its statement dated October 22, 2025, the Stuttgart Federal Police Headquarters
argued that the reasoning regarding criminal liability could not be understood. The
decision to deny entry and residence had been made by the Stuttgart Federal Police Directorate,
and the applicant had been flagged in SIS and INPOL. A formal decision was not required because no entry and residence ban had been
imposed pursuant to
§ 11 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), but only an alert pursuant to Art. 24(1)
lit. a of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861.
- Page 2 of 7 -
8 On December 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
in Skopje for a visa for family reunification. After the embassy failed to issue a decision on the visa application, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Ref. No. XX with the Administrative Court
of Berlin; a decision on this matter has not yet been rendered.
9 In his lawsuit filed on October 27, 2025, with the Administrative Court of Stuttgart, the
plaintiff argues that it is questionable whether a mere notification of the refusal of entry
is sufficient to produce legal effect. From the wording and the reference
in Art. 3(17) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 to Art. 3 of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC),
it follows that an administrative or Court order must have been issued. The
entry in the SIS itself—that is, the entry of the data—does not constitute an administrative act
but is simply an exercise of sovereign authority. The entry of a Schengen visa requires—
pursuant to Art. 32(1)(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of July 13, 2009, on a Community Visa Code (Visa
Code), the absence of an alert in the SIS regarding a refusal of entry. For this reason alone,
the entry has direct external effect. The exception of
unauthorized entry under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of March 9, 2016, on a Community Code on the Crossing
by persons (Schengen Borders Code) does not apply. If the
alert therefore constitutes an administrative act, the defendant would first have to
issue such an act. The notification pursuant to Article 52 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 does not replace the
notification of the necessary administrative decision, which, moreover, must also have been substantiated and
exercised at the discretion of the authorities. The entry should therefore be subject to an erasure.
With regard to the duration of the refusal of entry, it must be taken into account that the
expulsion at that time and the entry and residence bans had already expired
and therefore could no longer be held against him. The passage of time implies
precisely that he no longer poses a threat. Furthermore, his actions
do not constitute a criminal offense. With regard to the marriage that has since taken place in North Macedonia,
a time limit should be imposed, which is why the defendant
has committed an error of discretion. The German Embassy in Skopje does not make a decision on the visa application
for the purpose of spousal reunification based on the alert. However, even if
a visa had been granted, the alert would prevent lawful entry pursuant to
Art. 6(1)(d) of the Schengen Borders Code. The national alert, on the other hand,
is not being challenged.
10 The plaintiff requests (in essence),
11 that the defendant be ordered to delete the alert entered against him in the Schengen Information System
for the purpose of refusing entry, or, in the alternative,
to correct it, or, in the further alternative, to impose a time limit on it retroactively, and to
decision of the Stuttgart Federal Police Directorate dated September 8, 2025, to the extent that
it precludes this.
12 The defendant moves to
13 dismiss the lawsuit.
14 It argues that the plaintiff has remained 148 days longer than the period specified in Art. 21
of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of
June 14, 1985, between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the
- Page 3 of 7 -
the Federal Republic of Germany, and the French Republic concerning the gradual
abolition of controls at common borders of June 19, 1990 (Schengen
Implementation Convention); this constitutes a
significant violation of the Residence Act. The
order to issue the alert was issued on August 1, 2025, by the Federal Police Directorate in Stuttgart
and was subsequently entered into both systems. The order, based on para. 24(1)
(a) in conjunction with para. 2(c) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 in conjunction with § 30(5) of the Federal Police Act (BPolG)
was lawful and was not based on incorrect data. The plaintiff
had violated European Union legal provisions or national legal
provisions regarding entry into and residence in the territory of the Member
States, or had circumvented them within the meaning of the provision, which constituted an unlawful
stay in the Schengen Area. He had thus repeatedly acted in gross disregard
of immigration law provisions. The decisive factor is the repeated
disregard of the legal provisions governing entry into and residence within the territory
of the Member States. Whether his actions constitute a criminal offense is irrelevant in this context. The applicant
had repeatedly made it clear through his conduct that he was indifferent
to the provisions governing residence. The necessary administrative decision
consisted of the Federal Police’s entry of the alert in the SIS. The
alert does not constitute an administrative act in this context, which is why no formal notice
had to be issued. The notification of the alert was therefore sufficient.
The alert does not constitute an obstacle to the examination of an application for a visa for spousal reunification. In the event of premature erasure, there would be a risk that the
plaintiff would once again be staying in the federal territory without authorization and that his presence would
pose a threat to public security within the meaning of Art. 24(1)(a) and (2)(c) of Regulation
(EU) 2018/1861. Furthermore, a retroactive reduction is not an option. 
To the extent that the visa is issued for the purpose of spousal reunification or the embassy
notifies that the requirements for visa issuance have been met, the
alert may be lifted.
15 With regard to the further circumstances of the case, reference is made to the Court and
administrative records.
Reasons for the Decision
16 With the consent of the parties, the lawsuit is decided pursuant to para 101(2) VwGO without
an oral hearing.
17 I. The admissible lawsuit is successful. The Chamber assumes, in accordance with the plaintiff’s request,
that the plaintiff’s primary concern is the removal of the incorrect entry in the SIS,
for which a request for deletion is appropriate.
18 1. The motion for erasure of the data stored about the plaintiff in the SIS is admissible as a
lawsuit for performance and is also admissible in all other respects.
19 An action for performance is admissible under § 42(1) VwGO if the claim seeks to
compel a public authority to issue an administrative act that has been refused or
omitted. It is also applicable when a lawsuit is directed at an actual act
by an administrative authority, but the sought-after actual act of the authority
is preceded by an administrative act. In such cases, the legal focus of the
authority’s activity lies not in the actual act as such, but in the
underlying decision, which is issued in the form of an administrative act
- Page 4 of 7 -
(Federal Administrative Court, judgements of Nov. 28, 2007—6 A 2.07—BVerwGE 130, 29, para. 13, and of
September 16, 2020—6 C 10.19—Buchholz 403.1 Allg DatenschutzR No. 21, para. 12). This is the case, for example,
when the authority, prior to taking the actual action, makes a decision that
must be made on the basis of a statutory review procedure and in which the
authority must observe specific procedural requirements, such as the duty to state reasons or the
duty to hear the parties (Federal Administrative Court, Judgement of September 16, 2020 – 6 C 10.19 – Buch-
holz 403.1 General Data Protection Law No. 21, para. 12). In this context, the regulatory nature of the decision—which is required for an administrative act—
presupposes that, based on its
objective meaning, the decision is intended to establish a legal consequence. It must
establish, define in substance,
amend, repeal, or determine rights or obligations that are legally binding on
the person concerned, or legally and bindingly
reject such a determination. An administrative act of determination therefore exists when the result of the
authority’s application of the law is legally bindingly established (Federal Administrative Court, Judgement
of March 2, 2022 – 6 C 7.20 –, juris para. 19).
20 Based on this, the claim for the erasure of incorrect entries in the SIS
is directed not solely at the actual act of erasure, but at a prior
administrative act. The focus lies on the decision regarding this amendment, which must comply with the review criteria set forth in
Art. 53(1), Art. 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 in conjunction with Art. 17(1) of Regulation (EU)
2016/679 (GDPR), in the context of which the authority, in particular, makes a decision regarding
the accuracy or inaccuracy of the data in question (see Federal Administrative Court, judgement of
March 2, 2022—6 C 7.20—juris para. 20 regarding the right under Art. 16(1) of the GDPR). The
respondent’s brief dated September 8, 2025, is thus an administrative
act within the meaning of § 35, sentence 1, of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG), by which the request of September 3, 2025, for the erasure of the
entry. In the absence of information on available remedies, this decision has not (yet)
become final, and the revocation period has therefore not yet expired (Section 58
(2), first sentence, and § 74(1), first sentence, VwGO).
21 In particular, the lawsuit is not inadmissible on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to conduct the preliminary proceedings
required for a lawsuit for performance pursuant to § 68(2) VwGO. The defendant substantively addressed the plaintiff’s arguments and
moved to dismiss the lawsuit (see, regarding the state of the dispute: Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, order dated
June 27, 2026—6 S 983/25—juris para. 22). Even after being advised by the Chamber, it was not
willing to remedy the situation.
22 2. The plaintiff is also entitled to the erasure of the data stored about him in the SIS
and, accordingly, to the revocation of the decision of the Federal Police Directorate in Stuttgart
dated September 8, 2025, because the alert is unlawful and his rights
have been violated, para 5, first sentence, VwGO.
23 The right to erasure thus arises from Art. 53(1) and Art. 24(1) and (2) of Regulation
(EU) 2018/1861 in conjunction with Art. 17(1) of the GDPR. In the absence of its own provisions,
Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 refers in Article 53(1) to Articles 15 through 17 of the GDPR. Pursuant to Article 17
(1) of the GDPR, the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller, without undue delay,
the erasure of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her,
if, pursuant to subparagraph (a), the personal data are no longer necessary for the purposes for which they were collected or
otherwise processed, or, pursuant to subparagraph (d), the
personal data have been unlawfully processed.
- Page 5 of 7 -
24 The inaccuracy of the personal data stored about the plaintiff in the lawsuit
SIS alert in the present case stems from the fact that the conditions for the
alert pursuant to Art. 24(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 are no longer met.
25 Pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861, Member States shall issue an alert
for refusal of entry and stay if one of the following conditions
is met: a) The Member State has concluded, on the basis of an individual assessment,
which includes an evaluation of the personal circumstances of the third-country national
in question and the implications of the refusal of entry and stay for that
third-country national, that the presence of
third-country national in its territory poses a threat to public order
or to public or national security within its territory,
and the Member State has consequently, in accordance with its national law,-
has issued a judicial or administrative decision denying entry and residence
and has entered the third-country national in a national alert system for denial of entry and residence,
or (b) the Member State, in accordance with procedures consistent with Directive
2008/115/EC, has imposed an entry ban on a third-country national
. The situations referred to in paragraph 1(a) apply if a) a third-country
national has been convicted in a Member State of a criminal offense punishable by
a prison sentence of at least one year; (b) there is reasonable suspicion that a third-country
national has committed a serious criminal offense—including
terrorist offenses—or if there is concrete evidence
that he or she is planning such acts within the territory of a Member State; or c) a third-
country national has circumvented or attempted
to circumvent Union or national legislation governing
entry into and residence in the territory.
26 The defendant bases the alert in this case on the fact that the plaintiff resided unlawfully in the
Schengen area, which constitutes a violation of Union
or national legislation governing entry into and residence in the
territory of the Member States, or that there has been circumvention within the meaning of the
provisions.
27 It is true that the plaintiff stayed longer than the period specified in para 20(1) of the Schengen
Implementation Convention in conjunction with para 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of
November 14, 2018 (EU Visa Regulation 2018) as a national of the states listed in Annex II to the Regulation—
namely 90 days per 180-day period—in the Federal Republic of Germany,
he has remained in the country.
28 This in itself constitutes a violation of European Union law
within the meaning of Article 24(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. However, at
the relevant time of the Court’s decision, it cannot be assumed
that the plaintiff’s presence in the Federal Republic poses a threat to public order
or to public or national security within the Federal Republic. To the
extent that the defendant’s assumption is based on an individual assessment by the defendant
in which the claimant’s personal circumstances and the effects of the denial of entry
were taken into account, it is erroneous. This element
of Article 24(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 reflects the principle of proportionality
under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, which, under paragraph 1, requires
that the appropriateness, relevance, and significance of the case sufficiently justify an alert in the SIS
- Page 6 of 7 -
(Potsdam Administrative Court, judgement of Dec. 14, 2023 – 3 K 1458/19 –, juris para.
35). It is also supported by Recitals 31 and 32 of the Regulation, according to which
alerts may not be stored in the SIS for longer than is necessary for the specific purpose for which the entry was made,
and the entry of an alert is subject to a
proportionality review.
29 It need not be determined here whether the individual assessment at the time of the alert
following the departure on July 27, 2025, complied with the principle of proportionality.
In any event, it no longer complies with it.
30 On September 15, 2025, the plaintiff married Ms. B., a German citizen. There
is currently no evidence before the Chamber to suggest that this is a sham
marriage, that the marriage certificate submitted in the lawsuit is forged, or that there are grounds precluding the validity of the marriage. The
defendant has not substantiated any such claims, but has rather
relied on the mere possibility that there was no valid marriage to a
German national. In addition, the plaintiff had already filed a visa application for family
reunification with the Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Germany in Skopje on December 8, 2025. Since no decision was made there,
he filed a lawsuit before the Berlin Administrative Court. In the Chamber’s view, the plaintiff is thus
clearly willing to comply with national regulations and
Union law in order to enter the Federal Republic of Germany or the territory
of the Member States. The defendant has neither
substantiated any evidence to the contrary nor is such evidence otherwise apparent. The defendant’s
reliance on the expulsion that already took place in 2021 does not reflect the current
state of affairs. Rather, the plaintiff has demonstrated that—contrary to his previous conduct—
he is now willing to comply with the provisions governing entry and
residence that apply to him. Maintaining the alert is therefore
disproportionate.
31 The resulting right to erasure is also not precluded under Art. 17(3) of the GDPR
.
32 II. The decision on costs is based on § 154(1) of the VwGO.
33 The appeal is not admissible because none of the grounds specified in § 124a(1) in conjunction with
§ 124(2)(3) or (4) of the VwGO apply.
34 Order of July 14, 2026
35 The value in dispute is set at
36 5,000.00 EUR
37 pursuant to § 63(2), first sentence, and § 52(2) of the GKG.
- Page 7 of 7 -