Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:167
Date: 2026-03-05
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Anonymised version 
Translation C-5/25 – 1 
Case C-5/25 [Pilev] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
7 January 2025 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
23 December 2024 
Defendant: 
WE 
Prosecution: 
Sofiyska gradska prokuratura 
  
ORDER 
 
Date: 23 December 2024      Place: Sofia 
Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria)   […] 
[Chamber of three judges], 
at the hearing […] of public prosecution proceedings No 3169 on the list for the 
year 2024, found as follows: 
 
i The name of this case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
The procedure is governed by Article 485 et seq. of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen 
kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure; ‘the NPK’) and the second paragraph of 
Article 267 TFEU. 
1. The referring court has certain difficulties in assessing whether a national law 
governing the identification of a defendant in criminal proceedings pending before 
a court is compatible with EU law, and in particular with Directive 2016/680. 
It has therefore decided to make a request for a preliminary ruling. 
EU law 
2. 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 L 119/89 of 4 May 2016 (‘Directive 
2016/680’) 
Provisions of national law 
3. Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria), 
DV No 56/91, as amended in DV No 66/24 
Article 31(4) provides: 
‘The rights of a defendant shall not be restricted beyond what is necessary for the 
purposes of the administration of justice.’ 
Article 32(1) provides: 
‘The privacy of citizens shall be inviolable. Everyone shall be entitled to 
protection against any unlawful interference in his or her private and family life’ 
Article 149(1)(2) provides: 
‘The Konstitutsionen sad (Constitutional Court) shall rule on requests for a 
declaration of unconstitutionality of laws.’ 
The third sentence of Article 151(2) provides: 
‘Any act declared unconstitutional shall cease to apply on the date on which the 
decision takes effect.’ 
4. Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), DV No 86 of 
28 October 2005, as amended in DV No 39/24 (‘the NPK’) 
PILEV 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
4.1. Verification of the defendant’s identity 
Under Article 272(1) of the NPK, the presiding judge of the Chamber hearing the 
case is to verify the identity of the defendant. To that end, he or she must establish 
certain facts concerning the defendant’s personal circumstances. 
The provision in Article 272(1) of the NPK reads as follows: 
‘The presiding judge shall verify the defendant’s identity by asking the defendant 
his or her full name, date and place of birth, ethnicity, nationality, place of 
residence, educational attainment level, marital status and unique identification 
number and whether he or she has any previous convictions.’ 
Under that provision, the presiding judge of the Chamber asks the defendant for 
those particulars, and the defendant must respond orally by providing those 
particulars. That is done publicly in the presence of the other parties to the 
proceedings and, where appropriate, the public. Everyone present thus becomes 
aware of the defendant’s statements imparting the information required by 
Article 272(1) of the NPK. 
4.2. Record of court hearings 
Article 311(1)(2) of the NPK provides: 
‘… the record of the court hearing shall include … data relating to the person of 
the defendant.’ 
The defendant’s answers to questions concerning his or her personal data must be 
entered in the court record and therefore become part of the case file. In this way 
they are available to all parties in so far as they have full access to the 
proceedings. 
4.3. Informing defendants of their rights 
After verifying the defendant’s identity in accordance with Article 272(1) of the 
NPK, the court informs the defendant of his or her rights. One of those is the right 
to remain silent by refusing to testify. 
Article 274(2) of the NPK provides: 
… the presiding judge shall explain to the parties their rights under [the NPK]’. 
Article 55(1) of the NPK provides: 
‘The defendant shall have the following rights: to learn for which offence he is 
being prosecuted and on the basis of what evidence; to answer the charges or 
refuse to testify …’ 
Article 115(4) of the NPK provides: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
‘The defendant shall have the right to refuse to testify.’ 
4.4. Taking of evidence 
Evidence is taken only in the judicial investigation (Section III of Chapter Twenty 
of the NPK). The judicial investigation begins with the formal reading of charges 
against the defendant (Article 276 of the NPK). The defendant is then subject to 
an examination, in the course of which he or she may, if he or she wishes, make 
statements, which may be used in evidence – Article 277(1) of the NPK, read in 
conjunction with Article 138(3) of that code. 
Article 276(1) of the NPK provides: 
‘The judicial investigation … shall begin with a report setting out the grounds for 
initiating judicial proceedings.’ 
Article 277(1) of the NPK provides: 
‘The presiding judge shall invite the defendant to give explanations regarding the 
charges.’ 
Article 138[(2)] of the NPK provides: 
‘Before the examination, the competent body shall verify the identity of the 
defendant.’ 
Article 138(3) of the NPK provides: 
‘The examination of the defendant shall begin with the question whether he or she 
understands the charges, after which the defendant shall be invited, if he or she so 
wishes, to state in free narrative form everything that he or she knows about the 
case.’ 
4.5. Conclusion on the verification of identity under the NPK: 
The information provided by the defendant for the verification of his or her 
identity in accordance with Article 272(1) of the NPK does not constitute 
evidence, because: 
(1) that information must be clearly distinguished from the examination of the 
defendant and the statements which he or she makes in that context 
(Articles 272(1) and 277(1) of the NPK as well as Article 138(2) and (3) 
thereof); 
(2) the examination is conducted with a defendant whose identity has already 
been verified, while the information provided by the defendant in 
accordance with Article 272(1) of the NPK serves precisely to verify his or 
her identity; 
PILEV 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
(3) the examination takes place after the defendant has been informed of his or 
her rights (Article 274(2) of the NPK), including the right to testify or refuse 
to testify (Article 55(1) of the NPK) and after the reading of the charges, to 
which he or she may respond (Articles 276(1) and 277(1) of the NPK), 
whereas the verification of identity takes place beforehand and is a 
prerequisite for the subsequent examination; 
(4) the defendant has the right to refuse to testify (Article 115(1) of the NPK) 
but not the right to refuse to answer questions regarding his or her identity 
(Article 272(1) of the NPK). 
Consequently, the information provided by the defendant for the verification of 
his or her identity under Article 272(1) of the NPK has no probative value. It 
serves only to verify the identity of the person who has appeared, in other words 
to establish whether that person is the defendant named in the indictment. 
5. Zakon za grazhdanskata registratsia (Law on civil registration; ‘the ZGR’), DV 
No 67/99, as amended in DV No 85/24 
That law defines which data relate to the identity of a natural person. 
Article 8(1) of the ZGR provides: 
‘The main data relating to civil status are: 
1. name; 
2. day, month, year and place of birth; 
3. gender; 
4. nationality, 
5. personal identification number.’ 
More detailed provisions regarding names, nationalities and personal 
identification numbers are set out in Articles 9 to 11. 
6. Zakon za balgarskite lichni dokumenti (Law on Bulgarian identity documents; 
‘the ZBLD’), DV No 93/99, as amended in DV No 67/23 
That law specifies which data from the civil register may be entered in identity 
documents and brought to the attention of the authorities for the purpose of 
verifying the identity of a natural person. 
Article 3(1) of the ZBLD provides: 
‘Identity documents shall certify the holder’s identity and, where necessary, his or 
her nationality by means of the data contained therein.’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
Article 6 of the ZBLD provides: 
‘Citizens shall be required to identify themselves at the request of the competent 
officials designated by law.’ 
Article 16(1) of the ZBLD provides: 
‘Bulgarian identity documents shall contain the following mandatory personal 
information: 
1. name; 
2. date of birth; 
3. personal identification number (identification number or foreign 
identification number) 
4. gender; 
5. nationality.’ 
7. Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the judiciary; ‘the ZSVl), DV No 64/07, as 
amended in DV No 67/24 
That law provides protection against discrimination on grounds of ethnicity. 
Article 8(2) of the ZSVl provides: 
‘In the performance of judicial duties, … no rights may be limited or advantages 
granted on grounds of … ethnicity.’ 
8. Zakon za zashtita na lichnite danni (Law on the protection of personal data; ‘the 
ZZLD’), DV No 1/02, as amended in DV No 70/24 
That law serves to transpose Directive 2016/680, as indicated in Paragraph 1a [of 
the Supplementary Provisions] of that law. 
8.1. Content of the law relating to the protection of personal data of defendants in 
criminal proceedings 
The ZZLD contains specific rules for the processing of personal data for the 
purposes of criminal proceedings (Article 42 et seq.), with the proviso, set out in 
Article 45(1)(2) of the ZZLD, that the data must be collected for specified, 
explicit and legitimate purposes; Article 45(1)(3) specifies that the data must be 
adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are 
processed. Those requirements are also apparent from Article 49 of the ZZLD. 
Under Article 51(1) of the ZZLD, the processing of personal data revealing ethnic 
origin is permitted only where strictly necessary and if additional conditions are 
fulfilled. 
PILEV 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
8.2. The wording of the law 
Paragraph 1a [of the Supplementary Provisions] provides: 
‘This Law … implements the requirements 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 L 119/89 of 4 May 2016).’ 
Article 42(1) provides: 
‘The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the processing of personal data by 
competent authorities for the purposes of … prosecuting criminal offences …’ 
Article 45(1) provides: 
‘Where personal data are processed for the purposes referred to in Article 42(1), 
the personal data must be: 
1. processed lawfully and fairly; 
2. collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not processed in a 
manner that is incompatible with those purposes; 
3. adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they 
are processed;’ 
Article 49 provides: 
‘Processing of personal data is lawful where processing is necessary for the 
exercise of the powers of the competent authority for the purposes set out in 
Article 42(1) and is provided for by European Union law or by a law defining the 
purposes of the processing and the categories of personal data to be processed.’ 
Article 5[1](1) provides: 
‘Processing of personal data revealing ethnic origin shall be allowed where strictly 
necessary and where appropriate safeguards exist for the rights and freedoms of 
the data subject and where it is authorised by the law of the European Union or of 
the Republic of Bulgaria’. 
9. Zakon za normativnite aktove (Law on normative acts; ‘the ZNA’), DV 
No 27/73, as amended in DV No 34/16 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
Article 4(1) of the ZNA provides: ‘A code is a normative act which governs, in 
public law, relations which are the subject of an entire branch of the legal system 
or a separate part of it.’ 
Article 9(1) of the ZNA provides: ‘The provisions of normative acts must be 
drafted in Bulgarian in language which is in common use, succinct, precise and 
clear.’ 
Article 46(1) of the ZNA provides: ‘The provisions of normative acts shall be 
applied in accordance with their exact meaning; where they are unclear, 
preference should be given to the interpretation which is most consistent with the 
other provisions, with the objective of the interpreted legal norm and with the 
general principles of Bulgarian law.’ 
10. Relationship between the foregoing laws 
When assessing that relationship, account should be taken of the fact that, of all 
those provisions, only Article 272(1) of the NPK deals with verification of the 
defendant’s identity, whereas the other laws do not pursue that purpose. 
10.1. Relationship between Article 272(1) of the NPK and the Constitution 
In the view of the referring court, Article 272(1) of the NPK infringes 
Articles 31(4) and 32(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, on 5 July 2024, in the 
main proceedings in the present case, it asked the Konstitutsionen sad 
(Constitutional Court, Bulgaria) for a declaration to that effect. 
By Order No 13/26.11.2024 in Constitutional Case No 27/24, the Constitutional 
Court held that the request was vitiated by a defect, namely that Chapter Eight of 
the ZZLD, which transposes Directive 2016/680, had not been taken into account; 
compliance with the obligations arising from Article 272(1) of the NPK, the 
Constitutional Court ruled, was a matter of application of the law. The request was 
therefore rejected without a response on the merits. 
The referring court points out that, in its request to the Constitutional Court, it had 
taken the ZZLD rules into account and had found that they were general in nature 
and could not therefore exclude the application of the special regime for which 
Article 272(1) of the NPK provided. It also notes that application of the law 
consists in applying the provisions of normative acts in accordance with their 
exact meaning (Article 46(1) of the ZNA) and that that meaning is clear from the 
precise and specific wording of the provision (Article 9(1) of the ZNA). It would 
not be legitimate, therefore, if Article 272(1) of the NPK, which is a clearly 
formulated provision of a lex specialis containing exhaustive rules for a particular 
field (in so far as the NPK is a code) and which specifically regulates the 
verification of defendants’ identity, were interpreted in a distorted and narrow 
manner in order to meet the necessity requirements formulated in general and 
abstract terms in a lex generalis, namely in Articles 45(1)(3), 49 and [51](1) of the 
ZZLD. 
PILEV 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
Although the referring court considers that Article 272(1) of the NPK infringes 
Articles 31(4) and 32(1) of the Constitution, it is not competent to find that 
infringement and to refrain from applying the disputed parts of Article 272(1) of 
the NPK. Such competence is reserved to the Constitutional Court under the third 
sentence of Article 151(2) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, however, 
declines to address the issue. 
Accordingly, constitutional grounds do not preclude the application of 
Article 272(1) of the NPK. 
10.2. Relationship between Article 272(1) of the NPK and the ZGR and ZBLD 
Article 272(1) of the NPK contains special rules relating to the defendant’s 
identity, which concern numerous particulars. By contrast, Article 8(1) of the 
ZGR and Article 16(1) of the ZBLD contain rules of general application relating 
to the identity of any person in dealings with a representative of the State 
administration or with other persons. Consequently, it is precisely Article 272(1) 
of the NPK, as a lex specialis, which must be applied in order to establish the 
identity of the accused, and not the provisions of the other two laws. 
The provisions of Article 8(1) of the ZGR and Article 6 of the ZBLD ultimately 
cannot be used as the basis for verification of a defendant’s identity. That 
verification can only be based on Article 272(1) of the NPK. 
10.3. Article 272(1) of the NPK and the ZZLD 
Article 272(1) of the NPK contains special rules regarding the defendant’s 
identity, while the ZZLD makes no such provision. The ZZLD is a lex generalis 
which guarantees the protection of defendants’ personal data and therefore applies 
only in so far as the NPK does not contain any express provision to that effect. 
When adopting the provisions of the ZZLD (DV No 17/19), the national 
legislature did not amend Article 272(1) of the NPK; that is to say it did not 
consider that there was a contradiction between the existing legislation and the 
new legislation. That assessment by the legislature cannot be reviewed by the 
referring court. Under the national interpretation rules, in a conflict of laws 
between a special provision in a legal code and a general provision in a statute, the 
special provision must prevail. 
Consequently, Articles 45(1)(3), 49 and [51](1) of the ZZLD cannot serve as a 
basis for partial non-application of Article 272(1) of the NPK. 
In the view of the referring court, the Bulgarian legislature simply reproduced the 
provisions of Directive 2016/680 in the ZZLD without seeking to understand their 
meaning and to amend accordingly the applicable procedures for the processing of 
personal data in the context of criminal proceedings. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
Facts of the case 
11. An indictment was submitted by the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (Public 
Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria) to the referring court, charging 
a natural person with having bribed police officers in Sofia on 6 September 2023 
with a view to avoiding conviction for an administrative offence, namely driving a 
motor vehicle without a driving licence, where that person was simultaneously 
practising the occupation of a taxi driver locally without possessing the necessary 
authorisation. The first act is an offence under Article 304a of the Nakazatelen 
Kodeks (Criminal Code; ‘the NK’), read in conjunction with Article 304(1) of that 
code, and the second act is an offence under Article 324(1) of the NK. 
12. For the first court hearing, held on 5 July 2024, a representative of the Public 
Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Sofia, the defendant and his defence counsel 
were in attendance. The court initiated the proceedings. Next, in accordance with 
Article 272(1) of the NPK, the presiding judge of the Chamber was required to 
verify the identity of the defendant and ask him for the personal particulars 
specified in that provision. 
13. On the basis of the identity document presented by the defendant, the 
presiding judge of the Chamber satisfied himself that the person appearing before 
him was the defendant named in the indictment. He refrained, however, from 
asking the defendant the questions relating to his identity for which Article 272(1) 
of the NPK provides, and the proceedings were stayed. 
14. The Constitutional Court was asked to declare Article 272(1) of the NPK 
incompatible with Articles 31(4) and 32(1) of the Constitution. Since the 
Constitutional Court declined to rule on the substance (see paragraph 10.1 above), 
the referring court decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
15. Question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
Is a national provision – Article 272(1) of the NPK – according to which, 
when verifying the identity of a defendant, his or her personal data relating 
to place of birth, ethnicity, nationality, place of residence, educational 
attainment level, marital status and criminal record are processed (collected, 
recorded and stored) compatible with Articles 4(1)[(c)], 8(1) and 10(1) of 
Directive 2016/680 where the personal data thus collected are in no way 
necessary for the purposes of the criminal proceedings? 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
General 
PILEV 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
16. The criminal proceedings in which the present request for a preliminary ruling 
was made fall within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2016/680 in so far as 
they relate to the judicial stage of the criminal proceedings initiated at the request 
of the public prosecutor’s office for the purposes of criminal proceedings against 
the defendant. 
17. The actions to be taken by the referring court, namely asking the defendant for 
the personal particulars specified in Article 272(1) of the NPK, constitute 
processing of personal data. That is the case in so far as those particulars relate 
directly to the defendant’s identity and directly identify him or her, which makes 
them personal data within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2016/680, and 
in so far as those measures, by their nature, constitute collection (by question and 
answer), recording (in the court record) and storage (in the case file) of personal 
data, which is processing within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 
2016/680. 
Excessiveness 
18. Directive 2016/680 prescribes that the collection and processing of personal 
data must be necessary. Under Article 4(c), such collection and processing must 
not be ‘excessive’; under Article 8(1), Member States are to provide for the 
processing of personal data to be lawful only if and to the extent that it ‘is 
necessary for the performance of a task’ such as that facing the referring court, 
while Article 10(1) states that the processing of personal data revealing ethnic 
origin is to be allowed ‘only where strictly necessary’. 
19. Under national law, the court having jurisdiction to conduct the criminal 
proceedings against the defendant must verify that the person appearing before it 
is in fact the person referred to in the indictment. That is the purpose of the 
verification of identity required by Article 272(1) of the NPK. The remainder of 
the proceedings is then initiated and may culminate in a decision on the merits of 
the case. The collection of personal data by questioning pursuant to Article 272(1) 
of the NPK and their processing by entry in the court record and storage in the 
case file therefore serve specified, explicit and legitimate purposes within the 
meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2016/680. 
20. The referring court points out that it can identify a defendant with sufficient 
certainty by consulting his or her identity card, which contains all the necessary 
individualised data (see paragraph 6 above). That is precisely what was done at 
the first hearing (see paragraph 13 above). 
21. At the same time, the referring court notes that it is also useful to ask for the 
identification data in accordance with Article 272(1) of the NPK in order to obtain 
greater certainty, through the confirmatory answers given by the person appearing 
before the court, that he or she is the defendant and has not, for example, 
presented identity documents which belong to another person or have been forged. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
It is enough, however, to ask for sufficient particulars to identify a person, that is 
to say full name, date of birth and personal identification number. 
22. Cumulative verification – perusing the identity document and asking for those 
particulars – is an entirely sufficient means of obtaining complete certainty that 
the person against whom the charge has been brought has actually appeared before 
the referring court. 
23. The question which is the subject of the present request is whether the 
referring court, by asking for the additional information required by Article 272(1) 
of the NPK and entering the answers in the court record, would breach the 
necessity requirement for the processing of personal data laid down by Directive 
2016/680. 
The following are the additional items of information: place of birth, ethnicity, 
nationality, place of residence, educational attainment level, marital status and 
previous convictions. 
24. Those particulars are not necessary for the reliable and complete identification 
of the defendant. Asking for them goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the 
objective pursued by Article 272(1) of the NPK, namely identification of the 
defendant. 
Use of the data specified in Article 272(1) of the NPK for other purposes 
25. The referring court notes that some of the personal data referred to in 
Article 272(1) of the NPK could be used for other purposes. 
26. Ascertainment of the place of residence may serve, for example, to determine 
the current address at which the summons is to be served to the defendant. 
However, since the defendant will already have been summoned to the hearing at 
the address which he or she had indicated, it is sufficient to inform him or her of 
the need to notify the court of any change of address without having to ask again 
for his or her place of residence. 
27. A defendant’s previous convictions may also be relevant for a finding of 
repeated infringement or for the individualisation of the penalty. The defendant’s 
educational attainment level and marital status may also have an impact on the 
individualisation of the penalty. Nationality and even place of residence may 
affect the transfer of convicted persons to serve their sentence in another State. 
28. Those other purposes, however, are distinct from verification of the 
defendant’s identity. It is useful to verify those particulars in the context of the 
judicial investigation in accordance with the procedures laid down for that 
purpose. Under national law, they cannot be verified outside the judicial 
investigation, that is to say before it begins, and without informing the defendant 
of his or her right to refuse to testify (see paragraph 4.5 above). 
PILEV 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
29. Similarly, questioning the defendant and recording his or her answers do not 
suffice to verify those particulars reliably. Previous convictions are verified by 
consulting the official criminal records, which may include requesting copies of 
files on cases in which criminal convictions have been handed down; marital or 
civil status is verified by means of a request to the civil registry or through copies 
of official documents such as a marriage certificate (in the case of spouses), or 
birth certificate (with the full names and personal identification numbers of the 
child and his or her parents); educational attainment level is verified by the 
presentation of documents certifying the successful completion of an education or 
training course, and place of residence is verified by means of a proof of 
registration with the residents’ registration office for a specific locality. 
30. Moreover, it is an undisputed tenet of national law that information which is 
disclosed during the verification of identity of a person appearing in court must 
not be relied upon in the decision on the merits of the case. From a purely formal 
point of view, the court first verifies the identity of the person appearing before it 
and only then informs that person of his or her rights, including the right to remain 
silent. Consequently, information given by such persons in answer to questions 
relating to their ethnicity, their previous convictions, their marital status and their 
educational attainment level, as well as any other statement, cannot have probative 
value (see paragraph 4.5 above). 
Conclusion 
31. For the foregoing reasons, the referring court has doubts as to whether 
Article 272(1) of the NPK satisfies the requirement laid down in Article 4(1)(c) of 
Directive 2016/680 that the collection and processing of personal data must not be 
excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed. Those doubts 
arise from the fact that national law requires the defendant, when verifying his or 
her identity, to disclose numerous items of personal data (including place of birth, 
ethnicity, nationality, place of residence, educational attainment level, marital 
status and previous convictions), whereas these particulars are in no way 
necessary for the purposes of the criminal proceedings, since they can neither 
contribute to the verification of the defendant’s identity nor be used to rule on the 
merits of the case. 
32. It is also questionable whether the national legislation is compatible with 
Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/680, under which the processing of personal data 
must be necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent 
authority for the purposes set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2016/680. In the 
present case, the referring court, which is a competent authority within the 
meaning of Article 3(1)(7)(a) of Directive 2016/680, has the task of conducting 
the judicial proceedings in a criminal trial based on a charge brought by the public 
prosecutor’s office. In order to perform that task, it is necessary to verify officially 
the identity of the person appearing before the court and, in particular, to establish 
whether he is the defendant against whom the charge has been brought. In order to 
verify his identity, however, it is not necessary to obtain a specific set of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 12. 2024 – CASE C-5/25 
 
14  
Anonymised version 
particulars prescribed by law (Article 272(1) of the NPK), namely place of birth, 
ethnicity, nationality, place of residence, educational attainment level, marital 
status and previous convictions. The processing of those personal data, in the form 
of their collection and entry in the court record, as well as their subsequent storage 
in the case file, goes beyond what is necessary for the purposes of the criminal 
proceedings. 
33. Finally, it is doubtful whether the national legislation laid down in 
Article 272(1) of the NPK, which includes a requirement to obtain information on 
the ethnicity of the defendant, is compatible with Article 10 of the Directive, since 
the defendant’s ethnic origin is revealed by that item of personal data. 
National law, namely Article 8(2) of the ZSVl, does not allow a distinction to be 
made between persons on the basis of their ethnic origin (see paragraph 7 above). 
It follows that the verification of the defendant’s ethnicity prescribed by 
Article 272(1) of the NPK appears unnecessary in the light of the prohibition on 
using the data thus obtained in any way, including for the purpose of identifying 
the defendant. As stated above (see paragraphs 5 and 6), the identity of persons is 
verified under national law on the basis of a whole set of personal particulars, 
which do not include ethnicity. 
Special request 
34. Under the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the Court of 
Justice of the European Union, national courts are responsible for determining 
which national law is applicable. Accordingly, ‘the examination of a reference for 
a preliminary ruling must be carried out in the light of the interpretation of 
national law provided by the referring court’ (judgment of 13 June 2024 in Case 
C-229/23, ECLI:EU:C:2024:505). 
35. In the context of the present request, national law has been examined and the 
conclusion drawn that most of the particulars specified in Article 272(1) of the 
NPK are not in any way necessary. That unambiguous finding is also reflected in 
the question referred for a preliminary ruling. Since Directive 2016/680 requires 
that the collection and processing of personal data must be necessary, the Court of 
Justice of the European Union should, on the basis of the referring court’s finding 
that Article 272(1) of the NPK provides for the collection of personal data which 
are in no way necessary, automatically declare that provision to be incompatible 
with the directive. 
36. That gives rise to the hypothesis that the referring court might have presented 
the national law incorrectly and in a distorted manner, that the verification of 
numerous particulars under Article 272(1) of the NPK might actually serve a 
specific purpose and that, from a certain standpoint, those particulars might prove 
necessary for the conduct of criminal proceedings. That hypothesis is based on the 
assumption that no Member State could possibly have a statutory regime which 
provided for the mass processing of voluminous personal data serving no purpose. 
PILEV 
 
15 
Anonymised version 
37. For that precise reason, the referring court decided first of all to seise the 
national constitutional court of the matter. It is within that court’s jurisdiction to 
conduct an independent review of national law without being bound by the 
interpretation of the referring court. For example, in its judgment No 10/15.7.2014 
in Constitutional Case No 4/14, the Constitutional Court ruled that, if a law 
provides that islands are public property of the state, that applies in fact to only 
some but not all islands; similarly, in judgment No 8/5.12.2023 in Constitutional 
Case No 21/22, it ruled that the statutory condition of being ‘charged with a 
criminal offence’ must be understood as including notification of the person that 
he or she is so charged. 
38. Unfortunately, in the main proceedings, the Constitutional Court decided to 
reject the request and did not give its authoritative interpretation of Article 272(1) 
of the NPK. 
39. In that context, the referring court addresses the following request to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union: if the Bulgarian Government, the Bulgarian 
Public Prosecutor’s Office or the counsel for the defence, as a party to the 
preliminary ruling proceedings, were to provide their own analysis of the 
provisions of Article 272(1) of the NPK, and that analysis differed in quality from 
the one undertaken in the request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice 
should give the referring court the opportunity to consider whether it should alter 
its interpretation of that provision. 
On those grounds, the court has made the following 
ORDER: 
The question set out in paragraph 15 above is referred to the Court of Justice of 
the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 
The order is not open to appeal.