{"id":231979,"date":"2026-06-22T13:47:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:47:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=231979"},"modified":"2026-06-23T15:55:56","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T13:55:56","slug":"2025-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2025-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"ccf-decision-meta\">\n<p><strong>Tags:<\/strong> Due process; Lawfulness \/ validity of proceedings; Description of criminal activities<br \/><strong>Decision:<\/strong> Not compliant<br \/><strong>Data type:<\/strong> Red Notice<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h1 class=\"u-text-center\">Decision of the Commission<br \/>Requests Chamber<\/h1>\n<p class=\"u-text-center\">Request concerning [the Applicant]<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-text-center\">(Ref. CCF\/[xxx]\/[xxx])<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-text-center\">[xxx]th session<br \/>[date]<\/p>\n<p>The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files (the Commission), sitting as the Requests Chamber, composed of:<\/p>\n<p>Members,<\/p>\n<p>Having deliberated during its [xxx]th session, on [date], delivered the following Decision.<\/p>\n<div class=\"betweendivs\"><a class=\"mybutton blue\" href=\"#\" onclick=\"openall();event.preventDefault();\">Expand all<\/a> <a class=\"mybutton blue\" href=\"#\" onclick=\"closeall();event.preventDefault();\">Collapse all<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-accordion su-u-trim h-toaccordion includetocloseall\">\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall\" data-anchor=\"section-i\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h2>I. Procedure<\/h2><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>1. On [date], Mr [the Applicant] presented a request for access to the information concerning him, registered in INTERPOL\u2019s files. On [date], the Commission found the request admissible as per <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/operating-rules\/#rule-30\" title=\"Rule 30 of the Operating Rules of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files\">Rule 30 of its Operating Rules<\/a> and informed the Applicant thereof. After being authorized by the INTERPOL National Central Bureau (NCB) source of data, the Commission informed the Applicant on [date] that he is wanted through INTERPOL\u2019s channels by [Country 1], and provided the information described in paragraphs <a href=\"#section-ii\" title=\"Section II of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">5<\/a> and <a href=\"#section-ii\" title=\"Section II of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">6<\/a> below.<\/p>\n<p>2. On [date], the Applicant lodged a request for the deletion of the information concerning him, registered in INTERPOL\u2019s files. On [date], the Commission informed the Applicant of the admissibility of his new request.<\/p>\n<p>3. During the study of the Applicant\u2019s case, the Commission consulted the NCB of [Country 1], and the INTERPOL General Secretariat (IPSG) in accordance with <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/statute\/#article-34\" title=\"Article 34 of the Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files\">Article 34(1) of the Statute of the Commission<\/a>, on the arguments set forth in the request.<\/p>\n<p>4. Both the Applicant and the NCB source of the challenged data were informed of the fact that the Commission would study the case during its [xxx]th session.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-ii\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h2>II. Data Recorded in INTERPOL\u2019s Files<\/h2><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>5. The Applicant, a national of [Country 3], is the subject of a Red Notice issued on [date], at the request of the NCB of [Country 1] for \u2018tax evasion while taking profit in a large amount and illegal entrepreneurship\u2019 on the basis of an arrest warrant issued on [date] by the [Country 1] district court, in [Country 1].<\/p>\n<p>6. The facts of the case state the following: \u2018From [date] to [date], [Country 1]: The a\/m person was a director of [Company 1]\u2019s branch in the Republic of [Country 1] registered in [Country 1] Taxes Department as a taxpayer. The declaration of the period from [date] to [date], presented to the tax authority showed that a\/m person evaded paying taxes to the government budget in an amount of [xxx]. In the period from [date] to [date] he was involved in an illegal entrepreneurship without a special license while it was needed. He took a profit in amount of [xxx] from construction and installation works\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>7. The Applicant is also subject to data registered in the INTERPOL Information System within a Criminal Analysis File (CAF) concerning the prevention and fight against financial crime with a transnational dimension. His status specified in the CAF is that of a person of interest.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-iii\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h2>III. The Applicant\u2019s Submissions<\/h2><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>8. The Applicant requested the deletion of the data concerning him, contending, in essence that:<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-indent-1\">a) there is a lack of due process;<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-indent-1\">b) the case is of an administrative nature; and<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-indent-1\">c) there are some irregularities in the proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-iv\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h2>IV. Applicable Legal Framework<\/h2><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>9. The Commission considers the following applicable legal framework.<\/p>\n<div class=\"u-indent-1\">9.1. Field of competence of the Commission:<\/div>\n<ul class=\"u-list-indent\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/constitution\/#article-36\" title=\"Article 36 of the Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL\">Article 36 of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a>,<\/li>\n<li>Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/statute\/#article-3\" title=\"Article 3 of the Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files\">3(1)(a)<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/statute\/#article-33\" title=\"Article 33 of the Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files\">33(3)<\/a> of the Statute of the Commission.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"u-indent-1\">9.2. Lawfulness of proceedings:<\/div>\n<ul class=\"u-list-indent\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/constitution\/#article-2\" title=\"Article 2 of the Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL\">Article 2(1) of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a>,<\/li>\n<li>Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-5\" title=\"Article 5 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">5(2)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-11\" title=\"Article 11 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">11(1)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-34\" title=\"Article 34 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">34(1)<\/a>, 34(3), and <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-86\" title=\"Article 86 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">86<\/a> of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"u-indent-1\">9.3. Clear description of the criminal activities and nature of the charges:<\/div>\n<ul class=\"u-list-indent\">\n<li>Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-10\" title=\"Article 10 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">10(2)(a)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-35\" title=\"Article 35 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">35(1)<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-83\" title=\"Article 83 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">83(2)(b)(i)<\/a> of the RPD,<\/li>\n<li>IPSG standards for the application of the RPD.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h2>V. Analysis of the Case<\/h2><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>10. The Commission assessed the Applicant\u2019s most relevant contentions described in <a href=\"#section-iii\" title=\"Section III of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">Section III above<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>11. For an appropriate study of the case, the Commission decided to study together under <a href=\"#section-v-b\" title=\"Section V.B of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">point B below<\/a> the related issues of whether there are sufficient elements of criminal involvement and the nature of the offence, since they are interdependent and rely on the same factual allegations.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<h3 class=\"su-spoiler-title ec-fake-spoiler-heading u-indent-1\" id=\"section-v-a\">A. Lack of Due Process<\/h3>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-a-a\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>a) Submissions of the Applicant<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>12. The Applicant complained of several procedural irregularities in his case, starting with the fact that he was not informed of the proceedings against him while he was still in [Country 1] after the investigation started on [date]. He argued that as he was never officially charged by a judge or prosecutor in this case, he could only be considered a suspect, and not an accused. While a public defender was designated by the court to defend him, he was never in contact with him, and thus did not have the possibility of effectively defending his rights in the case, therefore infringing on his rights to a fair trial.<\/p>\n<p>13. He submitted that he was only informed in [date] of the existence of the [date] [Country 1] arrest warrant, when his entry to [Country 2] was denied. Following this, he petitioned the General Prosecutor of [Country 1] on [date] for the termination of the criminal proceedings. This request was rejected on [date], and it was confirmed on [date] that the proceedings against the Applicant would not be terminated. His letters addressed to a deputy of [Country 1] and the Office of the [authority] of [Country 1] were left without answers.<\/p>\n<p>14. Even after he notified [Country 1] authorities of his address, he was never notified of the following decisions including a new arrest warrant that was issued on [date] against him on another charge.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-a-b\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>b) Submissions of the NCB of &#091;Country 1&#093;<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>15. The NCB of [Country 1] confirmed the validity of the proceedings and the arrest warrant dated [date] of which it provided a copy. It explained that since the Applicant had left [Country 1] on [date], it was no longer possible to interrogate him, start the preliminary investigation and announce the charge against him.<\/p>\n<p>16. It reported that on [date] the Applicant was declared as a wanted person and on [date] the [Country 1] District Court issued the arrest warrant. The Applicant was charged in the criminal case no. [xxx] for offences punishable under Articles [xxx] of the Penal Code of [Country 1] by the decision dated [date]. However, since the Applicant continued to hide from the investigation, it was impossible to announce the new charge to him. To ensure the announcement of the new charge, on [date] he was declared as a wanted person by the investigation and the arrest warrant was issued by the decision of the [Country 1] District Court on the same day.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-a-c\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>c) Findings of the Commission<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>17. The Commission reviews the Applicant\u2019s claims of the existence of several procedural irregularities in his case in [Country 1], which raise the question of compliance of the data with <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/constitution\/#article-2\" title=\"Article 2 of the Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL\">Article 2 of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-11\" title=\"Article 11 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">Article 11 of the RPD<\/a>. It recalls that the simple assertion of possible procedural irregularities cannot rise to the level of an Article 2 violation.<\/p>\n<p>18. Here, the NCB provided answers to the issues raised by the Applicant regarding the lack of his notification (see para.15). It did not address the fact that the Applicant has been in contact with [Country 1] authorities regarding his case, whereas the Applicant provided a copy of the letters sent to various [Country 1] authorities (see para.14).<\/p>\n<p>19. While there are elements to support the fact that the Red Notice\u2019s underlying arrest warrant, of which the NCB provided a copy, is valid, there remain doubts on the existence of procedural irregularities in particular after the Applicant informed the authorities of his address. However, in view of the complexity of the case and the interdependence of arguments raised in relation to other legal issues, the Commission decides not to make a final pronouncement on the compliance of the data challenged at this stage, and to continue to study the Applicant\u2019s additional arguments.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<h3 class=\"su-spoiler-title ec-fake-spoiler-heading u-indent-1\" id=\"section-v-b\">B. Criminal Involvement and Nature of the Offence<\/h3>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-b-a\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>a) Submissions of the Applicant<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>20. The Applicant explained that in [date], he was appointed as the commercial director of the [Country 1] branch of [Company 1], a [Country 3] construction company. In that capacity, he was not in charge of determining any fiscal liabilities, manage contracts with fiscal authorities or decide what amount of taxes should be paid. Mr [Person 1], the actual director of the branch, was responsible for such tasks. According to the extract from the Registration Office of Commercial Legal Entities, Mr [Person 1] is [Company 1]\u2019s legal representative, he was appointed manager of the [Country 1] branch on [date], and his name was used for the [xxx] signature that controls all of activities of the companies in [Country 1].<\/p>\n<p>21. While the Applicant admitted that he ordered the transfer of sums between the branches\u2019 accounts and tax authorities, he did so under the instructions of his hierarchy, in particular under the orders of members of the [Company 1]\u2019s Board of Directors in [Country 3]. [Country 1] authorities should have investigated the directors of the [Country 3] company itself, who are legally responsible for the branches\u2019 activities in [Country 1], and the only persons receiving benefit from the branches\u2019 entrepreneurial activities.<\/p>\n<p>22. With regards to the construction of cement plants, which [Country 1] considers as illegal entrepreneurship because of the lack of license, he submitted that contrary to what is alleged, the Company had obtained the license from the [Country 1] authorities on [date], of which he provided a copy. Additionally, this was also outside of the remit of his responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>23. He opposed the calculations of [Company 1]\u2019s branch tax obligations as described by the authorities and denied having made any direct benefits from the tax evasions. According to the Supreme Court of [Country 1] case law, only the person receiving income from an entrepreneurial activity can be subjected to tax obligations, and therefore liable to commit the offence of tax evasion. In his case, he received no benefit from the branches\u2019 entrepreneurial activities, only his salary which cannot be considered as deriving from an entrepreneurial activity.<\/p>\n<p>24. He argued that the offence is not criminal, but of a purely financial nature, as he was told that should he repay the amounts due, the charges would be dropped. Additionally, on [date] when issuing the arrest warrant, the Court found that the offences are \u2018a less serious crime\u2019. Moreover, they resulted from an alleged violation of laws and regulations of an administrative nature, thereby questioning the validity of using INTERPOL\u2019s channels in this case. The Applicant submitted that this was clear from the decisions issued on [date] by the Chief investigator at the Department of Initial Investigation of Tax Crimes at the Ministry of Taxes of [Country 1] that the offences originated from violations of administrative provisions, i.e., tax law and presidential decrees.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-b-b\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>b) Submissions of the NCB of &#091;Country 1&#093; (NCB source of the Data)<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>25. The NCB advised the Commission that the Applicant\u2019s direct participation in the criminal acts committed in relation to the charges brought forward was clearly described in the decision dated [date]. It confirmed that it is alleged he personally benefited from the criminal acts.<\/p>\n<p>26. In the decisions dated [date], one charging the Applicant, and the other announcing his search, the Applicant is mentioned as being the director of the [Company 1]\u2019s branch in [Country 1]. As such, he is accused of having entered false information in the tax declarations, or not submitting the necessary declarations, and thus committing tax fraud.<\/p>\n<p>27. The NCB further explained that based on the results of the tax inspection conducted by the [Country 1] tax authority, it was determined that the Applicant evaded payment of [xxx] [Country 1 currency] in taxes to the state budget between [date] and [date].<\/p>\n<p>28. Moreover, some payments were obtained whereas [Company 1] did not possess the required license to work, which resulted in illegal entrepreneurial activity for the construction works of buildings and equipment with the responsibility level of I and II degrees in accordance with state standards. As a result, the income ([xxx]) obtained between [date] and [date] was illegal.<\/p>\n<p>29. It was further determined that the [Country 1] branch of [Company 1] did not pay the compulsory state social insurance contribution of [xxx] from the third quarter of [date] to the first quarter of [date], including [xxx] in profit tax, taxes and compulsory state social insurance contributions in the total amount of [xxx] for [date]. On this basis, a new criminal case was opened against the Applicant on [date] and a preliminary investigation conducted. A new arrest warrant was issued on this basis on [date].<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<div class=\"su-spoiler su-spoiler-style-default su-spoiler-icon-plus h-toaccordion includetocloseall u-indent-2 su-spoiler-closed\" data-anchor=\"section-v-b-c\" data-scroll-offset=\"50\" data-anchor-in-url=\"yes\"><div class=\"su-spoiler-title\" tabindex=\"0\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"su-spoiler-icon\"><\/span><h4>c) Findings of the Commission<\/h4><\/div><div class=\"su-spoiler-content su-u-clearfix su-u-trim\">\n<p>30. The Applicant alleged that he committed no wrongdoing and was only an employee of the company following instructions (see paras. <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">20<\/a> to <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">21<\/a>). In any case, he claimed that there is no offence (see <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">para. 23<\/a>) and that should there be any issues in the calculation of the taxes owed by the company, or not obtaining the necessary permits, it would be of an administrative nature (see <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">para. 24<\/a>). The NCB answered that there are elements to demonstrate that the Applicant committed the criminal acts, i.e., tax fraud (see paras. <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">25<\/a> to <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">28<\/a>) and illegal entrepreneurial activity because of lack of obtention of the necessary permits (see <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">para. 29<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>31. Under Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-35\" title=\"Article 35 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">35<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/rules-processing-data\/#article-83\" title=\"Article 83 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data\">83<\/a> of the RPD, and other IPSG standards, the publication of the present Notice requires the provision of facts that link the wanted individual to the charges against him, and a clear description of the criminal activities of which he is accused.<\/p>\n<p>32. Article 83(1)(a)(i) requires that the wanted person has committed \u2018a serious ordinary-law crime\u2019 and specifically prevents the publication red notices for offences \u2018originating from a violation of laws or regulations of an administrative nature or deriving from private disputes, unless the criminal activity is aimed at facilitating a serious crime or is suspected of being connected to organized crime.\u2019 In its standards for the application of the RPD, IPSG provided NCBs with clarifications on the list of offences for which Red Notices may not be published. With regards to this particular category of offences it listed: \u2018Violations of licensing regulations related to buildings\/constructions\u2019 and \u2018Offences related to causing damage to public funds, for example contracts concluded in violation of internal procedures or negligence in the performance of duties where there is no personal gain \u2013 whether direct or indirect \u2013 and\/or no physical harm to individuals, and there is no gross negligence or evidence of corruption or fraud\u2019 which could be applied both to the non-payment of taxes and the lack of obtention of the construction license.<\/p>\n<p>33. The Commission further reviews the documents provided by the parties. It notes that the [date] decision to initiate a criminal case was issued by the Chief investigator at the Department of Initial Investigation of Tax Crimes at the Ministry of Taxes of [Country 1]. It does not specifically mention the Applicant\u2019s name but rather the name of the [Country 3] construction company.<\/p>\n<p>34. The Commission however continues to study the documents provided by the NCB of [Country 1]. Having in mind the Applicant\u2019s argument that he did not have the capacity to decide on the amounts to declare to the tax office, but was rather following orders from his hierarchy, the Commission notices that the arrest warrant specifies that the Applicant acted as the \u2018the director of the [Company 1]\u2019s branch in [Country 1].\u2019 While the NCB stated that the Applicant personally gained from the alleged acts (see <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">para. 25<\/a>), it did not provide supporting elements but rather general statements as to the existence of evidence against the Applicant (see paras. <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">25<\/a> and <a href=\"#section-v-b-b\" title=\"Section V.B.b of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">26<\/a>), nor are there clear elements provided by the NCB that ascertain the Applicant was aware of the falsification of tax declarations, and that he received funds beyond his salary. The NCB did not address the Applicant\u2019s arguments that he was not the Director of the company and cannot be held responsible for the tax filing (see paras. <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">20<\/a> and <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">21<\/a>) and that the said license was actually obtained by the company (see <a href=\"#section-v-b-a\" title=\"Section V.B.a of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">para. 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>35. In view of the above, the Commission finds that the information available to is not sufficient to demonstrate the Applicant\u2019s involvement in a criminal act, criminal intent, or personal benefit, and consequently that the data are not compliant with the Articles mentioned under <a href=\"#section-iv\" title=\"Section IV of INTERPOL\u2019s CCF Decision No. 2 (2025)\">paragraph 9.3<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"u-text-center\">For these reasons, the Commission<\/p>\n<p>Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL\u2019s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL\u2019s files.<\/p>\n<p>Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files<\/p>\n<p>Secretariat to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<script id=\"ec-fake-spoiler-scroll-fix\">\n(function(){\n  if (window.ecFakeSpoilerScrollFixReady) { return; }\n  window.ecFakeSpoilerScrollFixReady = true;\n  function hasClass(node, cls) {\n    if (!node) { return false; }\n    if (!node.classList) { return false; }\n    return node.classList.contains(cls);\n  }\n  function nextSpoiler(fake) {\n    var node = fake.nextElementSibling;\n    while (node) {\n      if (hasClass(node, \"su-spoiler\")) { return node; }\n      node = node.nextElementSibling;\n    }\n    return null;\n  }\n  function spoilerAnchor(spoiler) {\n    if (!spoiler) { return \"\"; }\n    if (spoiler.hasAttribute(\"data-anchor\")) { return spoiler.getAttribute(\"data-anchor\") || \"\"; }\n    if (spoiler.hasAttribute(\"id\")) { return spoiler.getAttribute(\"id\") || \"\"; }\n    return \"\";\n  }\n  function titleFor(spoiler) {\n    if (!spoiler) { return null; }\n    return spoiler.querySelector(\".su-spoiler-title\");\n  }\n  function clickTitle(spoiler) {\n    var title = titleFor(spoiler);\n    if (!title) { return; }\n    title.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent(\"click\", { bubbles: true, cancelable: true, view: window }));\n  }\n  function ensureOpen(spoiler) {\n    if (!spoiler) { return; }\n    if (hasClass(spoiler, \"su-spoiler-closed\")) { clickTitle(spoiler); }\n  }\n  function offsetFor(spoiler) {\n    var value = \"\";\n    if (spoiler) {\n      if (spoiler.hasAttribute(\"data-scroll-offset\")) { value = spoiler.getAttribute(\"data-scroll-offset\") || \"\"; }\n    }\n    var parsed = parseInt(value, 10);\n    if (isNaN(parsed)) { return 50; }\n    return parsed;\n  }\n  function scrollToFake(fake, spoiler) {\n    var y = fake.getBoundingClientRect().top + window.pageYOffset - offsetFor(spoiler);\n    window.scrollTo(0, Math.max(0, y));\n  }\n  function handleHash() {\n    var raw = window.location.hash || \"\";\n    if (!raw) { return; }\n    var id = decodeURIComponent(raw.replace(\/^#\/, \"\"));\n    var fake = document.getElementById(id);\n    if (!hasClass(fake, \"ec-fake-spoiler-heading\")) { return; }\n    var spoiler = nextSpoiler(fake);\n    ensureOpen(spoiler);\n    setTimeout(function(){ scrollToFake(fake, spoiler); }, 0);\n  }\n  var headings = document.querySelectorAll(\".ec-fake-spoiler-heading\");\n  var spoilers = document.querySelectorAll(\".su-spoiler\");\n  for (var i = 0; i < headings.length; i += 1) {\n    var heading = headings.item(i);\n    var spoiler = nextSpoiler(heading);\n    spoilerAnchor(spoiler);\n    heading.setAttribute(\"tabindex\", \"0\");\n    heading.addEventListener(\"click\", function(event){\n      event.preventDefault();\n      clickTitle(nextSpoiler(this));\n    });\n    heading.addEventListener(\"keydown\", function(event){\n      if (event.key === \"Enter\") { event.preventDefault(); clickTitle(nextSpoiler(this)); }\n      if (event.key === \" \") { event.preventDefault(); clickTitle(nextSpoiler(this)); }\n    });\n  }\n  window.addEventListener(\"hashchange\", handleHash);\n  if (spoilers.length < 0) { return; }\n  if (document.readyState === \"loading\") {\n    document.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\", handleHash);\n  } else {\n    handleHash();\n  }\n})();\n<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Tags: Due process; Lawfulness \/ validity of proceedings; Description of criminal activitiesDecision: Not compliantData type: Red Notice Decision of the CommissionRequests Chamber Request concerning [the Applicant] (Ref. CCF\/[xxx]\/[xxx]) [xxx]th session[date] The Commission for the&#46;&#46;&#46;","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":232636,"parent":230797,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231979","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/231979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231979"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/231979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":234629,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/231979\/revisions\/234629"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230797"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/232636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}