{"id":232023,"date":"2026-06-22T14:01:39","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T12:01:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232023"},"modified":"2026-06-23T20:09:16","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:09:16","slug":"2019-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2019-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 2 (2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Article 2 of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a> (right to life, right to security in the event of sickness); Lack of action for extradition
Decision:<\/strong> Compliant with update
Data type:<\/strong> Diffusion<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Decision of the Commission<\/h1>\n

Request concerning [\u2026]<\/p>\n

(Ref. CCF\/ [\u2026])<\/p>\n

(107th session, 28 January to 1 February 2019)<\/p>\n

[\u2026], withdrawing based on Article 2.1(d) of the Operating Rules of the Commission<\/a>,<\/p>\n

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files (the Commission), sitting as the Requests Chamber, composed of:<\/p>\n

[\u2026],
Members,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in camera during its 107th session, on [\u2026], delivered the following Decision.<\/p>\n

Expand all<\/a> Collapse all<\/a><\/div>\n
\n
<\/span>

I. Procedure<\/h2><\/div>
\n

1. In [\u2026], Mr [\u2026] (the Applicant) lodged a complaint addressed to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files (the Commission). Following the submission of all the required documents in accordance with Article 10 of the Operating Rules of the Commission<\/a>, the request was found admissible, and the Commission informed the Applicant thereof in [\u2026].<\/p>\n

2. In [\u2026], during its [\u2026] Session, the Commission studied the complaint of the Applicant and concluded that the data were compliant with INTERPOL\u2019s rules.<\/p>\n

3. On [\u2026], the Applicant lodged a second complaint addressed to the Commission. The request was found admissible, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Operating Rules of the Commission<\/a>, and the Applicant was informed thereof on [\u2026].<\/p>\n

4. During the study of the Applicant\u2019s case, the Commission consulted the INTERPOL National Central Bureaus (NCBs) of [\u2026] and [\u2026], in accordance with Article 34 of the Statute of the Commission<\/a>, on the arguments set forth in the complaint.<\/p>\n

5. Both the Applicant and the NCB source of the data challenged were informed of the fact that the Commission would study the case during its 107th session and invited to provide any additional information they may find necessary for the study of the request.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

II. Facts<\/h2><\/div>
\n

6. The Applicant is a national of [\u2026]. He was the Director of [\u2026].<\/p>\n

7. He is the subject of a Diffusion, with a view of arrest, issued at the request of [\u2026][\u2026] on the basis of a detention order [\u2026].<\/p>\n

8. The summary of the facts, as recorded in the Diffusion, is the following: [\u2026].<\/p>\n

9. The additional information, as recorded in the Diffusion, is the following: [\u2026].<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

III. The Applicant\u2019s Request<\/h2><\/div>
\n

10. The Applicant requested the deletion of the data concerning him, contending, in essence that:<\/p>\n

a) [\u2026] authorities failed to request his extradition,<\/p>\n

b) the prosecution lacks an evidentiary basis, and<\/p>\n

c) the retention of data is not compliant with Article 2 of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

IV. Applicable Legal Framework<\/h2><\/div>
\n

11. General provisions:<\/p>\n