{"id":232043,"date":"2026-06-22T13:51:34","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232043"},"modified":"2026-06-23T15:56:06","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T13:56:06","slug":"2018-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2018-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 2 (2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Trial in absentia; Private matter; International interest and seriousness; Lack of action for extradition; Unfunded cheques
Decision:<\/strong> Compliant
Data type:<\/strong> Red Notice<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Decision of the Commission<\/h1>\n

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL\u2019s Files (the Commission), \u2026<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in camera during its \u2026 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. On\u2026, the Applicant lodged a request for access and for the deletion of the data concerning him registered in INTERPOL\u2019s files, addressed to 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 him on \u2026.<\/p>\n

2. The National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (NCB) of Country A was consulted on the possibility to disclose information to the Applicant and on arguments set forth in the complaint, as well as on other issues raised by the Commission on its own motion, in accordance with Article 5(e,4) of the Rules on the Control of Information and Access to INTERPOL\u2019s files (RCI). \u2026<\/p>\n

3. As of 11 March 2017, the Commission continued the study of the Applicant\u2019s request under the Statute of the Commission (CCF Statute) which abrogated and replaced the RCI on that date.<\/p>\n

4. In accordance with Article 34(1) of the Statute of the Commission<\/a> (CCF Statute), the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (NCB) of Country A was consulted on arguments set forth in the complaint and made additional submissions.<\/p>\n

5. On \u2026, the Commission informed the Applicant and the NCB of Country A that it should study the case during its \u2026 session.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

6. The Applicant is a national of Country B, and he used to work as a businessperson in Country A.<\/p>\n

7. He is the subject of five different red notices issued at the request of the NCB of Country A, all of them for the same charges of \u2018Uttering unfunded cheques\u2019. The summary of facts, as recorded in the Red Notices, are the following: \u2026<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

8. The Applicant requested access to the data concerning him registered in INTERPOL\u2019s files, as well as its deletion.<\/p>\n

9. In both his original complaint and his subsequent submissions, presented by different lawyers, he contends in essence that:<\/p>\n

a) the purpose of the red notices has already been achieved as his location is known,<\/p>\n

b) the case is not of a criminal but rather of a civil nature,<\/p>\n

c) the proceedings do not respect the principles of due process and human rights;<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

10. Field of competence of the Commission:<\/p>\n