{"id":232045,"date":"2026-06-23T11:20:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T09:20:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232045"},"modified":"2026-06-23T19:08:29","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T17:08:29","slug":"2018-3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2018-3\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 3 (2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Purpose of the notice or data; Due process \/ Fair hearing; Private matter; International interest and seriousness; Unfunded cheques
Decision:<\/strong> Not 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, delivered the following Decision. \u2026<\/p>\n

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

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

1. On \u2026, the Applicant lodged a complaint before 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…<\/p>\n

2. The National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (NCB) of Country A was consulted on the authorization to disclose information to the Applicant and on the arguments set forth in the complaint, in accordance with Article 5(e,4) of the Rules on the Control of Information and Access to INTERPOL\u2019s files (RCI).<\/p>\n

3. On \u2026, the NCB of Country A confirmed the validity of the proceedings and of the arrest warrant, and provided answers to the questions raised by the Commission.<\/p>\n

4. The Commission informed the Applicant on \u2026 that he is wanted through INTERPOL\u2019s channels by the NCB of Country A, for the charges of \u2018Uttering unfunded cheques\u2019<\/p>\n

5. The Applicant was also informed of the fact that the Commission would study his complaint during the \u2026 session, and invited to share any further information\/document he would consider necessary for the study of his file with the Commission.<\/p>\n

6. 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

7. The Commission further consulted the NCB of Country B on specific issues raised in the Applicant\u2019s request.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

8. The Applicant is a national of Country B.<\/p>\n

9. He is the subject of a red notice issued at the request of the NCB of Country A for \u2018Uttering unfunded cheques\u2019, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued on by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Country A.<\/p>\n

10. The summary of the facts, as recorded in the red notice, is the following: \u2018…\u2019<\/p>\n

11. On \u2026, the Applicant was arrested at his home by the authorities of Country B, on the basis of the Red Notice and following the reception of a formal extradition request from Country A. He was later released on conditional bail, pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings. On \u2026, Country B\u2019s courts denied the extradition of the Applicant to Country A.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

12. The Applicant previously sought access to the data processed in INTERPOL\u2019s files. He now requests the deletion of the data concerning him.<\/p>\n

13. He contends in essence that:<\/p>\n

a) the cases are not of a criminal nature but rather of a civil nature, in contradiction with Article 83 of INTERPOL\u2019s Rules on the Processing of Data<\/a> (RPD),<\/p>\n

b) Country B\u2019s authorities have denied his extradition to Country A, and the authorities of Country A have not demonstrated genuine extradition efforts and diligence,<\/p>\n

c) As Country B\u2019s authorities recognized the risks that his human rights would be violated upon surrender to Country A, the Red Notice contradicts Article 2 of INTERPOL\u2019s Constitution<\/a> and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> to which it refers;<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

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