{"id":232088,"date":"2026-06-22T13:52:31","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:52:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232088"},"modified":"2026-06-23T15:56:09","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T13:56:09","slug":"2017-6","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2017-6\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 6 (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Reexamination (replaced by Article 42 of the CCF Statute<\/a>)
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, 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 Requesting Party, hereafter \u2018the RP\u2019, lodged a complaint addressed to the INTERPOL General Secretariat, and forwarded to the Commission on the same day.<\/p>\n

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

3. This request was studied by the Commission during its \u2026 session at which time the Commission decided that, on the basis of the available elements, it was not able to determine that the processing of the data challenged would not be compliant with INTERPOL\u2019s Rules. The Commission recommended should Country B confirm the extradition denial of the RP to Country A that an addendum be added to the RP\u2019s file.<\/p>\n

4. On \u2026, the RP and the NCB of Country A were informed of this outcome.<\/p>\n

5. On \u2026, the RP lodged a new complaint addressed to the Commission. On \u2026 he was informed of the conditions for re-examination of a file.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

6. The RP is a national of Country C.<\/p>\n

7. He is the subject of a Red Notice issued at the request of the NCB of Country A on \u2026for\u2026, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued on \u2026in Country A..<\/p>\n

8. The summary of the facts, as recorded in the Red Notice, is the following: \u2018\u2026\u2019<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

9. In both his original complaint and the request for reexamination the RP requested the deletion of the data concerning him, contending, in essence that<\/p>\n

1) Country A has no jurisdiction over any dispute, and the Red Notice is unlawful;<\/p>\n

2) Country B courts have ruled in his favour, therefore there is a violation of the principle of non bis idem;<\/p>\n

3) political element in the publication of the Red notices, as the plaintiff, has connections in the government of Country A;<\/p>\n

4) Country B has denied his extradition to Country A.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

10. Re-examination<\/p>\n