{"id":232092,"date":"2026-06-22T13:52:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:52:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232092"},"modified":"2026-06-23T15:56:08","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T13:56:08","slug":"2017-8","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2017-8\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 8 (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Private matter
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 Requesting Party (hereafter \u2018the RP\u2019) initially addressed the Commission a simple request for access to INTERPOL\u2019s files. Following submission of all the documents for admissibility, the RP was informed of the admissibility of his request on\u2026.<\/p>\n

2. In accordance with Article 5(e,4) of the Rules on the Control of Information and Access to INTERPOL\u2019s files, the NCB of Country A was consulted on the arguments of the RP.<\/p>\n

3. The RP was informed on \u2026 that he is wanted through INTERPOL\u2019s channels by Country A, for the charges of\u2026. He was informed of the details of the arrest warrant and the summary of facts as it appears on the Red Notice.<\/p>\n

4. On\u2026, he subsequently lodged a complaint. The RP was informed of the admissibility of his complaint on \u2026.<\/p>\n

5. This case was considered by the Commission during its \u2026 session. The Commission concluded that doubts regarding compliance with INTERPOL\u2019s rules prevented it from concluding, at that stage, that the data challenged met the criteria outlined in INTERPOL\u2019s rules. Therefore, the Commission recommended that access to the data concerning the RP be blocked pending further study of the RP\u2019s file.<\/p>\n

6. On \u2026, the access to the data was blocked by the General Secretariat. On the same day the NCB of Country A was informed of the Commission\u2019s decision and that the data would be deleted if no reply was received to the Commission\u2019s queries. It was invited to address the issues raised by the case.<\/p>\n

7. On the same day, the RP was informed of the conclusion of the Commission and of its implementation by the General Secretariat. After an additional exchange of messages with the NCB of Country A which required additional clarifications concerning the Commission\u2019s request, the NCB provided additional information on \u2026<\/p>\n

8. The Commission examined this case during its \u2026 session. The Commission found that additional information from NCB of Country A was necessary to address the issue of the nature of the offence, and therefore compliance with Article 83(1)(a)(i) of the RPD<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9. The Commission recommended that access to the data concerning the RP remains blocked pending further study of the file. The NCB made an additional communication to the Commission in support of the Red Notice between its \u2026 and \u2026 sessions, which the Commission considered at its \u2026 session.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

10. The RP is a national of Country B. He has been residing in Country C.<\/p>\n

11. He is the subject of a Red Notice issued at the request of the NCB of Country A on \u2026 for \u2026, on the basis of the arrest warrant issued on \u2026 by the judicial authorities in \u2026.<\/p>\n

12. 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

13. The RP first requested access to the data concerning him in INTERPOL\u2019s files, then its deletion.<\/p>\n

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

1) the case is of a commercial nature;<\/p>\n

2) the prosecution lacks any evidentiary basis;<\/p>\n

3) the requirement of interest\/seriousness of the data for international police cooperation (articles 35<\/a> and 83<\/a> of RPD) is not met;<\/p>\n

4) procedural requirements of Country A law were violated;<\/p>\n

5) Country A authorities failed to request his extradition.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

15. Offences for which a red notice may not be published:<\/p>\n