{"id":232094,"date":"2026-06-22T13:52:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:52:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232094"},"modified":"2026-06-23T19:08:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T17:08:28","slug":"2017-9","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2017-9\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 9 (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Ne bis in idem
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 Commission. Following 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. In accordance with article 5(e,4) of the Rules on the Control of Information and Access to INTERPOL\u2019s files, the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL of Country A was consulted on the arguments set forth in the complaint.<\/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 RP that his file should be presented and studied during the \u2026 session of the Commission, and invited him to provide any further information he would consider necessary for the study of his file before \u2026.<\/p>\n

5. The NCB of Country B was also consulted by the Commission on specific issues raised by the RP\u2019s request.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

6. The RP is a national of Country A and Country B.<\/p>\n

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

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

9. On \u2026, the RP was arrested upon arrival at \u2026 airport in Country B, on the basis of the Red Notice. On \u2026, the Country B authorities received a request for extradition from Country A, through diplomatic channels. Country B authorities denied the extradition on \u2026, due to the Country B nationality of the RP, and decided to prosecute him before national jurisdictions for the acts listed in the extradition request. On \u2026 Country B jurisdictions dismissed all the charges concerning the RP, and released him from custody.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

10. The RP requested the deletion of the data concerning him.<\/p>\n

11. He contends in essence that the issuance of the Red Notice violates the principle of non bis in idem.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

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