{"id":232098,"date":"2026-06-22T13:52:16","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T11:52:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/?page_id=232098"},"modified":"2026-06-23T20:52:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:52:15","slug":"2017-11","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/documents\/interpol\/commission-control-files\/decision-excerpts\/2017-11\/","title":{"rendered":"CCF Decision No. 11 (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tags:<\/strong> Accuracy and quality of data
Decision:<\/strong> Conditions for revision met, Compliant
Data type:<\/strong> Green Notice<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Decision of the Commission<\/h1>\n

Application for revision concerning
[\u2026]<\/p>\n

(Ref. CCF\/R 391.15)<\/p>\n

(101st session, [\u2026])<\/p>\n

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

Vitalie PIRLOG, Chairperson
Leandro DESPOUY,
Petr GORODOV,
Sanna PALO,
Isaias TRINDADE,
Members,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in camera during its 101st 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. The Commission considered the Applicant\u2019s complaint at its [\u2026] session and concluded, in light of the information provided by the Applicant and by the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (NCB) of the [\u2026], that the data recorded in INTERPOL\u2019s files concerning the Applicant complied with INTERPOL\u2019s rules. On [\u2026], the Commission informed the Applicant thereof.<\/p>\n

2. On [\u2026], the Applicant submitted a new complaint to the Commission, requesting the revision of his case and the deletion of the data concerning him recorded in INTERPOL\u2019s files. On the same date he was informed of the conditions of revision under Article 19 of the former Operating Rules of the Commission, and on [\u2026] he was informed that his case would be considered at the 101st session of the Commission.<\/p>\n

3. The NCB of the [\u2026] was consulted on the new arguments set forth in the complaint.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

4. The Applicant is a national of [\u2026]. [\u2026]<\/p>\n

5. [\u2026], he was asked to tutor pupils in [\u2026], accepted, but was finally denied the position because he was the subject of a green notice issued at the request of the [\u2026] for preparing and delivering child porn.<\/p>\n

6. He is actually the subject of a Green Notice issued at the request of the NCB of the [\u2026], which purpose is [\u2026].<\/p>\n

7. The summary of the facts, as recorded in the Green Notice, is the following: [\u2026]<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

8. The Applicant applied for the revision of his case and requested the deletion of the data concerning him.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

<\/span>

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

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