Our lawyers successfully addressed the misuse of Interpol’s system in a case initiated by Moldova. The international search request was deemed inconsistent with Interpol requirements, and the client’s data was removed from the organization’s databases, ensuring protection from unlawful prosecution.
The Facts
Moldova requested an Interpol Red Notice against our client, alleging fraud.
Based on this request, the client was detained in Ukraine.
Despite the charges, the client applied for asylum, and extradition was denied.
The Red Notice continued to restrict the client’s freedom of movement and exposed him to ongoing harassment.
The arguments we put to the Commission
Our lawyers emphasized that the issuance of the Red Notice violated Interpol’s rules and standards, particularly concerning the rational use of its information systems.
We highlighted that more than half of abuses within Interpol relate to misuse of the Red Notice mechanism, and this case was a clear example.
A formal request was submitted to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) to remove the Red Notice and delete all related data from Interpol’s databases.
What the Commission found
The CCF confirmed that the data concerning our client had already been removed.
The removal was initiated by the National Central Bureau (NCB) of Moldova itself, acknowledging the inconsistencies in the case.
As a result, the client was no longer subject to an Interpol Red Notice or listed on Moldova’s international wanted list.
The Outcome
The Red Notice was lifted, and all data concerning the client was excluded from Interpol’s databases.
The client regained the ability to cross borders freely without fear of unlawful detention.
This case demonstrated the importance of legal oversight in preventing abuse of Interpol’s mechanisms and securing fair treatment for individuals.
Asylum, a refused extradition, and a record that survived both
Two independent decisions had already gone the applicant’s way: protection was granted and surrender was refused. Neither removes anything from INTERPOL’s files, which is why the data had to be challenged on its own terms. Both findings are nonetheless evidence, and they feed directly into the two families that matter here — the decisions under Article 3 and the decisions under Article 2. The full released record is in our catalogue of CCF decisions.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
One file is not a pattern. No two alerts turn on the same facts, and a ground that carried this case will not carry another where the underlying material is different. A case note shows the shape of the work and the kind of argument the Commission accepted — it is not a forecast of any other outcome.
Who will handle your case
Applications to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files are drafted and signed by a senior partner, and you deal with that partner throughout — the argument you file is the one you discussed.
Fees are set after a free assessment of the file, because the work depends on whether a notice exists at all, which country supplied the data and how far the case behind it has gone. See the full team on our team page, or speak to a partner directly: +357 96 447475.