A notice warning other countries about him rested on a conviction that had been expunged years earlier, plus a second arrest that no one could verify. He was being stopped at borders and refused visas. The Commission ordered both entries removed from the file, with access to the data to be blocked if the bureau failed to act — and rejected, on the way, every argument about what the alert was doing to his life.
What this kind of notice is for
The instrument here was the one used to warn member countries about a person’s alleged criminal activities. It seeks neither location nor arrest, and that single fact disposed of the complaint that mattered most to him. He had been stopped repeatedly when crossing borders, denied entry to one country and refused a visa by another, and he argued that the impact was out of all proportion to any legitimate aim.
The bureau’s answer was that a notice of this type is for intelligence purposes and that it has no control over what other member countries decide to do with shared intelligence. The Commission accepted the framework: because neither location nor arrest had been requested, it was prevented from finding that retention of the data breached the rules on purpose and proportionality. It also repeated that rights of movement and private life admit lawful, necessary and proportionate limitations, and that states may set their own conditions for entry and may request police cooperation about people suspected or convicted of crime.
Where the challenge succeeded
The record, not the impact, is what moved. He produced a certificate from the country of the conviction attesting that he had no criminal record there, the expungement having taken effect. The requesting bureau offered no specific comment; the bureau of the country that had convicted him, though invited, neither confirmed nor denied.
- On that record the Commission found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the certificate.
- It ordered the expunged offence removed from the offence codes and from the summary of facts, along with the reference to the country and the date of that offence.
- A second arrest, which the bureau had already conceded could not be verified and had removed from the narrative, still appeared in the offence codes — so that entry was ordered removed too.
- Access to the data was to be blocked if the updates were not made within two weeks of notification, which is what turns an order about accuracy into something a bureau cannot ignore.
Two further arguments dissolved once the record was corrected. A double-jeopardy submission built on the expunged conviction fell away with the entry itself, as did the contention that the data had no legitimate purpose because they rested on a conviction that no longer existed.
The part of the file he was not allowed to see
One feature of this case deserves attention because it surprises applicants. The bureau opposed disclosure to him of anything beyond a police press release about his case, and the Commission upheld the restriction.
Information connected with a request is in principle accessible to both the applicant and the source of the data, and restrictions are an exception that must be justified by one of the permitted reasons, must be necessary and proportionate, and are interpreted strictly — the party seeking a restriction has to say whether a summary can be provided instead. In deciding, the Commission weighs the context, the other routes available to the applicant to obtain the material at national level, the risk of breaching other obligations, and whether counter-balancing measures can offset the interference. Here it found the restriction properly justified. The practical consequence is that a request may have to be argued without seeing everything the bureau filed, which is a reason to build the case on documents you can obtain yourself.
What blocking access actually does
The order in this case had two parts, and the second is the one that gives the first its force. The bureau was told to correct the file, and it was told that if the correction was not made within two weeks of notification, access to the data would be blocked. That intermediate outcome is worth understanding, because it appears in the published case law as well and is often misread as a half measure.
Blocked data remain in the system but stop working: they are not available to the member countries that would otherwise consult or act on them. For the person concerned, the practical effect approaches deletion while the record of the dispute survives, and for the bureau it is an incentive to comply with something as mundane as an offence code. Two consequences follow for anyone arguing accuracy. Deadlines are worth asking for explicitly, because an order without one can be absorbed indefinitely. And every correction should be verified afterwards through a fresh access request, since the only way to know that a code was changed is to look at the file again.
What this decision teaches
- An expunged conviction has no place in the file. A certificate from the convicting country, unrebutted, has been enough to have the entry and its offence code removed.
- Check the offence codes separately from the narrative. A bureau that removes an unverified allegation from the summary may leave it standing in the codes, where it continues to describe you.
- Do not build the case on border stops. Where the alert seeks neither location nor arrest, its consequences at frontiers are attributed to the decisions of other states.
- Expect to argue partly in the dark. Restrictions on disclosure are exceptional but real, and the answer is to assemble the record from national sources rather than to rely on what the bureau will show you.
This account follows one of our own decisions. No country, authority, court or date appears here, and the offences are described only as historic drug-possession allegations.
If an old conviction still follows you, the document that ends the argument is a current certificate of no criminal record from the country that convicted you — not the expungement order alone. Ask us how to obtain it and what it has to say.
Expunged records and warning notices
My conviction was expunged. Can it stay in an INTERPOL notice?
It should not. Data must be accurate and up to date, and where a certificate from the convicting country shows no record and nobody rebuts it, the Commission has ordered the entry removed from both the summary of facts and the offence codes.
The notice is only for information. Why am I stopped at borders?
Because other countries decide for themselves what to do with intelligence they receive. The Commission has held that where an alert seeks neither location nor arrest, it cannot treat those consequences as a breach of the rules on purpose and proportionality.
Can the bureau hide its file from me?
Only exceptionally. Information connected with a request is in principle accessible to both sides, and a restriction must be justified, necessary and proportionate, and strictly interpreted — but restrictions are sometimes upheld, and then the case has to be built from documents you can obtain yourself.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.