Six convictions, the most recent a decade old, and an argument that a decade of law-abiding life since then made the warning disproportionate. The Commission disagreed on proportionality — but still would not let the file stand as it was, because the bureau had never actually confirmed that keeping the data was even authorised under its own national law.
A decade-old record and an argument about disproportion
He argued that his last conviction was years in the past, that he had lived without further offending since, and that the warning notice’s continued existence — restraining his ability to travel and affecting his family life — had become disproportionate to whatever risk he once posed. The requesting bureau confirmed six prior convictions for offences including drug possession, intellectual-property violations and theft, and pointed to a foreign arrest that had followed the notice’s original publication as evidence the concern remained current.
Why proportionality did not carry the argument
- The Commission found the bureau had supplied a genuine assessment, grounded in an actual pattern of multiple convictions, sufficient to support a continuing threat determination — not just an assertion.
- It weighed the impact on the applicant’s rights against the fact that the notice had been registered specifically following his arrest in another country, which it treated as counterbalancing the disproportion argument rather than reinforcing it.
- A repeated pattern across several convictions, even with a gap since the last one, was treated differently from a single, isolated, ageing incident.
The separate, more technical problem the Commission still found
Rather than closing the case there, the Commission raised something the bureau had never actually been asked to confirm and had never volunteered: whether continuing to hold this data was authorised under the requesting country’s own domestic law. This is a distinct legal requirement from purpose and proportionality — Article 11 of the applicable rules requires that data processing be authorised with due regard for the law that actually applies to the bureau holding it, not merely that the data serve a legitimate international purpose.
- A notice can clear the purpose and proportionality tests entirely and still fail this separate legal-authorisation requirement if the point is simply never addressed.
- The Commission did not resolve the question itself — it required the bureau to obtain and provide that specific confirmation, with retention conditioned on the answer actually being supplied.
- This distinguishes a technical gap in the record from an underlying problem with the data: the notice may well turn out to be fully authorised, but the file could not remain compliant without that confirmation actually appearing in it.
What this decision teaches
- A pattern of multiple convictions defeats a “time has passed” argument more easily than a single old incident would. Repetition is read as a continuing risk profile, not simply history.
- Purpose and proportionality are not the only tests a Green Notice has to pass. Domestic legal authorisation to retain the data is a separate, independent requirement worth raising on its own.
- A bureau’s silence on domestic legal authorisation is a real, actionable gap — even where every other element of the file is otherwise in order.
- A subsequent arrest in another country, cited to justify the notice’s original registration, tends to reinforce rather than undermine a continuing-threat finding.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2025-03 · 2025 · Green Notice · data maintained. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your Green Notice looks otherwise justified but you are not sure it has ever been confirmed as authorised under the source country’s own law, that is a distinct and separate question worth raising directly. Send us your notice and what you know about its legal basis and we will tell you whether that confirmation has actually been given.
Domestic legal authorisation as a separate requirement
If my Green Notice serves a genuine purpose and is proportionate, is that the end of the analysis?
Not necessarily. Separately from purpose and proportionality, the data must be shown to be authorised under the law that actually applies to the bureau holding it — a requirement that can remain unconfirmed even where everything else checks out.
Does having several old convictions, rather than one, hurt an argument that time has passed?
It can. A documented pattern across multiple convictions has been treated as supporting a continuing threat assessment more readily than a single, isolated, ageing incident would.
What happens if a bureau never confirms domestic legal authorisation when asked?
The Commission has conditioned continued compliance on that confirmation actually being provided, meaning the notice’s status can depend on an answer that has not yet been given.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.