Procedural grounds are the workhorse of a CCF application: not «the case against me is unfair», but a specific failure that INTERPOL’s own rules attach consequences to — a case that has not reached the stage of charge, a bureau that stops pursuing extradition, a bureau that will not answer the Commission. Of the thirteen published decisions in which the Commission’s reasoning turned on the conduct or the state of the underlying proceedings, four ended with the data deleted or access to them blocked.
What the Commission will not examine
Most procedural arguments fail for the same reason: they ask the Commission to do something outside its mandate. Three limits recur across the published decisions.
- It does not judge a country’s justice system in the abstract. The Commission examines the compliance of data on the basis of information specific to the person concerned; a general assertion of procedural irregularities, or the prospect of pre-trial detention, does not reach the threshold of an Article 2 violation.
- It does not review extradition papers. Errors in documents exchanged bilaterally between judicial authorities — even errors of fact about the applicant — fall outside INTERPOL’s channels and outside the Commission’s competence.
- It cannot halt a national extradition case. In one 2018 decision the Commission blocked access to the data provisionally under Article 37 of its Statute, yet held that it is not the forum to order immediate measures in a national proceeding, least of all against a country that is not the source of the data.
A related argument that fails on its own terms is freedom of movement: Article 13 of the Universal Declaration is not infringed by the mere existence of a valid notice, because that right is subject to lawful, necessary and proportionate limits under Article 29.
Has the case actually reached the extradition stage?
A Red Notice exists to locate a person and seek their extradition. It is not a tool for bringing someone in to assist an investigation or to give evidence. In a 2017 decision the requesting state was still working through a mutual legal assistance treaty; the Commission treated that as an indication that the investigation had not progressed to the point of a charge within the meaning of Article 83(2)(b) of the Rules on the Processing of Data, and the data were deleted.
This is the most underused argument in practice. It does not require proving political motivation or a human-rights risk — only showing, from the requesting state’s own conduct, that the case is not yet at the stage the rules require.
Inaction by the requesting bureau
INTERPOL’s rules require the requesting bureau either to take appropriate steps towards arrest and extradition, or to give reasonable grounds for not doing so. The argument is strong when years pass with nothing filed — and weak when the file shows the opposite. In a 2023 decision a valid arrest warrant, an earlier extradition request made while the applicant was detained abroad, and a competing request granted to another state together demonstrated the necessary willingness, and the data were maintained.
When the bureau stops answering
The single most decisive procedural factor in the published record is not what the applicant proves but whether the requesting bureau engages. In a 2023 case the applicant produced an acquittal; the Commission asked the bureau to have it assessed by its judicial authorities and warned that the data would be blocked or deleted if it did not respond. No response came. The Commission held that this lack of cooperation prevented it from verifying compliance with Article 83(2)(b)(v) of the RPD and resolved the case in the applicant’s favour — without needing to decide the remaining arguments.
The practical lesson is procedural rather than substantive: an application that forces a concrete, verifiable question to the bureau is worth more than one that argues at length about the merits.
Parallel proceedings and ne bis in idem
Two states prosecuting the same facts does not, by itself, make the data non-compliant. In a 2023 decision the Commission found no breach of ne bis in idem and no loss of interest for police cooperation, and it declined to require the requesting state to give up its territorial jurisdiction in favour of a transfer of proceedings. What it did order was that information about the parallel case be added to the file, leaving the conflict of jurisdiction to the national authorities that will have to resolve it.
Revision: what counts as a new fact
Article 19 of the Operating Rules allows a decided case to be reopened only on the discovery of a new fact that would probably have led to a different conclusion. The published decisions draw the line tightly:
- A refusal of extradition by another country is not a new fact while the two states are still negotiating and the procedure remains in progress.
- A favourable decision obtained by a co-accused cannot be transposed: deletion in that case rested on elements specific to that applicant.
- A general context already known to the Commission is not new, however forcefully it is restated.
- Where genuinely new facts were produced and the bureau did not answer the Commission’s question about them, revision was accepted and access to the data was blocked pending review.
Applications for revision must be made within six months of discovering the new fact.
Non-refoulement: a procedural risk with a substantive outcome
Where surrender itself would breach the customary principle of non-refoulement, the Commission has held that publication of the notice and any processing of the data with a view to extradition are incompatible with Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution. In the 2018 decision on this point the applicant faced torture and serious violations of fundamental rights, and the political context of the case was treated as an additional risk factor.
The decisions
The thirteen published decisions whose reasoning turns primarily on procedure. Another 33 engage a procedural point alongside a different main ground and are listed on their own pages, with the ground argued, the outcome and the Commission’s holding in each. Decisions that also engage political motivation are covered on the Article 3 page; the full corpus is on the CCF decisions hub.
13 decisions
-
Due process · Judicial data · Lack of action for extradition
A Red Notice exists to pursue extradition, not to bring a person in to assist an investigation: where the requesting state was still working through a mutual legal assistance treaty, the Commission found the case had not reached the stage of charge or extradition that Article 83(2)(b) of the RPD requires, and the data were deleted.
Concludes that the data challenged are not compl iant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data;
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Reexamination
On an application for revision, a refusal of extradition by another country was not a new fact where both states were still negotiating and the procedure remained in progress; revision was refused because the conditions of Article 19 of the Operating Rules were not met.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Concludes that the conditions to re-examine the case have not been met.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Reexamination
Revision was accepted where the applicant produced facts the Commission had not previously considered and the requesting NCB did not answer the Commission's question about them; access to the data was blocked pending the review.
Concludes that the conditions to re-examine the case are met.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Ne bis in idem
The freedom of movement in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration is not infringed by the mere issuance of a valid Red Notice: the right is subject to lawful, necessary and proportionate limits under Article 29, and a notice rests on an order made by a competent authority.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Concludes that the data challenged is compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data ----------------
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Lack of action for extradition
A favourable decision obtained by a co-accused cannot simply be transposed: deletion in the related case rested on elements specific to that applicant, and a general context already known to the Commission is not a new fact for the purposes of revision.
Concludes that the conditions for revision are not met.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Due process
The Commission does not assess a country's law-enforcement or judicial system in the abstract and does not act on general statements about a country: a bare assertion of procedural irregularities, or the prospect of pre-trial detention, does not reach the threshold of an Article 2 violation.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data subject to updating the Applicant’s file with […].
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
2018 - Decision Excerpt N° 6
The Commission blocked access to the data provisionally under Article 37 of its Statute while it reviewed the case, but held that it is not the forum to order immediate measures in national extradition proceedings — least of all against a country that is not the source of the data.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the following update of the Applicant’s file: - the extradi
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
2018 - Decision Excerpt N°14
Publication of a Red Notice, and any processing of the data with a view to extradition, breached Article 2 where surrender would violate the customary principle of non-refoulement because the applicant faced torture and serious violations of fundamental rights; the political context of the case aggravated that risk.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Lawfulness-Validity of proceedings · Retroactive application of criminal law · continuous offence
The Commission's mandate is limited to the compliance of data held in INTERPOL's files: it has no competence to review the accuracy or the lawfulness of extradition documents exchanged bilaterally between judicial authorities outside INTERPOL's channels, and those complaints were dismissed.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the following update of the Applicant’s file: the extradi
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Validity of an SMV registration
Where the requesting bureau confirmed that a vehicle is still recorded as stolen and a recovery procedure is pending, the data kept its interest for international police cooperation under Article 35 of the RPD — even though nothing in the file suggested wrongdoing by the applicant himself.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of data.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Application for revision · Ne bis in idem
A requesting bureau must take appropriate steps towards arrest and extradition or explain why it has not: here a valid arrest warrant, an earlier extradition request and a competing request granted to another state showed the necessary willingness, and the data were maintained.
Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Ne bis in idem · Transfer of proceedings
Parallel proceedings in a second country over the same facts breached neither ne bis in idem nor the requirement of interest for police cooperation: the Commission ordered that information about those proceedings be added to the file and left the conflict of jurisdiction to the states concerned.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the following updates of the Applicant’s file: - the follow
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Cooperation of NCBs · Lawfulness-Validity of proceedings
Where the bureau did not answer the Commission's queries about the applicant's acquittal, even after being warned that the data would be blocked or deleted, that lack of cooperation prevented the Commission from verifying compliance with Article 83(2)(b)(v) of the RPD and it resolved the case in the applicant's favour.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
No decisions match these filters.
What this means for an application
Procedural grounds reward precision. What has worked: showing from the requesting state’s own steps that the case is not yet at the extradition stage; putting a concrete, verifiable question to the bureau that it must answer; producing a judicial act — an acquittal, a discontinuance, a refusal of extradition that is final — rather than a characterisation of the proceedings. What has not worked: general criticism of the requesting country’s courts, complaints about extradition paperwork, and asking the Commission to interfere in a national case.
Our lawyers prepare and argue these applications, including the request for interim blocking where an arrest is imminent — see how a Red Notice challenge is built.
Procedural grounds: common questions
Does the CCF decide whether my trial was fair?
No. The Commission examines whether the data held in INTERPOL’s files comply with INTERPOL’s rules. It does not assess a country’s judicial system in the abstract and does not act on general statements about that system; it looks at information specific to the person concerned.
Can the Commission stop my extradition?
No. It can delete or block the data that circulate through INTERPOL, which often removes the trigger for arrest, but it has held that it is not the forum to order immediate measures in a national extradition proceeding — especially against a country that did not supply the data.
What happens if the requesting country ignores the Commission?
That silence counts against the country. In a published 2023 decision the bureau failed to respond to questions about the applicant’s acquittal after being warned of the consequences; the Commission held it could not verify compliance and decided in the applicant’s favour.
When can a CCF decision be revised?
Only on the discovery of a new fact that would probably have led to a different conclusion, and the application must be made within six months of that discovery. A decision favourable to a co-accused, or a context the Commission already knew, does not qualify.
Do parallel proceedings in two countries help my case?
Not on their own. The Commission has found that parallel proceedings over the same facts breach neither ne bis in idem nor the requirement of interest for police cooperation; it ordered the information to be added to the file and left the conflict of jurisdiction to the states involved.