Having already lost a request to delete his data, he came back with a new complaint built substantially on the same arguments, plus one new fact: a country had refused to extradite him. The Commission explained exactly what a request for revision requires — a genuinely new fact capable of changing the outcome — and found this was not it.
The procedural posture
This was not a first challenge. The applicant had already sought deletion once and been refused. His new filing repeated arguments about jurisdiction, about a favourable ruling obtained in the country where he lived, about political motivation, and added an extradition refusal from that same country, made on the ground that the extradition file lacked sufficient seriousness.
The rule for revision, stated precisely
Under Article 19 of the Commission’s Operating Rules, a case already decided can be reopened only on the discovery of a fact which would probably have led to a different conclusion, had it been known when the request was first processed. It is a narrow gate, and the Commission applied it narrowly here.
- Arguments already made in the first request cannot be recycled as grounds for revision, however forcefully restated.
- Of the new material, only the extradition refusal was genuinely new — everything else had already been available to the applicant the first time around.
- But the requesting bureau’s own account, and that of the country asked to extradite him, showed the underlying procedure was still active: an extradition treaty between the two states was in the process of being concluded, and the case against him had not been closed.
- A refusal issued in the middle of an ongoing process, where the two states were actively working towards a legal framework to complete extradition, does not show that the outcome would have been different — it shows the process continuing on a different timeline.
The lesson for anyone considering a second request
This decision is a caution against treating revision as a second attempt at the same argument with one new document attached. The test is not whether something new happened; it is whether that new thing would probably have changed the result. An extradition refusal is powerful material when it ends the underlying process for good — a state saying it will never surrender the person, on a ground that speaks to the fairness or legality of the case. It is far weaker when, as here, it is one step in negotiations that are still moving toward extradition being achieved by another route.
Before filing a revision request, it is worth asking plainly: does this new fact resolve the case, or does it simply describe where things currently stand in an unfinished process? Only the first kind reliably clears the Article 19 threshold.
Building a revision request that can survive this scrutiny
The distance between this decision and its companion decided the same year — where revision was granted — comes down to timing and finality. A fact becomes usable on revision only once it is fixed and complete, not while it is still one step inside a process that could still change. Before relying on any development as grounds for revision, it is worth asking whether the states involved consider the matter closed, or whether correspondence between them shows the process continuing.
Where an extradition refusal is genuinely final — the requested state has said, in terms, that it will never surrender the person on this file, for reasons that speak to the legality or fairness of the case — that is different material from a refusal issued mid-negotiation while a treaty is being drafted to complete the same result by another route. The distinction is not always obvious from a single letter, and confirming it usually requires asking the requested state directly what its decision does and does not foreclose.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2017-06 · 2017 · Red Notice · application for revision refused. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your first request was refused and you now have new material, the question is not whether it is new but whether it is decisive. Send us what has changed since your last filing and we will tell you honestly whether it meets the Article 19 standard.
Requesting revision of a prior decision
Can I ask the Commission to look at my case again if my first request failed?
Yes, but only through a request for revision, which requires a fact that was not available before and that would probably have changed the outcome. Repeating earlier arguments does not meet that standard.
Does a new extradition refusal automatically qualify as a new fact?
Not automatically. Where the refusal simply reflects one stage of an extradition process that is still ongoing between the two states, the Commission has held that it does not show the original conclusion would have been different.
What kind of new fact does work?
One that closes a question the original decision left open — a final court ruling on the merits, a definitive refusal that ends the extradition process for good, or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier despite reasonable effort.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.