An applicant argued that his prosecution for fraud and breach of trust was politically motivated. The Commission applied the predominance test and refused the request. He was not a politician or a former one, the offences were ordinary-law crimes on their face, and nothing in the wider context tied the charges to political activity. The data were maintained.
The three factors, and how they were weighed
Under Article 34(3) of the Rules on the Processing of Data the Commission weighs the status of the person, the nature of the offence including the charges and underlying facts, and the general context of the case. All three are considered together, and a request that engages only one of them rarely succeeds.
Here the first factor produced nothing: the applicant held no political office and never had. The second worked against him, because the offences as described corresponded to ordinary criminal-law provisions of the requesting state and disclosed a straightforward property allegation. That left context, which had to carry the whole argument on its own.
Why the context argument failed
- The material offered was general — assertions about the judicial system and about the motives of those behind the complaint, without documents tying either to this prosecution.
- No court, tribunal or independent body had made any finding about this case.
- The applicant’s account of why he was targeted rested on his own statement rather than on records that could be examined.
- Nothing suggested the charges arose out of political activity, because no political activity was described.
What this decision teaches
The predominance test is not satisfied by showing that a prosecution is unfair, aggressive or commercially motivated. It asks whether political elements predominate over ordinary criminal ones, and that requires political elements to exist in the file in the first place.
- Status is not required, but its absence raises the bar. Applicants who were never politicians do succeed, but they do so on documented context, not on assertion.
- “The system is corrupt” is not a context argument. General criticism of a judiciary carries almost no weight without something specific to the case.
- Ordinary-law charges are read as what they say. Unless the file shows otherwise, a fraud allegation is treated as a fraud allegation.
Drawn from one of our own decisions. Names, the requesting state, the courts, places, dates and figures have been removed; the reasoning is reproduced, the person is not.
If you intend to argue political motivation, the question to answer first is what document in your file makes the point for you. If the answer is none, the argument is not ready, and running it early can make it harder to run later when the documents exist. Send us what you have and we will say so plainly.
Arguing political motivation
I was never in politics. Can I still argue Article 3?
Yes, and applicants without any political role have succeeded. But the case then has to be carried by documented context — findings of courts or independent bodies about this prosecution — rather than by your own account of the motive behind it.
Is corruption in the requesting country enough?
On its own, no. General country reporting is treated as background. What moves the Commission is material addressing your case specifically.
If the argument fails, can I use it again later?
Only if genuinely new material appears. A ground that has been considered and rejected will not be reconsidered on the same evidence, which is a reason not to spend it prematurely.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.