Interpol’s Review Proceedings

Can I appeal a decision of the Commission for the Control of Files (‘CCF’)? – is a question often asked by individuals. There is no formal appeal process against a decision of the CCF, however, there is a failsafe review mechanism regulated under Article 42 of the CCF’s Statute, sometimes misconceived as an appeal, they are in reality a narrowly tailored mechanism allowing for reconsideration of a previous decision only when new and significant facts arise. The procedural and evidentiary hurdles are formidable, rendering these proceedings less a second chance than a precise and arduous legal remedy. Nonetheless, their role in safeguarding individual rights from abuses of Interpol’s mechanisms is both essential and increasingly relevant.

Review, or re-examination, proceedings are not intended to function as appeals. Interpol’s legal framework does not offer a conventional appellate hierarchy. Instead, the review process provides a conditional remedy where parties can demonstrate that a fact has emerged since the issuance of a decision on the original application that: (a) was genuinely unknown at the time and could not reasonably have been known through due diligence, and (b) would likely have led to a different result if known earlier. This dual test is familiar to lawyers in many jurisdictions, as it mirrors requirements for retrials or reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence in domestic legal systems.

In contrast to most national courts that have established clear precedents and procedural frameworks for interpreting legal terms, the CCF exists in a distinct and hybrid operational sphere. Its mandate to safeguard personal data within Interpol’s systems, while maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and global law enforcement cooperation, demands a dual approach of flexibility and careful deliberation. Unlike courts, the CCF does not adhere to a doctrine of precedent; whilst its decisions are thorough, they are anonymised and presented only in abstract form. This absence of formal jurisprudence, coupled with its exceptionally high standards of admissibility, presents a uniquely formidable challenge for practitioners navigating the review process.

Nonetheless, the scarce publicly available CCF decisions regarding the review proceedings shed some light on how the Commission understands the scope of this legal remedy. This blog analyses the most important of these.

First, a particularly illustrative decision from 2017 demonstrates the CCF’s rigid approach to recycled arguments.[1] In that case, an applicant submitted a second application for data deletion after an earlier request had been denied. The applicant contended that a subsequent extradition refusal by a national court constituted a new fact, unknown at the time of the initial application. However, upon investigation, the CCF found that the extradition issue was far from resolved. Negotiations between the states involved about a new extradition treaty were ongoing, and the legal status of the extradition remained unsettled. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the development was too speculative to meet the materiality threshold. The CCF’s insistence on procedural finality was apparent: any new fact must be both legally conclusive and directly connected to the rationale behind the original decision. Speculative or incomplete developments, even if occurring after the original decision, fail the test.

Therefore, in this initial decision, the CCF clarified the purpose is not to reassess arguments but to determine whether new and significant facts may have altered its earlier conclusions. Consequently, practitioners are effectively barred from making tactical or incremental submissions; they must instead prepare for thoroughly substantiated, outcome-changing facts from the outset, an endeavour that undoubtedly includes anticipating the new arguments or developments to be presented by the national authorities of the countries involved.

In contrast, another 2017 ruling highlights how procedural failures by National Central Bureaus (NCBS) can affect the outcome of a re-examination.[2] In that instance, the CCF contacted an NCB for clarification regarding the applicant’s new allegations in review, but received no response. The absence of a reply led the CCF to treat the applicant’s claims as credible in the absence of rebuttal. In practice, the Commission considered that the NCB’s silence effectively elevated the RP’s submissions to the level of new facts capable of altering the earlier decision. This rare outcome underscores the weight placed on procedural cooperation. Although NCBS are not judicial bodies, their engagement or lack thereof has a material impact on how the CCF assesses the case.

Lastly, a 2023 decision clarified how the CCF assesses the admissibility of judicial rulings as new facts.[3] In this case, the applicant submitted national court judgments that post-dated the original CCF ruling, asserting that these decisions addressed key factual and legal issues underpinning the Interpol’s Red Notice that was issued against him. The CCF acknowledged that such rulings can qualify as new facts, provided they are submitted within six months of their discovery, by the Commission’s procedural rules. However, admissibility was not granted automatically to this review request. The CCF took independent steps to verify the authenticity and legal relevance of the judgments, engaging with competent national authorities. Only once they were satisfied with both the validity and potential impact did the Commission proceed with the re-examination, which ultimately proved detrimental to the applicant’s interests.

Together, these rulings reveal the CCF’s guiding procedural rules for review proceedings: procedural fairness, evidentiary integrity, and a cautious respect for legal finality. While it does not operate under precedent in the strict sense, a discernible internal consistency is beginning to emerge. Cases involving speculative developments, procedural duplications, or inadequate documentation are routinely dismissed. By contrast, carefully timed, well-substantiated submissions, particularly those involving judicial outcomes or clear changes in legal status, stand a far better chance of success.

Despite its complexity, the review process plays a vital corrective role in Interpol’s legal system. The structure of INTERPOL does not easily accommodate traditional legal safeguards. There is no central court to appeal to, and legal remedies must work within the Organisation’s procedural limits. The CCF thus serves as a critical buffer, one that can recalibrate the balance between international law enforcement objectives and individual rights, provided the claimant clears a high evidentiary bar.

The Commission’s evolving practice offers an implicit form of guidance for legal practitioners. As more decisions are published and analysed, patterns will continue to emerge, gradually forming an informal jurisprudence that, while not authoritative in the traditional sense, offers practical orientation for those seeking redress.

In conclusion, the review proceedings of the CCF under Article 42 are among the most difficult, but also most important, mechanisms for individuals challenging Interpol’s Notices. The process demands procedural precision, timely action, and evidentiary strength. Yet it remains an indispensable tool for correcting errors and ensuring that the system does not sacrifice fairness in the name of efficiency. As the CCF continues to refine its internal standards and clarify its expectations, practitioners must remain alert to its signals. In doing so, they preserve not only their clients’ rights but also the legitimacy of Interpol’s broader legal mission.

[1] CCF Decision Excerpt No. 06, 2017, Paras. 20–22.

[2] CCF Decision Excerpt No. 07, 2017, Paras. 11–12.

[3] CCF Decision Excerpt No. 10, 2023, Paras. 19–20.

—

Thanks to Cristian González Ruiz for assisting in the research and drafting of this blog.

Cristian is a Colombian-qualified lawyer and International Consultant with experience in strategic litigation before national and international tribunals. He was awarded Pro-Bono Lawyer of the year in 2021. Cristian holds an Advanced LL.M. in Public International Law (Cum Laude) from Leiden University, LL.M in International Law, BA in Political Science and J.D. (eq.) in Law by Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia).