How to remove an INTERPOL notice. The general procedure for challenging any INTERPOL notice or diffusion before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files.

The statutory timeframes set out in Article 40 of the CCF Statute are four months for a data access request and nine months for a deletion request, counted from the date of admissibility. In practice, the full timeline from filing to a final decision on a deletion request typically runs twelve to fifteen months, depending on admissibility processing and exchanges with the requesting country's NCB.

In urgent cases, temporary blocking under Article 37 can be requested in parallel to suspend access to the data while the deletion request is examined.

INTERPOL does not notify individuals about data held in its files. A small fraction of Red Notices are published on INTERPOL's public website, but most notices and diffusions are not. Detection often happens through travel disruption: a border refusal, a flagged hotel registration, a bank closing an account, or an immigration application returned without explanation.

The formal route to confirm is an access request filed with the CCF through its online portal. Under Article 35 of the CCF Statute, the CCF consults the relevant NCB before disclosure, and the scope of the response depends on whether the NCB consents to full, partial, or restricted disclosure.

Deletion is the final remedy. If the CCF finds that the data does not comply with INTERPOL's rules, the Commission orders its removal from INTERPOL's information system and the General Secretariat circulates the update to all member countries. Once deleted, the data is no longer accessible to police forces worldwide.

Temporary blocking is a provisional measure granted under Article 37 of the CCF Statute. It does not remove the data, but suspends access to it while the deletion request is examined. Blocking limits INTERPOL police cooperation on the file and provides immediate protection against arrest, extradition, and travel disruption. It is available where the notice creates an immediate risk of irreparable harm.

A CCF rejection is a decision on the merits, not the end of the road. The Statute does not provide for an appeal in the traditional sense, but Article 42 of the CCF Statute allows for an application for revision where newly discovered relevant facts not available during the initial review come to light.

Under the current Portal procedure, a revision starts with a two-page summary explaining why the new facts justify reopening the file. The full submission is filed only if the CCF requests it. The threshold is high and the new elements must genuinely add to the record.

No. The CCF procedure is entirely written. There is no oral hearing, no in-person appearance, and no requirement for the applicant or counsel to be physically present in Lyon or anywhere else. The entire file is built and exchanged through the CCF Portal in writing.

This is one of the reasons there is no jurisdictional requirement for representation: a lawyer in any country can represent a client before the Commission, provided the work meets the format and substantive standards set by the CCF.

No. The CCF procedure is confidential. Submissions, exchanges with the requesting country's NCB, and decisions are not published in their full form. Applicants and their counsel are bound by confidentiality, and the file is not shared with third parties without consent.

What is public is a series of decision excerpts released by the CCF on INTERPOL's website. These anonymised summaries explain the Commission's reasoning on specific issues and form the body of CCF jurisprudence. Otherside maintains a searchable CCF Decisions database that indexes these excerpts by notice colour, country, ground, and outcome.