How We Secured the Removal of Our Client’s Data
Case Overview
In 2010, the client became the subject of a diffusion issued by Ukraine for allegations of “misappropriation or embezzlement of property entrusted to them involving a significant amount.” This was based on an arrest warrant, which at the time remained unnamed.
The Commission’s Conclusions
The Commission determined that INTERPOL’s channels had been misused in the issuance of the diffusion. It emphasized that the ability to issue a domestic detention order should not rely on the involvement of INTERPOL.
Additionally, the Commission highlighted an aggravating factor—the relatively small sums involved in the alleged crime—which raised questions about the relevance of the case for international police cooperation as outlined in Article 35(1) of the RPD.
The Applicant’s Position
The applicant argued that the case was not significant enough to warrant international police cooperation due to the minimal financial damages involved.
Conclusions
The Commission concluded that the data concerning the applicant did not comply with INTERPOL’s rules on personal data processing and ordered its deletion from INTERPOL’s files.
