Schedule for the rest of 2022
The April 2022 CCF meeting is over and the Commission’s decisions from that meeting are being served on the applicants and their lawyers. If a pending case has not been heard during this last session, it can be heard during one of the two remaining sessions of this year, which are listed on INTERPOL’s website as follows:
- 121th CCF meeting: Summer 2022
- 122th CCF meeting: Autumn 2022
The fixed dates for these meetings will be announced in due course. In the meantime, we have enough information to make a few comments about the Commission’s current workload, timetable and working style.
This year, for the first time since the 2018 rules came into effect, we have seen a delay in some decisions. Before 2018, there was no specific deadline for the Commission’s decisions. Applicants can wait months and they can wait years for a decision. After the 2018 rules came into force, the Commission has routinely met its required nine-month deadline to make a decision on a removal request.
However, like the rest of the world, COVID has also experienced delays. Many cases were dealt with in a timely manner, and others were decided later than the rules required. It seems that the difference was based on the time it took to resolve each matter.
In cases that could be more easily reviewed and decided, such as cases where a notice is invalid because the sentence has been served, the person has been arrested or some other important reason, the Commission has been able to make timely decisions and to deliver information. In cases where the factual or legal issues have been more complex, or where member countries have taken more time to submit their replies, some substantive removal requests are being made later than in recent years. As the world moves towards COVID-era normalization and catches up, imagine the Commission will do the same.
type of decisions
Regarding the style of the CCF decisions, it should be noted that the decisions continue to reflect a thorough analysis of complicated issues of fact and law. The current members of the Commission’s Claims Chamber include individuals with significant human rights and data protection experience, and certain decisions show that not only claimants but also NCBs demand real accountability. There have been years when the Commission has accepted less detailed or timely replies to its questions to the NCBs; this doesn’t seem to be one of those years.
Increasingly, their decisions also seem to take into account not only the arguments or laws put forward by the applicants, but also those already known to the Commission from other cases where similar issues have been dealt with.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.