(today’s post is an update of a post earlier this year)
Schedule for the remainder of 2022
The CCF’s April and June/July 2022 sessions have passed, and the Commission’s decisions from the most recent session are being delivered to applicants and their attorneys. If a pending case was not heard during this last session, it may be heard during the remaining session this year, which is listed as follows on INTERPOL’s website:
- 122th Session of the CCF: 10 to 14 October 2022
In the meantime, we have enough information to make some observations about the Commission’s current workload, timing, and work style.
This year, for the first time since the 2018 rules were enacted, we have seen a delay in some decisions. Prior to 2018, there was no specific time limit applicable to the Commission’s decisions. Applicants might wait months, and they might wait years for a decision. After the 2018 rules became effective, the Commission routinely honored its required time limit of 9 months to render a decision in a removal request.
However, as with the rest of the world, with COVID came delays. Many cases were addressed on time, and others were decided later than the rules required. It appears that the difference was based on the time that each matter took to resolve.
For cases that were more readily reviewed and decided, such as cases where a notice is invalid because the sentence was served, the subject was apprehended, or some other basic reason, the Commission has been able to deliver timely decisions and information. In cases where the facts or legal issues were more complex, or where member countries have taken more time to deliver their responses, some substantive removal requests are being issued later than they have in recent years. As the world moves toward a normalization of the COVID era and catches up on its backlog, one imagines that the Commission will do the same.
Nature of decisions
In terms of the style of the CCF’s decisions, it is noted that the decisions continue to reflect an in-depth analysis of intricate factual and legal issues. The current members of the Requests Chamber of the Commission include people with significant experience in human rights and data protection, and certain decisions demonstrate a true demand for accountability from not only the applicants but also the NCBs. There have been years where the Commission has accepted less-than detailed or forthcoming responses to its questions posed to NCBs; this does not appear to be one of those years.
Its decisions also increasingly seem to consider not solely the arguments or laws raised by the applicants, but also those with which the Commission is already familiar from other cases wherein comparable issues have been addressed.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.