How Are National Arrest, Restriction, Immigration and Security Records Corrected After an INTERPOL Record Is Deleted?

What exactly does a CCF deletion decision eliminate?

The CCF is the independent body that supervises the compatibility of personal data processed within INTERPOL with the INTERPOL Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data. When a request for correction or deletion is accepted, the decision concerns the data within the INTERPOL system.

As a rule, a deletion decision;

• ends the publication of the Red Notice in the INTERPOL system,
• ends the processing of the diffusion in the INTERPOL database,
• ends keeping the relevant INTERPOL data accessible to member countries through the INTERPOL channel

or, depending on the scope of the decision, ensures that the data is corrected.

For the general framework of INTERPOL notices, CCF review and the extradition process, see our guide What Is INTERPOL and a Red Notice?.

Does a CCF decision annul a foreign court decision?

No. The CCF;

• is not a court of the source country.
• cannot annul a national arrest warrant.
• does not end the criminal investigation or prosecution.
• cannot set aside a conviction.
• cannot decide on an extradition file in place of a national court.
• cannot directly delete a member country’s immigration, border or national security record.

For this reason, even if the INTERPOL record has been deleted, the arrest warrant in the source country may remain in force. The source country may continue to act through mutual legal assistance, a direct extradition request or other regional systems.

Does a CCF decision have no effect at all on national authorities?

It does. A CCF decision is a strong and official document showing that INTERPOL data is incompatible with the organization’s rules or can no longer be processed. National authorities must evaluate, with respect to their own records, in particular the grounds on which the decision was based, such as;

• political nature (INTERPOL Constitution Article 3),
• human rights violation (INTERPOL Constitution Article 2 / Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights),
• an accuracy or currency problem with the data,
• absence of a valid arrest warrant,
• acquittal, dismissal, statute of limitations or enforcement of the sentence,
• mistaken identity,
• lack of necessity and proportionality

and similar grounds. However, a CCF decision does not replace the application needed to remove a national record.

How are CCF applications made in 2026?

According to INTERPOL’s current statement, from 10:00 CET on March 26, 2026, new CCF applications are submitted through the secure online portal. E-mail and post are not a channel for new applications, except in the exceptional cases under Article 25(2) of the CCF Working Rules. In files opened earlier, communication may initially continue in the old manner; if the file is moved to the portal, the person concerned is notified.

The portal is used for requests for access to data, correction or deletion, and, where the conditions are met, for applications for the review of a decision. Identity, authority of representation, the scope of the request and the evidence should be submitted in an orderly manner. That the CCF does not charge an application fee for its own review activity does not mean that translation, representation or national judicial proceedings are also free of charge.

The fact that a CCF application has been made does not automatically stop a national apprehension, extradition or deportation procedure. If there is a need for an interim measure, the competent national authority and the CCF’s own power are assessed separately. Confidentiality should likewise not be presented as an absolute guarantee that no information will be shared: the CCF may exchange information with the relevant units for the necessary review. Information that is specifically requested to be kept confidential should be expressly identified; the effect of this on the review should be taken into account.

Why are records not cleared automatically?

International and national systems are not a single central database. Information about the same person may be held in different institutions for different legal purposes.

For example;

• INTERPOL data may be processed for the purpose of international police cooperation,
• a national arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal procedure,
• an extradition record (Law No. 6706) for the purpose of international judicial cooperation,
• a restriction code (G-87, N-82, etc.) for the purpose of border and immigration management,
• an SIS alert for specific purposes under Schengen law,
• a bank risk record for the purpose of preventing the laundering of proceeds of crime (MASAK) and customer risk management

may be processed.

The data controller, legal basis, retention period, access authority and objection authority of these records differ. Deletion in one system does not automatically end the legal basis of another system.

For the review of entry bans to Türkiye and restriction records, see our article What Is a Restriction Code? Entry Ban to Türkiye and Removal of the Code. The effect of the outcome of the criminal file on the restriction record is examined in the article Do Acquittal and Non-Prosecution Lift the Restriction Code?.

How is a deletion decision reflected in national systems?

INTERPOL’s official compliance statement says that deleted Red Notices are removed from the organization’s database and that member countries are notified. For CCF deletion decisions as well, notifications requesting that national databases be updated are sent. However, the source country may keep the person on its own national wanted list; bilateral or regional channels other than INTERPOL require separate legal review.

For this reason, two situations must be distinguished. The first is that the old copy of the deleted international record still appears active in a national system. The second is that there is a different and independent national decision concerning the same person. In the first, the problem of data accuracy and updating comes to the fore; in the second, a separate application on the substance and procedure of the matter is required for the national decision to be lifted.

To confirm implementation, the deletion or update letter, the file number, the date of the decision and its scope are kept. If a problem continues during travel to a country, the date of the incident, the authority, the official report and the record on which it was based are identified to the extent possible. According to INTERPOL’s official statement, reminding the country concerned of the deletion and of the need to update national records may come onto the agenda. This process does not produce a clean-record certificate for all countries at the same time.

The first step after deletion is a record inventory

A general request such as “clear all of my records” may prove inadequate in practice. A concrete record map must be drawn up first.

Key conclusion: The correction strategy must be built not around the name of the record but around the decision that created the record and the competent authority.

Which record is reviewed before which authority?

This table shows the duties of the authorities in general terms. The concrete duty and competence are determined by the legal nature of the record. It should not be expected that a single petition sent to the same institution will result in the deletion of all criminal, immigration and private sector records. The names the person previously used, spellings in different alphabets, old passports and differences in date of birth may be shown in the matching table.

How should the scope of the CCF decision be examined?

Not every CCF decision rests on the same grounds. The full text of the decision, or the part that can be disclosed, should be read with the following questions in mind:

• Is the deleted data a Red Notice, a diffusion or another record?
• Is the decision limited to a particular file or accusation?
• Is the deletion based on the prohibition of political, military, religious or racial activity in Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution?
• Have human rights, refugee status or the risk of return (Article 2) been evaluated?
• Has it been determined that there is no valid national arrest warrant?
• Is the data incorrect, insufficient or no longer current?
• Does the decision allow for the possibility of reprocessing if the source country submits new data?
• What are the date and file reference of the decision?

In the petition submitted to a national authority, it should not simply be said “the INTERPOL record was deleted”; it must be explained why the ground for deletion weakens or eliminates the legal basis of the national record.

How is it confirmed that the deletion in the INTERPOL system has been implemented?

After a CCF decision is obtained, the name not appearing on the publicly accessible search screen is not sufficient confirmation on its own; the record may have been closed to the public from the outset.

For confirmation;

• the notification date and file number of the CCF decision should be kept,
• it should be determined whether the decision provides for deletion of the data, correction, or restriction of access,
• if necessary, correspondence on the implementation of the decision should be conducted with the CCF,
• it should be monitored whether the source NCB creates a new or different record on the same facts,
• if a new application becomes necessary, the previous CCF decision must be submitted.

Services should not be obtained from persons who issue fake or unauthorized documents stating “no record” after a deletion decision. Apart from the official CCF decision, an “INTERPOL clearance certificate” issued by private entities provides no legal safeguard.

How is the national arrest warrant in the source country removed?

A national arrest warrant is subject to the criminal procedure law of the country that issued it. Because the CCF decision does not annul this warrant, separate work is required in the source country.

Which authority should be approached?

Depending on the specific system, action may be required before;

• the court that issued the arrest warrant,
• the prosecutor’s office conducting the investigation,
• the higher court reviewing the decision,
• the enforcement authority,
• the NCB or ministry of justice of the source country

as applicable.

Which grounds can be asserted?

• Acquittal or no grounds for prosecution,
• Dismissal of the case or statute of limitations,
• Full enforcement of the sentence,
• Irregular or unauthorized issuance of the arrest warrant,
• Defense and retrial safeguards in the case of a judgment in absentia,
• Mistaken identity,
• Res judicata for the same act,
• The nature of the offense not being suitable for extradition or an international search,
• Lack of proportionality and currency.

A decision of the CCF made on grounds of political nature (Article 3) may not automatically invalidate the national arrest warrant before a court of the source country. Even so, it provides strong support regarding the impartiality and legitimate purpose of a record placed into international circulation.

What should be done if the source country’s warrant is lifted?

Conclusive and verifiable proof that the decision has been lifted should be submitted, with due regard to translation, apostille or certification requirements, to;

• the NCB of the source country,
• INTERPOL or the CCF, for the necessary update,
• the Ministry of Justice and the relevant judicial authorities in Türkiye,
• immigration and border authorities,
• where applicable, the country that entered the SIS alert

in each case.

How are the national arrest warrant and UYAP records corrected in Türkiye?

In Türkiye, an arrest warrant issued by a court or prosecutor’s office is not lifted automatically by a CCF decision. If the warrant is based on a Turkish criminal file, the relevant investigation or prosecution authority must be approached.

What is the right path for an arrest warrant in the UYAP record?

UYAP is the system in which judicial decisions are entered; a legally valid arrest warrant cannot be deleted through a technical data correction request. First, the judicial decision requiring the lifting of the warrant must be obtained.

As a rule, the order of steps is as follows:

• The file and authority that issued the arrest warrant are identified.
• It is investigated whether the warrant remains legally in force.
• The lifting of the arrest warrant is requested from the competent prosecutor’s office or court.
• The lifting decision is entered into UYAP.
• It is checked that the decision has been transmitted to law enforcement and border systems.
• In case of delay or technical incompatibility, a written application is made to the authority that issued the decision and to those responsible for the systems.

Important distinction: Lifting a judicial decision and technically correcting wrong or outdated data in the system are two separate stages. Mere data deletion cannot be requested without the valid decision having been lifted; and after the decision has been lifted, it is unacceptable for the old record to continue producing effects.

What should be done if the person still appears at the border although the arrest warrant has been lifted?

• A certified copy of the lifting decision and the UYAP document verification information should be kept ready.
• An effort should be made to establish by record in which system and under which file number the entry appears.
• Confirmation from the prosecutor’s office or court should be requested from the law enforcement unit that carried out the procedure.
• If there has been an unjustified restriction of liberty, the record, time, responsible unit, missed flight and expenses should be documented.
• The rights to compensation for unjustified pretrial detention/arrest under Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 141 of the CMK should be evaluated.

Rather than relying only on a screenshot on a phone, it is safer to carry a verifiable, official copy of the decision.

Law Enforcement Query and Wanted Records (GBT / KİHBİ) and Constitutional Court Case Law

In practice, general expressions such as “GBT record” or “KİHBİ record” are used. However, not every piece of information seen on a law enforcement screen is of the same kind. The record may be;

• a judicial arrest warrant,
• a missing person or identity notification,
• an immigration restriction (G-87, N-82, etc.),
• an entry ban,
• an extradition/INTERPOL-linked alert,
• a security or intelligence assessment,
• old but not yet updated technical data

depending on the case.

Constitutional Court Case Law on GBT / Personal Data Violations

As emphasized in the Plenary Assembly decision of the Constitutional Court in Fatih Saraman (Application No: 2014/7256, February 27, 2019), where the criminal investigation conducted against a person has ended in acquittal, a decision of non-prosecution or the statute of limitations, or its administrative basis has disappeared, the continued retention of this information in law enforcement and security systems (GBT/KİHBİ) indefinitely and without control constitutes a violation of the Right to the Protection of Personal Data and Respect for Private Life guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Likewise, in the Constitutional Court’s Samira Alakbarova (Application No: 2018/19302, February 22, 2022) decision, it was held that the judicial review of restrictions on liberty and judicial control measures applied on the basis of an INTERPOL Red Notice must rest on standards of reasonable time and concrete facts.

What should be done to update the law enforcement record?

• The authority that created the record and the underlying decision should be identified.
• The CCF deletion decision, the UYAP lifting decision and the acquittal/non-prosecution documents should be submitted to the Ministry of Interior EGM / the Gendarmerie General Command Information Collection Department.
• If the law enforcement unit resists deactivating the record, an annulment action should be filed before the Administrative Court within the framework of Article 20 of the Constitution and Constitutional Court case law.

How are extradition and provisional arrest records corrected in Türkiye? (Law No. 6706)

Even if the INTERPOL record has been deleted, an extradition request or a direct diplomatic/judicial request previously transmitted to Türkiye may exist. The process under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters runs separately from INTERPOL data processing.

What needs to be done in a pending extradition file

The CCF decision should be submitted to;

• the General Directorate for Foreign Relations and European Union Affairs of the Ministry of Justice,
• the relevant Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office,
• the High Criminal Court or the Criminal Chamber of the BAM that conducts the provisional arrest or extradition review

for consideration.

Under Article 18 of Law No. 6706, the fact that the CCF decision has found that the record is of a political nature (Article 3) or carries the risk of a human rights violation (Article 2) constitutes decisive evidence for a Turkish court to rule that “the extradition is not admissible.”

Are records cleared automatically if the extradition file is closed?

Not always. After the extradition request is rejected or withdrawn, or the file is closed, the following must also be checked separately:

• that the provisional arrest and judicial control decisions have been lifted,
• that the arrest warrant writs have been returned,
• that the UYAP file has been closed with the correct status,
• that law enforcement alerts have been updated,
• that the immigration authorities have been informed of the closure decision

in each case.

Whether the rejection of extradition rests on grounds such as lack of documents, the statute of limitations, a political offense, citizenship, res judicata for the same act or the risk of torture may lead to different consequences as to whether national records can continue.

Restriction codes (G-87 / N-82) and Council of State 10th Chamber Annulment Case Law

“Restriction code” is the general name in practice for administrative records used in border, entry, stay, deportation or security procedures concerning a foreigner. When an INTERPOL record is detected, the Presidency of Migration Management generally enters the code G-87 (Danger to General Security) or N-82 (Foreigners Whose Entry into Türkiye Is Subject to Prior Permission). The prior-permission dimension of N-82 and N-99 records is explained in the article Prior Permission and Visa with Explanatory Notes under N-82 and N-99 Restriction Codes.

Does a CCF decision remove the restriction code?

No. The restriction code is a record of the Presidency of Migration Management or the relevant national authority. The CCF decision, on the other hand, concerns data in the INTERPOL system. However, if the restriction rests solely on the deleted INTERPOL data, removal or re-evaluation of the code may be requested because its basis has disappeared.

Council of State 10th Chamber and Regional Administrative Court (BİM) Annulment Decisions

As emphasized in the settled decisions of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) (e.g., Council of State 10th Chamber, E. 2021/4120, K. 2022/1845) and in decisions of the Regional Administrative Courts (BİM):

1. The administration’s power to apply restriction codes to foreigners is not absolute and unlimited.
2. G-87 and N-82 restriction codes that are not based on concrete, legally valid, verifiable information and documents, and that are imposed solely on the basis of external hearsay or an INTERPOL alert whose basis has collapsed, are defective.
3. Rejecting a request to remove the restriction code of a foreigner whose INTERPOL record has been deleted by the CCF, or who has obtained a decision of non-prosecution/acquittal in the criminal file, is unlawful.

In an annulment action to be filed before the administrative court (within 60 days under Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law), a stay of execution (YD) must be requested under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law; the administration must be required to submit the concrete criminal file and the supporting evidence to the court.

How is the entry ban to Türkiye lifted or corrected?

Under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, an entry ban may be applied to foreigners whose entry into Türkiye is deemed objectionable for reasons of public order or public security. An entry ban is an administrative act separate from the INTERPOL record.

If the deleted record is the sole basis of the entry ban

The CCF decision and, where applicable, the lifting of the national arrest warrant may be used to show;

• that the cause element (sebep unsuru) of the entry ban has disappeared,
• that a current risk assessment must be made,
• that continuing an act based on old and incorrect data is disproportionate

in these respects.

If there is another independent ground

If the administration relies on an independent ground such as;

• a visa or residence violation,
• a deportation decision,
• a forged document,
• other concrete facts concerning public order,
• the foreigner’s conduct in Türkiye

the deletion of the INTERPOL record may not by itself end the entry ban. Each ground must be examined separately.

Is an annotated visa or special permission a permanent solution?

In certain situations, the possibility of entry for a foreigner subject to an entry ban through a special annotated visa (meşruhatlı vize) or permit may be considered. However, this does not mean that the entry ban has been removed from the database. For a permanent solution, a separate application or action against the basis of the ban may be necessary.

How are GöçNet and the data in the immigration file corrected?

GöçNet is the administrative information system used in procedures concerning foreigners and international protection. A person’s file may contain;

• residence applications,
• the international protection process,
• deportation and administrative detention procedures,
• entry ban or restriction information,
• identity and travel document information,
• notifications from security or judicial authorities

among other things.

Which authority should be approached?

Depending on the specific record, the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, the Presidency of Migration Management or another competent authority that carried out the act is addressed. The application must clearly show;

• which data is incorrect or not current,
• what the correct information is,
• which part of the CCF decision is connected,
• which current procedure the incorrect data has led to,
• whether deletion, correction, annotation or re-evaluation is requested

in the application.

Is old information deleted entirely, or updated?

In every case, physical deletion may not be possible or legally required. The administration may have an obligation to retain its record of procedures. However, the following may be necessary:

• that the old record not appear as a current and active risk,
• that the subsequent acquittal, lifting or CCF decision be entered in the file,
• that incorrect data be corrected,
• that access to and use of data that is no longer needed be restricted,
• that data whose legal retention period has expired be deleted or anonymized

in such a case.

The aim is not merely to make the past invisible but to prevent incorrect or outdated data from producing a new rejection, arrest or border action.

Can a request for correction or deletion be made under the KVKK?

Article 11 of Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK) grants the data subject the rights to learn whether personal data is being processed, to request information if it has been processed, to learn the purpose of processing, to know the third parties to whom data has been transferred, and to request correction of incomplete or incorrectly processed data and, if the conditions are met, its deletion or destruction.

Application to the data controller

Under Article 13 of the KVKK, the data subject first submits the request to the data controller. The application should include;

• Identity and contact details,
• The subject of the request,
• The incorrect or outdated data,
• Official documents showing the correction,
• The CCF decision,
• A request that the correction be notified to third parties to whom the data has been transferred

in the application.

The data controller concludes the application as soon as possible and within thirty days at the latest. In case of rejection, an inadequate response or no response within the time limit, a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Board may be considered under the conditions and time limits in the KVKK.

Is a KVKK application sufficient for every record?

No. The full and partial exemptions of Law No. 6698 may apply with respect to criminal investigation, prosecution, trial, enforcement of sentences, national defense, national security, public security and certain supervisory activities. In addition, a valid arrest warrant or administrative decision cannot be eliminated merely through a personal data request.

For this reason, separate paths must be used before;

• the judicial authority, for the arrest warrant,
• the relevant judicial and administrative authorities, for the extradition procedure,
• the administrative authority and administrative courts, for restriction codes and entry bans,
• the state that entered the alert, for the SIS record,
• the relevant data controller, for private sector data

for each record.

Key conclusion: The KVKK is an important correction tool, but it is not a universal “record deletion” path that takes the place of annulling a judicial or administrative decision.

How should the right to information and the right to petition be used?

Article 74 of the Constitution, Law No. 3071 on the Exercise of the Right to Petition and Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information provide the general framework for a person to apply to the administration and request certain information.

However, access may be restricted in areas such as;

• State secrets,
• Intelligence,
• Ongoing investigations,
• Crime prevention and public security,
• Personal data of third parties

and similar areas.

The application should not be drafted broadly as “send me all records about me.” The known procedure, date, border incident, file number, the CCF decision and the correction sought should be made concrete. Even if the information is not disclosed, the administration may be asked to state the legal existence of the act and the avenue of application.

Is the SIS record removed by an INTERPOL deletion decision?

No. The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a European information system separate from INTERPOL. In SIS, different alert categories may exist for refusal of entry, arrest, missing persons, judicial procedures or other purposes.

Where is an application for SIS correction or deletion made?

The Schengen state that entered the alert is primarily responsible for the accuracy and legal basis of SIS data. Under applicable EU and national law, the person may use the following avenues:

• Access to the data,
• Correction of incorrect data,
• Deletion of an unlawful record,
• A complaint to the national data protection authority,
• An action before the national court

as the case requires.

An application to a Schengen state may set the necessary cooperation mechanisms in motion; however, the role of the state that entered the alert is decisive.

How is the CCF decision used in a SIS file?

The CCF decision may be strong evidence if it shows;

• that the SIS alert rests solely on the Red Notice,
• that the underlying data was found to be political or contrary to human rights,
• that the person match is incorrect,
• that the national arrest warrant is not valid

in the file concerned. However, if the SIS alert has a separate national or EU law basis, this must also be examined separately.

How are visa, immigration and border records in foreign countries corrected?

A previous visa refusal, refusal of entry, deportation or security decision of a country does not automatically disappear with a CCF deletion decision. Each country’s own immigration and data protection law applies.

The application package should generally contain;

• The CCF decision,
• The current status of the source country’s arrest warrant,
• The acquittal or extradition rejection decision,
• The date and number of the previous visa/entry decision,
• New and correct personal information,
• The concrete effect of the incorrect data

in the application.

It may be necessary to honestly disclose a previous visa refusal “when asked on the form.” A CCF decision does not erase the past refusal as a historical event; it shows that the basis of the refusal decision has later disappeared.

How are private sector records corrected?

INTERPOL data or publicly available Red Notice summaries may have been reflected in;

• The customer onboarding and compliance systems of banks,
• Financial crime and sanctions screening providers,
• Airline or travel security systems,
• Employers’ risk reviews,
• Search engine caches,
• Press archives

among other places.

Application to the bank and the compliance provider

A bank cannot be required to open an account or to continue the relationship in every case; the institution has a risk assessment arising from legislation. However, where its decision is based on old or incorrect data, an update of the data and human review may be requested by submitting;

• The CCF deletion decision,
• The lifting of the national warrant,
• Identity verification documents,
• Records showing the risk provider’s incorrect match

in support.

Internet and press content

A CCF decision does not cause a news report lawfully published in the past to be deleted automatically. The currency of the content, the public interest, the person’s public profile, the accuracy of the report, the right to be forgotten, and freedom of expression and of the press are evaluated together.

First of all, the following may be requested:

• Adding an update to the content,
• Correcting incorrect information,
• Updating the search result or not listing it for certain queries,
• If the conditions are met, removing the content

as appropriate.

Is a judicial record the same as an INTERPOL record?

No. A conviction record under Law No. 5352 on Judicial Records and a Red Notice, an arrest warrant, a law enforcement alert and an immigration restriction are different types of data.

A CCF deletion decision;

• Does not delete a final conviction from the judicial record.
• Does not automatically remove the archive record.
• Does not replace the restoration of rights that were revoked or the reinstatement of prohibited rights (memnu haklar).

The conditions in Law No. 5352 and the procedures of the competent General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics for deleting the judicial record and the archive record must be examined separately.

What documents should be included in a record correction application?

Basic document package

• Copies of identity and passport,
• A full and legible copy of the CCF decision,
• If necessary, a sworn translation and certification,
• Known references to the Red Notice or diffusion,
• Information on the source country’s criminal file and arrest warrant,
• The decision lifting the arrest warrant,
• Documents of acquittal, dismissal, statute of limitations or enforcement of the sentence,
• The decision rejecting extradition or withdrawing the extradition request,
• The refugee or subsidiary protection decision,
• The border, bank, visa or immigration procedures caused by the incorrect record.

What the application petition must contain

• A clear description of the record to be corrected,
• The decision or authority that created the record,
• The incorrect, outdated or unlawful aspect,
• The connection of the CCF decision with this record,
• The action requested: deletion, correction, removal, deactivation, annotation or re-evaluation,
• A request that the correction be notified to the units to which the data was transferred,
• A request for a written and reasoned response,
• If urgent, information on the concrete harm and the time limit.

Instead of a vague request such as “deletion of all records,” record-specific and enforceable requests should be formulated.

How is it verified when the correction is completed?

An institution’s response that “the action has been taken” may not be sufficient. Verification in practice should be carried out at the following layers:

• Has the underlying decision been lifted?
• Has the record in the main database been updated?
• Have law enforcement and border units been notified?
• Has the new decision been entered in the immigration and visa file?
• Has the extradition file been closed?
• Has the old data sent to third parties or subsystems been corrected?
• Is there a duplicate record or a record with a name variation for the same person?
• Does a match with the old passport number still continue?

Verification should not be tested by unplanned international travel. First, official letters, file review and a country-by-country risk analysis should be completed.

How long does record correction take?

There is no single standard period. The period depends on factors such as;

• Whether the record is judicial or administrative,
• Whether action is required in the source country,
• The scope of the CCF decision,
• Any pending extradition or criminal file,
• Correspondence between institutions,
• Filing an action after an express or implied rejection,
• The need for a stay of execution or an interim measure

among other things.

The fact that there is a maximum response period of thirty days for an application to a data controller under the KVKK does not mean that a judicial or administrative decision will necessarily be lifted in thirty days. The general period for filing an action before the administrative courts is, as a rule, sixty days unless a separate period is provided in a special law; however, there may be special and shorter periods in areas such as deportation and international protection.

In which situations is urgent action needed?

• If international travel is imminent,
• If the person has been detained at the border or at an airport,
• If a provisional arrest or extradition process has started,
• If a deportation decision has been served,
• If administrative detention has been applied,
• If a residence permit or international protection status has been canceled,
• If a citizenship or visa application has been rejected because of the same record,
• If a bank account has been frozen or a transaction has been refused

an application appropriate to the type of procedure should be made without waiting.

Because the existence of a CCF decision does not automatically stop a national measure, a request for a stay of execution, interim legal protection, release, objection or an interim measure may also be necessary.

What are the common mistakes in the record-clearing process?

• Assuming that the CCF decision automatically deletes all national records.
• Not investigating the arrest warrant in the source country.
• Thinking that the UYAP, law enforcement, immigration, restriction and SIS records are a single database.
• Trying to lift a valid judicial decision solely through a KVKK application.
• Learning the restriction code but not examining the underlying administrative act.
• Accepting that closing the extradition file has updated all arrest alerts.
• Submitting the CCF decision to an institution without translation or explanation.
• Failing to establish legally the effect of the ground for deletion on the national record.
• Not verifying the implementation in subsystems after the institution’s response.
• Untruthfully concealing a previous visa refusal or border incident in a new application.
• Calculating the time limit for filing an action incorrectly on the assumption that an administrative application has been made.
• Traveling without a plan to test whether the record has been cleared.
• Sending the passport and the CCF decision to unofficial persons.

Record correction roadmap

What principles do judicial decisions show?

CJEU, WS decision: INTERPOL data is not independent of national and regional legal safeguards

In its decision WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑505/19, May 12, 2021, EU:C:2021:376, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union examined the relationship between the Red Notice, provisional arrest, ne bis in idem and the processing of personal data.

The Court stated that where it is definitively established that the ne bis in idem principle applies to the same acts, the power of the Schengen authorities to arrest and process data must be re-evaluated in accordance with the safeguards in EU law.

Concrete effect: The existence of INTERPOL data does not exempt a procedure in a national or regional database from legal review. However, the decision is not a general provision that automatically deletes all national records; the competent legal avenue against the relevant record must be used.

ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye: A Red Notice is not by itself the legal basis for national detention

In the decision M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, June 4, 2024, provisional detention and the extradition process based on a Red Notice issued through the Russian NCB and an arrest warrant in absentia were examined.

Concrete effect: When relying on an INTERPOL alert, the national authority must separately ensure the legal basis, duration, risk of arbitrariness and effective judicial review of the deprivation of liberty. After the deletion of INTERPOL data, the continuation of a national detention record must also rest on an independent and current legal basis.

ECtHR, Liu v. Poland: The risk on extradition and return is examined independently

In the decision Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, October 6, 2022, the ECtHR examined the risk of ill-treatment in case of extradition to China and the duration of detention for the purpose of extradition.

Concrete effect: A foreign arrest warrant or international alert does not relieve the requested state of human rights review. Submitting the extradition rejection and protection decisions together with the CCF decision to the national data correction file allows an assessment of whether the continuation of the record is legitimate and current.

Constitutional Court, Fatih Saraman Decision: Retaining the Records of Persons Whose Criminal Prosecution Has Ended Is a Rights Violation

In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court in Fatih Saraman, Application No: 2014/7256, February 27, 2019, the failure to delete the records, in law enforcement information systems, of persons who were acquitted or whose criminal file was closed was held to be a rights violation under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Court, Samira Alakbarova Decision: Judicial Review of Extradition Detention

In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Samira Alakbarova, Application No: 2018/19302, February 22, 2022, it was held as case law that restrictions on liberty based on a Red Notice must be justified by reasonable time and concrete facts.

How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm work in the record correction process?

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm uses the CCF decision not merely as a document to be archived but as the basic legal tool for systematically eliminating the consequences arising in national and international records.

Concrete legal work provided to the client

• Analysis of the scope of the CCF decision and its effect on national records,
• Drawing up an inventory of INTERPOL, source country, UYAP, law enforcement, extradition, restriction, GöçNet, SIS and private sector records,
• Coordination with local attorneys to have the arrest warrant lifted in the source country,
• Applications concerning judicial arrest or provisional arrest decisions in Türkiye,
• Submission and follow-up of the decision before the Ministry of Justice and in the extradition file,
• Applications to update old or incorrect records in law enforcement and border systems,
• Separate review of restriction code, entry ban, deportation and residence procedures,
• Requests for correction, removal and re-evaluation before the Presidency of Migration Management,
• A data controller application under the KVKK and, in suitable files, a complaint to the Board,
• An annulment action against express or implied rejection acts and, if the conditions are met, a request for a stay of execution (YD),
• Coordination with authorized foreign counsel for SIS and foreign country immigration records,
• Applications to update the records of banks, risk providers, search engines and other private sector entities,
• Notification to subsystems after correction and checking of actual implementation,
• Exit, transit and destination country risk analysis before travel.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, since 1999, has provided legal services in Turkish, English, German and Russian in all 81 provinces of Türkiye and in files with international connections, based in Antalya.

Because each record may rest on a different legal basis, no guarantee of outcome is given. The competent authorities, applicable avenues of application, time limits, risks and order of steps are explained to the client on the basis of the concrete documents.

Frequently asked questions

If the CCF has deleted the Red Notice, is the arrest warrant against me also lifted?

No. The CCF decision affects the data in the INTERPOL system. A national arrest warrant in the source country or in Türkiye must be lifted separately before the prosecutor’s office or court that issued it.

Does a CCF decision automatically correct the UYAP record?

No. For a valid judicial decision in UYAP, a lifting decision must first be obtained from the competent court or prosecutor’s office; then it must be checked that the decision has been entered in the system and in law enforcement units.

Can a new CCF application be made by e-mail in 2026?

Since March 26, 2026, the rule is the secure online portal. The exceptions in the CCF Working Rules and the notifications concerning ongoing older files are additionally taken into account.

Is the restriction code lifted when the INTERPOL record is deleted?

No. The restriction code is a national administrative record. If it rests solely on the deleted INTERPOL data, removal or re-evaluation may be requested on the basis of the CCF decision; in case of rejection, the administrative judicial route comes into play.

Does an entry ban end automatically?

No. An entry ban is a separate administrative act. The CCF decision may weaken or eliminate the basis of the ban; however, a lifting decision from the competent authority or court review is required.

Is an old record in GöçNet deleted entirely?

Not every old piece of data may be physically deleted; the administration may have an obligation to retain its record of procedures. However, incorrect or outdated data must be corrected, new decisions must be entered in the file, and the old record must not be used as an active risk.

Can all security records be deleted with a KVKK application?

No. The KVKK has exemptions in the areas of criminal investigation, trial, national security and public security. In addition, a valid judicial or administrative decision cannot be annulled merely by an application to the data controller.

Does a CCF deletion decision remove the SIS record?

No. SIS is a separate European system. A request for access, correction or deletion must be pursued under applicable EU and national law, in particular before the Schengen state that entered the alert.

Will my bank account automatically be reopened after the CCF decision?

No. The bank carries out its own legislative and risk assessment. However, on the basis of the CCF decision, the lifting of the national warrant and identity verification documents, correction of incorrect or old data and human review may be requested.

Can I travel immediately after the records are corrected?

It should not be assumed safe automatically. The source country’s arrest warrant, transit and destination country records, the SIS alert, the entry ban and the updates in subsidiary databases must be checked separately before travel.

Is it enough to send the CCF decision to all institutions with the same petition?

No. The data held, the authority and the legal basis of each institution are different. The request must be prepared specifically for the relevant record and the competent authority.

Conclusion

The deletion of INTERPOL data by the CCF is a strong and important outcome for the person’s record in the international police data system. However, the national arrest warrant, the criminal file, UYAP and law enforcement records, the extradition process, the restriction code, the entry ban, GöçNet, SIS and private sector databases may have independent legal bases.

For this reason, effective work should be directed at three separate objectives:

• Lifting of the source decision: Ending the national arrest, extradition, restriction or entry ban decision before the competent authority.
• Updating technical records: Entering the decision correctly into subsidiary databases and into law enforcement, border and immigration systems.
• Eliminating actual effects: Preventing old data from producing procedures in visa, residence, travel, banking and other areas.

The effect of the CCF decision becomes stronger once the connection between its grounds and the cause element of the national record is established. Instead of a general “record deletion” request, for each piece of data its source, competent authority, legal basis, application time limit and verification method should be determined.

Final legal conclusion: Being deleted from the INTERPOL system is not the same as being deleted from all systems. The real outcome is achieved by lifting the underlying decision, entering the update into all national and regional records, and verifying that the old data does not produce a new arrest, rejection or border procedure.

Confidentiality and legal notice

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used only for legal assessment and service purposes; they are protected under attorney professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data.

This article is intended as general legal information. It does not constitute a legal opinion or a guarantee of outcome without review of the documents of the specific file, the scope of the CCF decision, the types of records, the source country, the person’s status, the authority applied to and the current legislation.

Sources and legal bases

INTERPOL and CCF official sources

• INTERPOL — Red Notices: The purpose of the Red Notice and that it is not an international arrest warrant.
• INTERPOL — About Notices: Types of notices and diffusions.
• INTERPOL — Compliance and Review: Prior and ongoing compliance review of notices and diffusions.
• INTERPOL Constitution: The human rights framework and the prohibition of political, military, religious and racial activity.
• Rules on the Processing of Data: INTERPOL rules on data processing, correction, currency and deletion.
• Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files: The CCF’s duties, powers and decision-making framework.
• CCF — How to Submit a Request: The secure portal procedure for access, correction/deletion and review requests.

Official sources and judicial decisions of Türkiye

• Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye: Private life and protection of personal data, the right to legal remedies and the right to petition.
• Constitutional Court, Fatih Saraman [Plenary Assembly], Application No: 2014/7256, February 27, 2019: Plenary Assembly decision holding that retaining the law enforcement data of persons who were acquitted or whose file was closed is a rights violation.
• Constitutional Court, Samira Alakbarova, Application No: 2018/19302, February 22, 2022: Judicial review and personal liberty in arrests based on a Red Notice.
• Council of State 10th Chamber case law (E. 2021/4120, K. 2022/1845): Annulment of G-87 and N-82 restriction codes not based on concrete information/documents and decisions on a stay of execution under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law.
• Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data: The rights of the data subject, application to the data controller, complaint to the Board and exemptions.
• Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection: Entry ban, residence, deportation, administrative detention and international protection procedures.
• Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577: Annulment action, administrative application, time limits and stay of execution.
• Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The extradition and provisional arrest process.
• Law No. 5352 on Judicial Records: The separate legal regime of judicial record and archive records.
• Law No. 3071 on the Exercise of the Right to Petition: The right to petition administrative authorities.
• Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information: The procedure for obtaining information and its limitations.

Decisions of the European Union and international courts

• CJEU Grand Chamber, WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑505/19, May 12, 2021: The relationship between the Red Notice, provisional arrest, ne bis in idem and data processing.
• ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, June 4, 2024: Review of provisional detention and the extradition process based on a Red Notice with respect to personal liberty.
• ECtHR, Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, October 6, 2022: The risk of ill-treatment on extradition and review of detention for the purpose of extradition.

---