Outcomes We Obtained
Every matter below is anonymised: no client names, no identifying detail, and no document that could be traced back to a person. Where an outcome depended on facts we cannot describe without identifying the client, we state the outcome and omit the reasoning rather than inventing a version of it.
Deletion where a charge followed political activity
A member of the Ukrainian Parliament was accused of bribery by Belarus. The application established that the charge followed the client’s political activity rather than any ordinary-law conduct, and rested on country-conditions material and the procedural history of the case rather than on assertion. The Commission ordered the data deleted.
Ground: Article 3 · Outcome: data deleted · Handled by Dmytro Konovalenko
A commercial dispute pursued through the Organization’s channels
An Austrian businessman was the subject of a request from Russia. The work consisted of showing that what was presented as fraud was in substance a commercial disagreement, and that the Organization’s channels were being used to pursue it. The case against him was dropped.
Ground: Article 3 · Outcome: case dropped · Handled by Dmytro Konovalenko
Removal before an extradition could be opened
A Kenyan entrepreneur faced allegations arising from a business disagreement rather than criminal conduct. A submission made in time led the Commission to remove the notice while the case was still under review, and no extradition proceedings followed.
Ground: Article 3 · Outcome: notice removed during review · Handled by Dmytro Konovalenko
Roughly half of the decisions the Commission has published ended in deletion, and that figure describes a selected sample rather than the odds in any particular file. A matter that looks similar to one of these can fail on evidence that was available in one case and not in another. We say at the assessment stage whether we think a ground can be evidenced, and we say so when we think it cannot.
Your case will not look like any of these
What they have in common is only the method: establish the record first, then argue the ground it actually supports. Our red notice defence practice.
Request a free case assessment