Ordinary appeal vs Article 42 revision
| Question | Ordinary appeal (general concept) | CCF Article 42 revision |
|---|---|---|
| Reason to apply | The earlier decision should be changed on appellate grounds | A newly discovered fact could have changed the CCF decision |
| Scope | Set by the national appellate statute | The CCF's own data-processing mandate |
| Timing | Set by the appellate procedure | Within six months after discovery of the fact |
| How to file | Court filing | CCF online portal, two-page summary first |
| Result | Depends on the court | Depends on the CCF's independent assessment |
The table explains concepts. There is no appeal procedure before the CCF.
Why re-arguing the case may fail
A revised narrative, a new representative or a longer memorandum does not identify a new fact. The first step is to understand which facts were already considered, not to reproduce the earlier submission.
What if a national court decision has changed?
National outcomes may produce new documents and findings. Whether they are material for Article 42 is a separate question. The CCF does not act as an extradition court and does not supervise domestic criminal proceedings.
What if there are no new facts?
A careful review may conclude that revision should not be pursued now. National remedies or human-rights mechanisms may still deserve assessment, but they are not substitute CCF appeals. Protect every separate deadline.
FAQs
Can I ask the CCF to correct a factual error?
The right route depends on the procedural status and the facts. Get case-specific advice before choosing an application type.
Can I file again after appointing a better-known lawyer?
Representation may help organise evidence but does not remove the new-fact requirement.
Can publicity force the CCF to revisit a decision?
No. The CCF is an independent body, and publicity is not a substitute for the procedural requirements.
Independent summary. These institutions do not endorse this service. Check the live official guidance before filing.