As of 12 September 2025, the short answer remains No. An individual cannot sue INTERPOL for harm caused by the publication or circulation of a Red Notice. Despite the increasing number of people claiming that politically motivated or abusive notices have targeted them, INTERPOL is immune from legal proceedings before domestic courts.
The most recent confirmation comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in El Omari v. INTERPOL. The judgment reaffirmed that INTERPOL enjoys immunity from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). This immunity shields INTERPOL from civil liability – even when its systems are alleged to have been misused – leaving only one avenue of redress: the internal review mechanism of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).
The El Omari Case
On 3 February 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered a significant ruling in Oussama El Omari v. The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), a case that tested whether an individual can bring civil action against INTERPOL in domestic courts.
The proceedings arose after Oussama El Omari, a U.S. citizen, discovered that INTERPOL had issued a Red Notice at the request of the United Arab Emirates, following a conviction in absentia, which he maintained was politically motivated. When CCF declined to delete the notice, El Omari commenced proceedings in the Eastern District of New York, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of his due process rights under the New York Constitution. The District Court dismissed the claim for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that INTERPOL is immune under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), a conclusion now affirmed on appeal.
The appeal turned on three issues: first, whether INTERPOL qualifies as a “public international organisation” within the meaning of the IOIA; second, whether INTERPOL had waived its immunity; third, whether the District Court erred in refusing jurisdictional discovery.
1. Is INTERPOL a “public international organisation” under the IOIA?
The Court held that it is. INTERPOL’s membership consists solely of police bodies designated by national governments, meaning it is composed of state actors even though it was not created by treaty. This fits both the plain meaning and the legislative intent of the IOIA.
2. Did INTERPOL waive immunity through its 2008 Headquarters Agreement with France?
El Omari argued that the arbitration clause amounted to a waiver.
The Court rejected this. It ruled that:
- The clause applied only to disputes in France.
- France and INTERPOL clarified in 2016 that the clause does not cover data-processing disputes such as Red Notices, and
- There was no waiver – neither express nor implied.
3. Was jurisdictional discovery improperly denied?
The Court held that discovery into INTERPOL’s status under French law was irrelevant to the immunity analysis, and the District Court acted within its discretion.
Lesson?
INTERPOL’s immunity creates a profound imbalance. It protects the organisation and preserves its neutrality, but it also insulates it from accountability. Individuals targeted through abusive or politically motivated Red Notices – including those issued by states such as China, Russia, UAE, or Turkey – have virtually no external recourse. The El Omari judgment forces an uncomfortable question: Should INTERPOL’s absolute immunity be reconsidered to prevent abuse? Or is this untouchable status simply the price of maintaining global police cooperation?
A difficult, but necessary, debate for the future of international law enforcement.
