Short answer: No.
As of 12 September 2025, individuals cannot sue INTERPOL for harm caused by a Red Notice, even where the notice is alleged to be politically motivated or abusive.

Despite the increasing number of cases involving misuse of Red Notices, INTERPOL remains immune from proceedings before domestic courts. This position was reaffirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in El Omari v. INTERPOL, which confirmed that INTERPOL benefits from immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (“IOIA”).

As a result, individuals affected by Red Notices have only one avenue of redress: INTERPOL’s internal review mechanism before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (“CCF”).

On 3 February 2022, the Second Circuit issued a landmark judgment in Oussama El Omari v. The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), addressing whether INTERPOL can be held civilly liable in domestic courts.

The case arose after Oussama El Omari, a U.S. citizen, learned that a Red Notice had been issued against him at the request of the United Arab Emirates following a conviction in absentia. El Omari argued that the proceedings were politically motivated. After the CCF declined to delete the notice, he initiated civil proceedings in the Eastern District of New York, alleging:

• Negligent infliction of emotional distress
• Violations of due process under the New York Constitution

The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that INTERPOL is immune under the IOIA. That decision was fully upheld on appeal.

The Three Legal Questions Decided by the Court

1. Is INTERPOL a “Public International Organisation” under the IOIA?

Yes. The Court held that INTERPOL qualifies as a public international organisation, even though it was not created by treaty. Its membership is restricted to official police bodies designated by States, making it an organisation composed of government actors. This satisfied both the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the IOIA.

2. Did INTERPOL Waive Its Immunity?

No. El Omari argued that INTERPOL’s 2008 Headquarters Agreement with France, which includes an arbitration clause, amounted to a waiver of immunity. The Court rejected this claim, finding that:

• The agreement applies only to disputes arising in France
• France and INTERPOL clarified in 2016 that the arbitration clause does not extend to data-processing disputes, including Red Notices

Accordingly, there was no express or implied waiver of immunity.

3. Was Jurisdictional Discovery Required?

No. The Court held that discovery into INTERPOL’s legal status under French law was irrelevant to the immunity analysis. The District Court therefore acted within its discretion in refusing jurisdictional discovery.

What the Judgment Confirms

The ruling confirms that INTERPOL enjoys immunity in the United States equivalent to that of a foreign sovereign, pursuant to Executive Order 12333, as reaffirmed in 1995 and 2009. For individuals challenging abusive or politically motivated Red Notices, domestic litigation is not a viable remedy.

The sole mechanism for relief remains an application to the CCF, which has the authority to review and order the deletion of Red Notices. However, the CCF’s procedures are frequently criticised for limited transparency, restricted access, and lengthy timelines.

The Broader Lesson: Immunity vs Accountability

INTERPOL’s immunity creates a profound imbalance.

• On one hand, immunity is designed to safeguard neutrality and facilitate international police cooperation.
• On the other hand, it effectively blocks accountability when INTERPOL’s systems are misused by States.

The El Omari judgment reinforces a difficult reality: when authoritarian or politically motivated regimes misuse INTERPOL mechanisms, affected individuals are left with no external judicial remedy.

This leads to an unavoidable question: Should INTERPOL’s absolute immunity remain untouchable, or should it be reconsidered to prevent systemic abuse?

Food for thought – and a debate that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. On the one hand, it protects the organisation; on the other, it leaves individuals subject to abusive Red Notices exposed and defenceless. Designed to safeguard neutrality and facilitate cooperation, it in fact impedes accountability in national courts. The El Omari ruling drives home the hard truth that if authoritarian states such as China or Turkey misuse INTERPOL’s systems, victims have virtually no recourse outside the organisation’s own internal process. So the question is unavoidable: should INTERPOL’s absolute immunity be dismantled to prevent abuse, or is this untouchable status the price of global police cooperation? Food for thought…