Now, it depends on how you translate it. The nice, legalise version on the Europa portal says:
1. Europol, the members of its organs and the Deputy Directors and employees of Europol shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their tasks in accordance with a Protocol setting out the rules to be applied in all Member States.
Which sounds a little over the top, but broadly acceptable. The translation on the wiki is closer to the one I was in discussions about last night, though.
“The officers of the EU police force, Europol, are immune from criminal prosecution should they break the law while carrying out their activities”
The discussions were with a fella who knows a little (not a lot, but a little) about the way the PSNI operate, and he was basically saying how unfair it was that everything the local cops did was done with the knowledge that, should they cross the line a little, they could themselves end up in front of a judge. And how it would be so much better if they could all just go the way of the Euro cops and just be immune while working.
Obviously, I then felt the need to check that out, because blanket immunity falls squarely onto Ed’s List Of Fucking Stupid Ideas. And my investigations didn’t satisfy me enough for comfort, to be honest. In what ways are Europol immune? Which translation is closer to the way the law is interpreted in member states? And who the fuck made it possible that there could be such ambiguity in such an important case?
And they say we should have a constitution written in the same fashion? Balls to that…
The conversation in question may have touched on this story, and may have paraphrased the quote from the USPCA officer (“It is a farcical situation, the law can be used back against the people who are trying to enforce it.”). With the basic sentiment from me that the use of laws to keep a check on those implementing the law are the very best possible use of said laws. But I digress…