Study

Who guards the guards?

The legal responsibility of Frontex in the Aegean Sea under EU law
For free

In recent years, Frontex was involved in incidents revealing a severe lack of accountability, respect for human rights and transparency within the agency. The non-profit organization front-LEX uses strategic litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as part of its Rule-of-Law campaign, in order to hold Frontex to account for breaching its obligations under EU Law. We have asked front-LEX for a legal opinion concerning the accountability of Frontex for ongoing violations of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers, committed in relation to its activities in Greek waters. Thereby, we aim at contributing to an informed debate among legal practitioners, civil society and policymakers and we seek to show legal ways forward against the current state of impunity with regard to border violence against people on the move.


This article first appeared here: gr.boell.org

Product details
Date of Publication
November 2023
Publisher
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Thessaloniki
Number of Pages
40
Licence
Language of publication
English
ISBN / DOI
978-618-5580-45-2
Table of contents

FOREWORD           4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY            6

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS            8

1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND            9

1.1. The KYSEA Decision            9

1.2. Rapid Border Intervention Aegean            10

1.2.1. Frontex’s involvement            11

2. EVIDENCE            13

3. APPLICABLE LAW            16

3.1. Charter of Fundamental Rights            16

3.2. EBCG Regulation            17

4. AVAILABLE PROCEDURES            18

4.1. Admissibility: actions for failure to act and annulment            19

4.2. 1st Procedure: failure to act            22

4.2.1. Failure to take a decision or adopt a measure            22

4.2.1.1. Violations of fundamental rights            23

4.2.1.2. Related to Frontex’s activity            23

4.2.1.3. Serious or likely to persist            24

4.2.1.4. Incapability of acting in accordance with Art. 46(4)            24

4.2.2. Duty to act            25

4.2.3. Call to act            27

4.2.4. Failure to define position            27

4.3. 2nd Procedure: annulment            28

4.3.1. Frontex acted            29

4.3.2. The act was binding            29

4.3.3. Unlawful act – grounds for annulment            30

4.3.3.1. Infringement of essential procedural requirement 30

4.3.3.2. Infringement of Union law            30

4.4. 3rd Procedure: damages            31

4.4.1. Breach            32

4.4.2. Actual damage            34

4.4.3. Causal link            35

5. STATUS OF FRONT-LEX CASES VS FRONTEX            37

5.1. Case T-282/21            37

5.2. Case T-600/22            38

5.3. Case T-136/22            38

6. STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD            39