EU Court of Justice: Frontex Liable for Fundamental Rights Violations

Luxembourg (dpa) – According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European border protection agency Frontex is liable for violations of fundamental rights during deportations. Under EU law, Frontex is obliged to protect the fundamental rights of asylum seekers during so-called return operations, the judges in Luxembourg ruled. This also includes checking whether return decisions exist for all those affected by such operations.

The General Court of the European Union – a lower instance of the ECJ – must now re-examine a claim for damages brought by a family of Syrian Kurds. The parents and their four children were flown to Turkey only a few days after their arrival on a Greek island as part of a return operation coordinated by Frontex – even though they had stated that they wanted to apply for asylum. Later, out of fear of being deported to Syria, the family fled to Iraq.

Claim for damages dismissed at first instance

The people concerned saw the return operation as an unlawful refoulement and demanded almost 140,000 euros in damages from Frontex. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the family’s claim in 2023. It argued that there was no direct link between possible misconduct by Frontex and the damage claimed.

The ECJ takes the view that the court did not correctly assess the role of the agency in the return operation: it wrongly assumed that Frontex merely provided technical and operational support to the Member States without having to verify whether a return decision existed. The Court also emphasized that possible violations of fundamental rights could not be attributed solely to the Member State – in this case Greece. Frontex could also be held liable.

In addition, the EU court must re-examine a second claim for damages against Frontex. In another decision, the ECJ referred back the case of a Syrian who claims to have been the victim of a pushback. He is demanding 500,000 euros from the border protection agency. His claim had previously been dismissed on the grounds that he had not proven the damage. The Court ruled that the first court in the case should have taken measures to obtain from Frontex all relevant information available to it. (18 December)