The ruling against the Syrian refugee in his case against Frontex, the EU’s border protection agency, has dealt a significant blow to ongoing efforts to make the agency more transparent and accountable.
The man, along with his wife and four small children, had made a treacherous journey from war-torn Aleppo to Greece in 2016. However, just 11 days after their arrival, they were forcibly deported to Turkey by Frontex, before their asylum application could be processed.
This landmark case was seen as a crucial opportunity to challenge the operations of Frontex in Greece and other countries, in order to ensure greater transparency and accountability for the member states that employ the agency. The ruling by the European court of justice dismisses the Syrian man’s claim, stating that Frontex is not responsible for asylum processes.
According to the court, Frontex lacks the authority to assess return decisions or applications for international protection, absolving the agency of any liability for the damage caused by the deportation of refugees to Turkey.
The man’s case was brought to court by Amsterdam-based law firm Prakken d’Oliveira, with support from various organizations including the Dutch Council for Refugees, the campaign group BKB, Sea-Watch Legal Aid Fund, and Jungle Minds.
They argued that the man had fallen victim to a “pushback” by Greek authorities, and accused Frontex of violating asylum procedure rules and children’s rights by separating the man and his wife from their family during their forced return to Turkey.
The legal team sought compensation on behalf of the man, requesting €96,000 for material damage and €40,000 for non-material damage, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of Frontex throughout the entire return operation. However, it took three years for these organizations to obtain the necessary documentary evidence from Frontex to support their case.
The court ultimately ruled that Frontex’s role is purely to provide technical and operational support to member states, and that it is the member states themselves that possess the authority to assess return decisions and process applications for international protection. This ruling not only hampers efforts to hold Frontex accountable for its actions but also places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of member states, potentially allowing for further human rights violations and lack of transparency in deportation operations.
The implications of this ruling go beyond the specific case of the Syrian refugee and his family. It underscores the pressing need for greater oversight and accountability regarding the actions of Frontex in migration management. Many activists and human rights organizations argue that Frontex’s operations should be subject to more scrutiny to prevent further violations of migrant rights and ensure compliance with international law. Without such accountability mechanisms in place, the challenge of making Frontex transparent and accountable remains an uphill battle.