iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Thanks to all who followed the live content!

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

We take away that Frontex cannot be shielded from any responsibility! The Advocate General will deliver her opinion on the 12th June.

120

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Today's hearing before the Grand Chamber underlined the question of Frontex's obligations before, during and after a return operation. The family’s lawyers emphasised that this is, in fact, a simple question. Attempts by Frontex to complicate and distort the family’s arguments were quickly unmasked.

132

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Good idea, we'll get back on this asap! Very glad to hear that you find the content informative.

020

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The hearing has ended 🚨 we will come back with a comment later.

020

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Eleanor Sharpston is a English barrister who represents, among others, the applicant family that suffered the pushback.

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

She concludes that the case is about Frontex' own obligation to be a safety net. We know that the procedures have changed and that there are better safeguards in place now. But in this concrete case, should Frontex not be held accountable for damages resulting from its actions?

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The President of the Court summarises the discussion in simple words, it is not about abstract questions of joint or shared responsibility, but the individual liability of Frontex for failing its own obligations before, during and after return operations. That's it.

030

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

A judge is suspicious of this, how would this work if the applicants do not even know what is happening to them? To the Court's knowledge, they thought they were brought to Athens. Had they known they would be pushed back, could they have complained immediately?

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex makes the argument that the agency provides a channel for complaints, an immediate link between individuals and the agency.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Can Frontex not be expected to do the bare minimum in protecting the rights of the people? The judges highlight that Frontex' position awfully sounds like "our obligation centres around formalities"...

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex answers the question by making several assumptions of other plausible explanations to the scenario, the President of the Court intervenes immediately. This is not a case in abstract, but we speak about this particular family and their story!

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Relevant question by a judge: Even if Frontex had received a list of people that had not applied for asylum, how likely is it that a family of six, with four kids, would not ask for asylum after all the trouble they went through - and accepts to be returned? Should Frontex not have been suspicious?

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The lawyer of Frontex states that, of course, Frontex cannot be sheltered from any liability whatsoever. But the agency has received and seen a list of returnees. At this point, his answer is interrupted by the judge as we have heard that story before...

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The judge intervenes - Does the Frontex Regulation not establish that Frontex can - additional to the member states - be held liable. Or can only the member state be held liable for the totality of the operation?

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex answers, albeit in complicated and vague terms, there is, compared to the member state's responsibility, a "considerably smaller amount of responsibility" of Frontex.

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Judges ask: Should we accept that the member states have primary responsibility for the return operations, does that mean that Frontex has no obligation at all? Or that they have some sort of individual obligation?

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The judges ask: How did Frontex react to the refusal of Greece to provide a report about this incident? In answering, Frontex refers to the rules rather than to the fact that, in practice, they fully accepted this behavior by the member state.

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

She points to Article 60 of the Frontex Regulation: In the case of non-contractual liability, the Agency shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its staff in the performance of their duties.

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Shared responsibility betw. states and Frontex? Or primary responsibility of the states for damages? Sharpston points out that the law may seem contradictory. However, the provisions on civil liability may refer to breaking a vase rather than damages occuring through fundamental rights violations.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The President asks again: The question here is whether there is an obligation of Frontex to check the EXISTENCE of a return decision, not whether the decision is correct in substance. Should Frontex in its answer avoid this question, they will be stopped immediately. Frontex continues to struggle...

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex is clearly struggling to answer the precise question. We admit that it is a hard question to answer - because the answer should clearly be a yes. Frontex has to have fundamental rights on its radar! Have they failed to verify the absolute minimum, they should be held accountable!

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The President of the Court intervenes: Frontex would admit that there should be no fundamental errors in operation. The essence here is, does Frontex not have the initial obligation to at least verify whether a return decision has been taken? Who is subject of return decisions and who is not?

120

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The judge asks again: It is very clear that there has been changes to the rules of procedure, but the question is why? Has Frontex not previously argued that there was no need to verify lists submitted by the member states, due to the principle of sincere cooperation between them and the EU?

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex answers: There has been a change in system to verify certain aspects such as whether there has been a return decision, whether the returnee is fit to fly, etc.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Another question by a judge: Following this case, has Frontex actually changed its modus operandi regarding return operations and verifying return decisions issued (Context: To the applicant's knowledge, following the case, Frontex started requiring more proof of whether they have the right person).

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

To be precise: To verify whether there actually had been a return decision with regard the applicant family! Frontex only received a "list of persons who had not applied for asylum". In any case, there needs to be some sort of verification whether Frontex actually has the right person on the plane.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Sharpston answers: The General Court, in first instance, made the "legal assumption" that the first instance claim was a challenge to a return decision, which is exclusive competency of the member states. Whereas it was not about that, it was about Frontex obligations in conducting such operations.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Questions by a judge: Looking at whether there had been a return decision preceding the return operation, is that not an issue of fact? Context: Issues of fact and evidence cannot be subject to an appeal before the CJEU.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex states: It was the applicant's own decision to go to Greece, and after having been returned to move on to Iraq. What is disregarded: No one flees from persecution voluntarily!

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex admits: Would be a mistake should Frontex 'look to the ceiling' and find everything to be competency of member states. But in our individual case, Frontex had received a list of people not having applied for asylum./ Fact remains, the applicants did apply, no return decision had been taken.

000

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Frontex argues: Article 4(3) Treaty of the European Union enshrines the principle sincere cooperation. Frontex does not supervise the member states as if they were pupils in a school. We say: The question remains, who supervises Frontex, if not this Court?

100

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

This misrepresents the applicant's claim that Frontex does in fact have legal obligations during operations - not concerning the substance of a return decision - but to at least check whether one has been taken, whether the people on their place are actually to be returned, as this was not the case.

110

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Now Frontex takes the stage: The member states have exclusive competency to assess asylum applications and to issue return decisions. The role of Frontex cannot be of some sort of guardian that ensures that the member states have done their 'homework' properly.

120

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Sharpston: The applicants have never claimed that Frontex has the obligation to check whether a return decision is actually correct, but it should always verify whether a return decision has been taken at all. Simply put: Frontex must check whether the people on its plane are actually returnees.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

An obligation of result, not just of 'nice try': Sharpston highlights that according to its own regulation, Frontex SHALL ENSURE that there is no risk of refoulement when returning people.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

The essence of the case: The Frontex regulation obliges Frontex to operate in a lawful manner. Is is not enough to report afterwards, but where operations go wrong, Frontex MUST intervene.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Sharpston: Frontex has duties before, during and after any operations involved in. Reporting duties are important for the future. Most importantly, Frontex failed its earler substantial obligations. Had they proactively monitored the operation and intervened, the applicants had not suffered damage.

020

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

A clarification of the Court on today's questions are essenstial - for the family to receive justice - but also for many others to be protected from arbitrary returns. Does Frontex have the obligation to verify that a return decision has been issued before returning someone? The applicant's say yes.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Sharpston refers to the EU acquis to highlight that - if everything had gone according to law - the family would have remained in Greece, received proper protection and social support.

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

Barrister Sharpston takes the floor and thanks the Court for referral to the Grand Chamber. The key issues are issues of law, and not of facts: Does Frontex have to verify before a return operation that the people affected are actually to be returned? Or could everyone be on that plane?

010

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

It’s 9am, the hearing before the Grand Chamber of the CJEU is about to start. Today will be about Frontex’ involvement in illegal pushbacks. To be precise, the obligations it has before, during and after removal operations - and most importantly, whether they can be held responsible for violations!

2156

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 31/01/2025

Every week men, women and children fleeing war and violence are illegally deported from Europe's borders. People have been killed, others were attacked or mistreated. We hold the EU accountable and demand an immediate end to these human rights violations at our external borders #Frontex #CJEU

041

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · 31/01/2025

On Tuesday, 4 February at 09:00, the CJEU Grand Chamber will hear a landmark case against Frontex, addressing the crucial question: Can Frontex be held accountable for its role in illegal pushbacks – a practice systematically employed at the EU’s external borders? We will cover the hearing live 🔊

12211