Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Not on Our Border Watch

@ourborderwatch.bsky.social

190 followers 77 following 46 posts

No to illegal pushbacks, no to violence, no to impunity. We demand justice, responsibility, and an end to human rights abuses at Europe’s borders. Stop border atrocities by the EU and Frontex! Not on our border watch! www.notonourborderwatch.com

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Jan 31

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 🔊

1 11 22

Reposted by Not on Our Border Watch

Steve Peers @stevepeers.bsky.social · Feb 8

Can Frontex be held accountable for participating in allegedly illegal actions? Arguments at last week's CJEU hearing, summarised by Jan-Hendrik Seelow: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2025/02/hand...
(thanks to @ourborderwatch.bsky.social)

Hands On, Eyes Closed? CJEU Grand Chamber hearing on Frontex’s role in unlawful pushbacks (WS and Others v Frontex, C-679/23 P)

Jan-Hendrik Seelow , Dutch Council for Refugees* *The Dutch Council for Refugees has closely worked with the applicant’s counsel to supp...

eulawanalysis.blogspot.com

19 28

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

Thanks to all who followed the live content!

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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

1 2

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

1 2 3

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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

1 1

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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"...

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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!

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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...

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

1 1

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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.

1 1

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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...

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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!

1 1

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?

1 2

Not on Our Border Watch @ourborderwatch.bsky.social · Feb 4

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?