There has never been a more pertinent time to discuss the accountability and the legal responsibility of Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, for fundamental rights violations. In a... Show moreThere has never been a more pertinent time to discuss the accountability and the legal responsibility of Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, for fundamental rights violations. In a period that hosts the first legal actions vis-à-vis the agency and a series of relevant non-judicial investigations, including by the European Parliament, this dissertation aims to address the main problem underlying these accountability efforts, namely the ‘problem of many hands’. As conceptualised by Dennis Thompson, this problem is where the multiplicity of the actors involved obscures the various responsibilities and creates gaps in accountability.To address it, this work contests the dominant ways of looking at the concepts of responsibility and accountability, and reimagines them for their optimal function.It adopts a holistic approach, taking into account not only judicial, but also other forms of accountability, studying not only EU liability law, but also other legal remedies before the CJEU, the ECtHR, and domestic courts, building bridges between international and EU law, and traveling from the empirical to the conceptual, to the normative, and from there to the applied.It creates the foundations for the accountability of the agency inside and outside courts, within the EU borders and beyond. Show less
This paper looks into the increased capacities, tasks and competences of Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency), brought about by the 2016 legislative reform. We examine whether this... Show moreThis paper looks into the increased capacities, tasks and competences of Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency), brought about by the 2016 legislative reform. We examine whether this development was accompanied by an accountability regime of equal strength. The existing accountability mechanisms are measured against the standards of European Union (EU) primary and secondary law. The paper assesses the political, administrative, professional and social accountability of Frontex, including parliamentary oversight and the newly introduced individual complaints mechanism. The final part of the paper focuses on legal accountability, a strong, yet highly complex, form of accountability. There, we introduce the concept of systemic accountability and investigate possible courses of legal action against Frontex. In sum, Frontex is subject to moderately increased scrutiny under its renewed founding Regulation and to various EU accountability mechanisms of general application. But several procedural and practical hurdles could render legal accountability difficult to achieve in practice. Show less
The interaction of multiple actors if European Border and Coast Guard Operations leads to a nexus of responsibilities, both individual and collective, positive and negative, direct or indirect,... Show moreThe interaction of multiple actors if European Border and Coast Guard Operations leads to a nexus of responsibilities, both individual and collective, positive and negative, direct or indirect, that is hard to disentangle. The connections between the responsibility of member states and that of the agency often lead to a non-singular answer to the question of the one responsible, which is not accommodated by the existing paradigm of legal accountability. Thus, this paper suggests a different approach to accountability, named ‘systemic accountability’, arguing from the perspective of justice, the rule of law, and strategic litigation. Show less
This article discusses the first case law issued on the EU-Turkey deal from April to June 2016, which authoritatively answers the question whether Turkey constitutes a safe third country for... Show moreThis article discusses the first case law issued on the EU-Turkey deal from April to June 2016, which authoritatively answers the question whether Turkey constitutes a safe third country for refugees. In 390 out of 393 decisions, the Greek Asylum Appeals Committees ruled that Safe Third Country (STC) requirements were not fulfilled with respect to Turkey, essentially impeding the application of the EU-Turkey deal. Through empirical research, this article sheds light on the reasoning of the decisions of the Appeals Commit- tees and investigates the impact of the EU-Turkey deal on them. This analysis is highly relevant to society today as it aspires to inform further law, policy, and jurisprudence in the field, especially since it provides access to sources that, due to language and other practical barriers, would remain far from the reach of legal and policy experts. Show less
The article discusses the first case law issued on the EU-Turkey deal that authoritatively answers the question whether Turkey constitutes a safe third country for refugees. In 390 out of 393... Show moreThe article discusses the first case law issued on the EU-Turkey deal that authoritatively answers the question whether Turkey constitutes a safe third country for refugees. In 390 out of 393 decisions, Greek Asylum Appeals Committees ruled that the safe third country requirements are not fulfilled with respect to Turkey, essentially impeding the application of the EU-Turkey deal. The purpose of this article is, on the first level, through empirical research, to shed light on the reasoning of the decisions of the Appeals Committees and investigate the impact of the EU-Turkey agreement upon them. On a second level, it focuses on evaluating from the perspective of effective legal protection the legislative amendment, subsequent to these decisions, which modifies their composition. The analysis is of significant societal relevance, as it aspires to inform further law, policy, and jurisprudence in the field, especially since it provides access to sources that due to language and other practical barriers would remain far from the reach of legal and policy experts. Show less
