Financial Scrutiny of Frontex as a Political Accountability Tool

An investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on allegations of misconduct within Frontex ended with a report classified as confidential, which was therefore only accessible to the agency’s Management Board. Shortly after submission of the report, Frontex’ Executive Director (ED), Fabrice Leggeri, resigned, opening up a new cycle in the governance of the agency. Following up on this, the European Parliament (EP) decided to postpone the discharge of Frontex’ budget on the ground of lacking information with regard to the subject of the OLAF report. In this contribution, I argue that the EP’s refusal to approve the discharge of the budget of Frontex, even though having little impact on the financial stability of the agency, is a tool to enable the political accountability of Frontex.

European Oversight on Frontex

The scandals about the complicity of Frontex in human rights violations in autumn 2020 exposed weaknesses in the accountability system. In this blog, I will elaborate on this by presenting the rules governing democratic accountability, followed by an analysis of the lessons learned during the parliamentary inquiry on Frontex’ human rights-related performances, in the light of their obligations. I will conclude with ideas on how to strengthen democratic accountability, and how to expand it to the much-needed public accountability of Frontex. 

Frontex and Migrants‹ Access to Justice

While possibly marking a step in the right direction towards more political accountability, the controversial resignation of Frontex’s former Executive Director, Fabrice Leggeri, leaves open the question about the effective judicial protection for migrants interacting with the agency. A number of judicial actions are brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as the only competent tribunal with jurisdiction on Frontex. By critically reviewing these judicial actions from the perspective of migrants’ access to justice, this post aims to flag the limits of the existing system of EU judicial remedies in light of Frontex wrongdoings. Beyond access to a court, access to justice vis-à-vis EU migration agencies must integrate elements of good governance, such as transparency and accountability.

What Monitoring for Fundamental Rights at EU Borders?

The legal and structural problem of fundamental rights protection and its monitoring at the EU’s external borders in the context of border police operations is high on the EU political and legislative agenda at the moment. In this blog I argue that a truly independent system for monitoring human rights compliance at EU borders must be established which is the responsibility of state bodies, building on existing entities such as Ombudspersons, National Human Rights Institutions, National Preventive Mechanisms. The border monitoring activities must be coordinated across Member States and the competent monitoring bodies must have access to their sister bodies in relevant third countries.

What’s in a Name?

The available non-judicial forms of accountability are insufficient to ensure the accountability of the agency. Neither their combination nor the respective parts can constitute effective non-judicial remedy in the meaning of Article 13 of the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, while their pre-emptive functionality is not deemed adequate to prevent violations. Therefore, the need for legal accountability in the form of judicial remedies becomes all the more essential.

Hybrid EU External Border Management

The recent resignation of the Executive Director of Frontex disguises in fact the many structural problems and flaws resulting from the hybrid exercise of significant executive powers within a shallow legal framework. This blogpost argues that this leads to a lack of clarity, adequate controls and safeguards which in turn creates fertile ground for abuse of power and unaccountability.

Facing Up: Impact-Motivated Research Endangers not only Truth, but also Justice

All (but one) responses to my reflections on the ethics of activism as scholars in this blog symposium have been thoughtful, engaged, and charitable. For them, I am very grateful. If my rule-consequentialist worries have any truth to them, we should worry more rather than less about having the relevant motivation I castigate. When the moral stakes are higher (such as in vast areas of the Global South), one has to be even more careful about not making moral mistakes. The debate is not about whether one should be moral (by definition, we should be). It is about what is the most effective means in which the constitutional studies academy can contribute to a more just world. 

Frontex and the Rule of Law Crisis at EU External Borders

The resignation of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (hereinafter: Frontex or Agency) at the end of April 2022 re-opened Pandora’s box with regard to the adequacy of the accountability mechanisms on the Agency. The turmoil was caused by several allegations of breaches of the law, which seems to be confirmed by the OLAF report, leaked at the end of July 2022. The aim of this blogpost is, first, to discuss the emergence of a rule of law crisis in border management and, second, to lay a finger on issues regarding both internal and external oversight mechanisms over Frontex, with special attention for the composition of the Management Board, the very first oversight body within the Agency.

An ›Impossible Trinity‹?

In international macroeconomics, the term ‘Impossible Trinity’ refers to three elements, which are impossible to coexist. In this Verfassungsblog series, we examine whether the EU’s external border policy, Frontex and the rule of law constitute such an ‘Impossible Trinity’, or whether they can be reconciled with appropriate accountability mechanisms.