Frontex and Data Protection

Frontex has become notorious for its multiple fundamental rights violations, including pushbacks. The problem of fundamental rights infringements associated with the Agency has been lasting for years, leading ultimately to the resignation of the Executive Director. What I argue in this post is, first, that the fundamental right to the protection of personal data by Frontex has not yet received sufficient attention by scholars and EU institutions. Second, data protection within the Agency needs to be strengthened to prevent any future new scandals.

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.

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.

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.

Seenotrettung vor dem EuGH

Gegen das Instrument der Hafenstaatkontrolle, mit dem Italien NGO-Schiffe regelmäßig festsetzte, hatten die NGOs Sea-Eye und Sea-Watch 2020 vor italienischen Verwaltungsgerichten geklagt. In den von Sea-Watch betriebenen Verfahren hatte das Regionale Verwaltungsgericht Sizilien dem EuGH zwei Vorabentscheidungsersuchen vorgelegt. Anfang August erging nun das Urteil des EuGH. Der Gerichtshof präzisiert darin die europarechtlichen Vorschriften zur Hafenstaatkontrolle, trägt zur Auslegung der einschlägigen seevölkerrechtlichen Normen bei und grenzt die Verantwortungsbereiche von Flaggen- und Hafenstaaten voneinander ab.

Putinism is Contagious

As Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine continues, EU Member States are contemplating new sanctions, including Schengen visa bans for Russian citizens. The underlying rationale is the WWI ‘enemy alien’ logic, where all Russian civilians are enemy aliens, and must be treated with suspicion. This populist construction of an ‘enemy alien’ is antithetical to the EU’s constitutional core, which also informs its visa and migration law. The populist retributive logic, to us, is a stress-test of the rule of law in the EU. It’s good news that, outside Estonia and Latvia, it seems to be holding strong in other Member States.

In dubio pro libertate?

Auch wenn touristische Reisen in die Europäische Union im Zusammenhang mit den kriegerischen Verbrechen Russlands in der Ukraine wie Nebenschauplatz erscheinen mögen – hier geht es um etwas. Angesichts der schrecklichen Verbrechen der russischen Armee in der Ukraine erscheint das touristische Reisen und das Beharren darauf, dass dieses Recht nicht einzuschränken sei, kaum nachvollziehbar. Rein legalistische Argumentation verdeckt, dass das Recht immer auch ein Instrument zur Durchsetzung politischer Interessen ist.