The Court of Justice of the European Union has entered uncharted territory this Thursday by issuing for the first time a ruling that holds (Frontex) responsible for a hot return, a practice contrary to international law. The ruling, issued by the Grand Chamber – the most solemn formation of the court – represents a relevant turn, as it is the first time that the highest judicial body of the EU clearly states that Frontex can be legally responsible for the activities it supervises or coordinates. The ruling also opens the door to greater scrutiny of the agency’s operations and reinforces the idea that the EU’s external borders cannot become a space of exception to the rule of law.
The case Hamoudi against Frontex refers to the expulsion of a group of asylum seekers who had arrived on European territory without having been identified or having had access to the asylum procedure, as established by law. The court concludes that Frontex was responsible for this operation, as it was an activity that it supervised or coordinated, and emphasizes that its own regulations require it to guarantee respect for fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement.
The ruling annuls the order previously issued by the General Court of the EU, which had rejected the lawsuit filed by Alaa Hamoudi, a young Syrian refugee who was part of that group. The CJEU considers that this first instance violated the plaintiff’s right to effective judicial protection by not correctly applying the rules on the burden of proof in the context of an alleged return in which Frontex participated.
For Iftach Cohen, litigation director of the front-LEX organization, which represents the plaintiff, the ruling is “historic” because it puts an end to “legal impunity.” in fact which Frontex has enjoyed for the last 20 years,” he told EL PAÍS. “The judges consider that Alaa’s version was detailed, specific, credible and coherent, and that when a victim of Frontex manages to provide such evidence, the General Court is obliged to require Frontex to provide evidence to dispel doubts about the complaints of return.”
Hamoudi thanked the court for being “fair and firm” in its decision. “My lawyers told me that it would be a long and difficult legal battle, and they were right. After four years of process, during which I had to relive my trauma and face the unfair distrust shown by the judges in the first instance, I have finally reached the moment of truth. I expected a positive result from the court. I was very sure of it,” he declared.
Frontex, for its part, has downplayed the significance of the ruling. A spokesperson stressed that, although the court has ruled in favor of Hamoudi, direct damage attributable to the agency’s actions still needs to be demonstrated. In a statement, the institution recognizes the court’s decision and affirms that it will follow the next steps of the procedure “closely.” “It is important to note that today the court has not ruled on the substance of the arguments of either party, which will be up to the General Court [de la UE]. As this is a pending judicial matter, Frontex will not make any further comments on the matter,” the statement continued.
The events examined by the Grand Chamber date back to the spring of 2020. On the morning of April 28, 22 people crossed the Aegean Sea from Turkey and landed on the Greek island of Samos. Among them was Hamoudi, then 20 years old, who was fleeing from . The members of the group asked the island’s residents for help to contact the police and request asylum. They never did it.
According to the plaintiff’s story, they were surrounded by men dressed in black who did not identify themselves and their mobile phones were confiscated. Afterwards, they were forced to board a pneumatic raft without an engine that was towed out to sea. As night fell, they were left adrift until the Turkish coast guard rescued them at dawn the next day, April 29. “We were sinking when they found us,” Hamoudi said. “When they caught us [los hombres de negro]they began to ask us about the person in the group who had transferred us. They told us: ‘If you don’t tell us where it is, we will send you back to Türkiye.’ “Then I knew that my rights were being violated,” he adds in conversation with EL PAÍS.
The case began to make its way into the public sphere thanks to the investigative collective Bellingcat, later the German newspaper The mirror that a Frontex surveillance plane had been flying over the area during the return operation, a key element to question the official version of the agency, which rejects any direct responsibility.
In this and other similar cases, Frontex maintains that it is not ultimately responsible for the operations, because decisions on interceptions, detentions or expulsions correspond to the Member States, and defines its support as strictly technical and operational. This argument has been accepted for years by the General Court and Frontex has, until now, never been convicted or found liable for any hot returns by an EU court.
A systematic practice
However, in the Hamoudi case Suspicions reached the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which concluded that two internal Frontex units—RAU and VAU, in charge of receiving reports of incidents that occurred during operations and analyzing them—considered Bellingcat’s information credible. The document also pointed out returns in the Aegean and pointed to internal mechanisms of omission and cover-up, such as the deliberate displacement of air means to avoid witnessing illegal expulsions. the existence of hot returns in 2020 and described them as “practices of the past.” This was not taken into account by the General Court.
The Greek Government denies these expulsions, but humanitarian organizations and dozens of migrants have repeatedly denounced them in the last decade. , between January 2020 and July 2024, at least 3,109 cases were recorded, affecting around 84,972 people when they tried to reach Europe from Türkiye.
Hamoudi met his legal team in October 2021 in Türkiye, from where he was still trying to find a way to get to Germany to reunite with part of his family. In March 2022 before the General Court. His lawyers provided photographs taken in Samos shortly after the landing and evidence about the pattern of maritime returns from Greece to Türkiye. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the evidence was “manifestly insufficient.”
Hamoudi. The president of the court then adopted an unusual measure: he assigned the case to the Grand Chamber, made up of 15 judges. The hearing, held on February 4, 2025, marked a turning point, as the rapporteur judge openly questioned how Frontex could deny the facts when its own internal bodies and OLAF considered them credible. During the session, the agency’s lawyer acknowledged for the first time that the return had occurred, although he avoided confirming the presence of the surveillance plane.
On April 10, CJEU Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus went a step further by issuing an opinion harshly criticizing the General Court for failing to analyze Frontex’s actual involvement and for setting an excessively high evidentiary bar for the victim. The advocates general are members of the CJEU itself and do not represent any of the parties, which gives their opinions significant institutional weight.
The Court of Justice of the EU has followed this line in its ruling and warns that demanding conclusive evidence from victims of hot returns is equivalent, in practice, to denying them access to justice. At the time of the events, the sentence recalls, these people were in a situation of extreme vulnerability that prevented them from documenting what happened. Maintaining that evidentiary bar would grant Frontex immunity in factdespite the fact that the agency has relevant operational information. For this reason, the court establishes that it is enough to provide reasonable evidence, such as a coherent testimony or a journalistic investigation, to force the judges to investigate and request data from the agency.
The decision does not put an end to the litigation, but it does mark a before and after. The CJEU annuls the appealed order and returns the matter to the General Court, which must issue a new resolution respecting the right to effective judicial protection of possible victims of hot returns.
Hamoudi has followed the process from Germany, where he has obtained subsidiary protection, a residence permit and a job, and was present this Thursday in the courtroom in Luxembourg during the reading of the sentence. “When I arrived in Samos I felt relieved, as if I had left the war behind,” he recalls. The subsequent experience left him with profound consequences: fear of the sea, depression and persistent trauma. “I still hear in my head the voices of the children who were with us.”
The plaintiff assures that he decided to go to European justice not only for himself. “There are thousands of people who have gone through something like this and can’t speak out,” he says. Beyond the judicial outcome, his objective remains the same: “I don’t want anyone to experience what I experienced again.”
