Abstract
This contribution examines the impact of two trends in the external dimension of the EU’s migration and asylum policies on the judicial protection of individuals: informalisation on the one hand and operationalisation on the other. The first is exemplified by the EU-Turkey Statement, known as the EU-Turkey deal, and the second by the operational cooperation the EU agency Frontex carries out in joint operations with and on the territory of third states. While the legal nature of the practices under scrutiny is quite different, their examination demonstrates that both trends pose significant challenges to individuals whose rights have been violated to have access to EU courts in search of a remedy. The underlying reason for these challenges is the fact that the system of remedies set up by the Treaties has not been revised to correspond to EU’s ever-expanding toolbox of instruments and activities, which by now go beyond those enshrined in the Treaties. The result is that this gap in judicial protection leaves a particularly vulnerable group of people, namely irregular migrants, exposed to human rights violations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Council of the European Union 2016.
- 2.
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 [in the following ‘EBCG Regulation’], OJ L295/1, Article 74.
- 3.
Both in academic writing and the media. See Smeets and Beach 2020; Gürkan and Coman 2021; Gatti and Ott 2018, pp. 180–182 and 195–197; Idriz 2018, pp. 65–67; Pop V (2015) EU’s Timmermans Talks About Expectations of Turkey-EU Pact. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-RTBB-5249. Accessed 24 June 2021.
- 4.
See point 1 in Council of the European Union 2016.
- 5.
Ibid.
- 6.
Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection [In the following ‘ADP’], OJ L180/60.
- 7.
See point 2 in Council of the European Union 2016.
- 8.
Ibid., point 3.
- 9.
Ibid., points 5–8.
- 10.
- 11.
Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation [in the following ‘EUTRA’], OJ L 134/3. The initial deadline set for the implementation of the entire EUTRA was 1 October 2017, but this deadline was changed to the earlier date of 1 June 2016 in a meeting of EU Heads of State and Government with Turkey that took place on 29 November 2015. See point 5 in Council of the European Union 2015. However, Turkey did not take the necessary steps to meet this earlier deadline. According to the progress reports of the European Commission, it refused to implement the provisions on the readmission of third country nationals after the October 2017 deadline too on the ground that the EU failed to fulfil its corresponding promise on visa liberalisation. See European Commission 2018, p. 46; and European Commission 2020, p. 49.
- 12.
See Amnesty International 2017; Legal Centre Lesbos 2018; Oxfam and GCR 2019; and International Rescue Committee 2020. Wemove Europe and Oxfam International requested the Commission open infringement proceedings against Greece for not complying with its obligations to respect fundamental rights under EU law. For a detailed analysis of the different types of human rights violations, see De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek 2020.
- 13.
Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, OJ L180/60.
- 14.
European Commission 2015.
- 15.
This decision was taken in a meeting of EU Heads of State and Government with Turkey that took place on 29 November 2015. See point 5 in European Council 2015.
- 16.
Tukey’s failure to take the necessary steps for the earlier entry into force of the provisions of EUTRA on the readmission of the third country nationals was a response to the EU’s failure to take the promised steps on visa liberalisation. See Öztürk and Soykan 2019, p. 2. See also European Commission 2018, p. 46; and European Commission 2020, p. 49.
- 17.
European Commission 2016.
- 18.
Reuters (2018) Turkey suspends migrants' readmission deal with Greece: Anadolu. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-greece-idUSKCN1J31OO. Accessed 11 February 2021; Euractiv (2019) Turkey suspends deal with the EU on migrant readmission. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/turkey-suspends-deal-with-the-eu-on-migrant-readmission/. Accessed 11 February 2021. Since readmissions by Turkey continued after the suspension of the Readmission Protocol with Greece, the assumption is that they were made possible by relying on the relevant provisions of EUTRA. Interestingly, readmissions continued also after the vague announcement on the suspension of EUTRA. The legal basis of readmissions after that point is not very clear.
- 19.
The exact number of deportations to Turkey can be tracked via the website of Deportation: Monitoring Aegean (2021) https://dm-aegean.bordermonitoring.eu/category/monthly-update/. Accessed 11 February 2021; Euractive (2020) Turkey shuts borders with Greece and Bulgaria amid Corona virus fears. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/turkey-shuts-borders-with-greece-and-bulgaria-amid-coronavirus-fear/. Accessed 11 February 2021.
- 20.
Greek Law 4375/2016 on the organization and operation of the Asylum Service, the Appeals Authority, the Reception and Identification Service, the establishment of the General Secretariat for Reception, the transposition into Greek legislation of the provisions of Directive 2013/32/EC, Gazette 51/A/3-4-2016.
- 21.
ECRE 2016, p. 118.
- 22.
- 23.
ECRE 2016, p. 58.
- 24.
ECRE 2016, p. 60. For the specific deadlines provided for the different parts of the procedure, see Article 60(4)(c)–(e) of Law 4375/2016 (above n 19). For example, under the procedure applicants are given one day to prepare for their interview and five days to submit their appeal to a negative decision.
- 25.
Greek Law 4636/2019 on international protection and other provisions, Gazette 169/A/1-11-2019. See also ECRE Update 2019, pp. 89 and 92.
- 26.
Article 60(4)(f) of Law 4375/2016 (above n 20). The provision refers to Articles 8–11 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ L 180/31. Vulnerable groups were listed in Article 14(8) of Law 4375/2016 (above n 20).
- 27.
European Commission 2015, p. 6; The ‘hotspot approach’ was endorsed by the European Council of 25–26 June 2015.
- 28.
The ‘hotspots’ in Greece were created by Joint Ministerial Decision 2969/2015 issued in December 2015 as First Reception Centres on the Eastern Aegean islands of Lesvos, Kos, Chios, Samos and Leros, Gazette 2602/Β/2-12-2015.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
EU Observer (2016) UNHCR suspends activities on Greek islands. https://euobserver.com/tickers/132775. Accessed 12 February 2021.
- 33.
EU Observer (2016) Aid agencies suspending operations in Greece. https://euobserver.com/migration/132798. Accessed 12 February 2021.
- 34.
CJEC, Case 294/83 Parti écologiste “Les Verts” v European Parliament, Judgment, 23 April 1986, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166, para 23.
- 35.
CJEU, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 3 September 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, para 304.
- 36.
- 37.
CJEU, Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (UPA), Judgment, 25 July 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:197, para 40.
- 38.
Both lower courts and courts of last instance have discretion in deciding whether or not to make a preliminary reference, despite the difference in wording between Article 267(2) and (3) TFEU. It should be noted however, that the discretion enjoyed by the courts of last instance is more limited. See CJEEC, Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, Judgement, 6 October 1982, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, paras 10–14.
- 39.
Past examples to such circumstances are being part of a closed group or being in possession of a graphic trade mark. See respectively, CJEC, Cases 41-44/70 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, Judgment, 12 December 1972, ECLI:EU:C:1971:53; and CJEU, Case C-309/89 Codorníu SA v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 18 May 1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:197.
- 40.
On the legal nature of the deal, see Chap. 11 by Kassoti and Carozzini in this volume. See further Gatti and Ott 2019; Cannizzaro 2017; den Heijer M and Spijkerboer T in: Is the EU-Turkey Refugee and Migration Deal a Treaty? (2016) http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migration-deal.html. Accessed 12 February 2021.
- 41.
CJEU, Case T-192/16 NF v European Council, Order of the General Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:128; CJEU, Case T-193/16 NG v European Council, Order of the General Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:129; CJEU, Case T-257/16 NM v European Council, Order of the General Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:130.
- 42.
CJEU, Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P NF and Others v European Council, Order of the Court, 12 September 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:705.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
Addressees of a legal act have automatic standing in front of the CJEU. Individuals have to fulfil the requirements of the ‘direct and individual concern’ when they want to challenge acts that are not addressed to them. See Article 263(4) TFEU.
- 46.
Human Rights Watch (2016) EU/Greece: First Turkey Deportations Riddled with Abuse. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/19/eu/greece-first-turkey-deportations-riddled-abuse. Accessed 25 June 2021. In line with Article 83 of Law No 4375/16, Part C of the law relating to the transposition of the APD was to enter into force two months after publication of the Law in the Official Gazette, with the exception of Article 60(4) containing the details of the fast-track border procedure, which was to take effect on the date of publication, that is on 3 April 2016.
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
CJEC, C-60/81 International Business Machines Corporation v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 11 November 1981, ECLI:EU:C:1981:263, para 9.
- 49.
Ibid.
- 50.
CJEEC, Case 25-62 Plaumann & Co. v Commission of the European Economic Community, Judgment, 15 July 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17.
- 51.
CJEC, Case C-386/96 P Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 5 May 1988, ECLI:EU:C:1988:193, para 43.
- 52.
EUTRA entered into force on 1 October 2014, except for the reciprocal obligation to readmit third-country nationals, which became applicable on 1 June 2016 (instead of the originally planned date of 1 October 2017).
- 53.
It is possible for Member States to be held liable for the omission of their highest courts to make preliminary references where the interpretation of EU law was not clear and where they should have made preliminary references. For such an example, see CJEU, Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich, Judgment, 30 September 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513. However, while this was a legal battle that a professor in EU law could take on in Köbler, that is not the case for asylum seekers on the islands. Another avenue in cases of consistent non-compliance with EU law would be an infringement proceeding brought by the Commission for failure to fulfil obligations under the Treaties. However, this course of action is also not very likely, as the Commission has a wide discretion in picking the cases it brings in front of the CJEU.
- 54.
Article 263(1) TFEU excludes from judicial review recommendations and opinion of the Council, the Commission and the ECB. Noting there is no such exclusion under Article 267 TFEU, in a recent judgment, the CJEU reviewed a recommendation of the European Banking Authority. For details, see CJEU, Case C-501/18 BT v Balgarska Narodna Banka, Judgment, 25 March 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:249, para 82.
- 55.
FRA 2019, p. 38.
- 56.
Ibid. There is no state-funded legal aid scheme provided at first instance. The law provides only for such a scheme in Appeal Procedures before the Appeals Authority (Article 44(2) Law 4375/2016).
- 57.
Article 60(4)(c) of Law 4375/2016 (above n 20).
- 58.
ECRE Update 2017, p. 52.
- 59.
At the end of 2017 there were four lawyers that were operating on the islands under the state funded legal aid scheme which was launched in September 2017: one on Lesvos, one on Chios, one on Kos and one on Rhodes. See ECRE 2017, p. 75. As of 31 December 2019, that number was five. See ECRE 2019, p. 101.
- 60.
Oxfam and GCR 2019, p. 5.
- 61.
Article 60(4)(e) of Law 4375/2016 (above n 20).
- 62.
ECRE 2019, p. 93.
- 63.
Ibid.
- 64.
ECRE 2019, p. 100.
- 65.
- 66.
ECRE 2019, pp. 68 and 100. According to the ECRE 2019 Report, legal aid may be requested under the general provisions of Greek law (Articles 276 and 276A of the Code of Administrative Procedure), however, there are other obstacles to obtaining such aid, one of them being the language in which the application needs to be made, this being Greek.
- 67.
ECRE 2019, p. 100.
- 68.
ECRE 2019, p. 68.
- 69.
See Article 46(1)(a)(iii) and (5) APD. See also Kaya 2020, p. 95.
- 70.
IPA was adopted in November 2019. See, Law 4636/2019 (IPA), Gazette 69/A/1-11-2019.
- 71.
GCR 2019; UNHCR (2019) UNHCR urges Greece to strengthen safeguards in draft asylum law https://www.unhcr.org/gr/en/13170-unhcr-urges-greece-to-strengthen-safeguards-in-draft-asylum-law.html. Accessed 25 June 2021.
- 72.
See Article 115(2) IPA, and ECRE Update 2019, pp. 100–101.
- 73.
Article 71 IPA.
- 74.
Oxfam and GCR 2019, p. 9.
- 75.
Article 93 IPA.
- 76.
Psarapoulos J (2016) Greek asylum system reaches breaking point. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/03/31/greek-asylum-system-reaches-breaking-point. Accessed 12 February 2021.
- 77.
This was the number of cases overturned between April and June 2016. See Gkliati 2017, p. 213.
- 78.
The reorganization took place with Law 4399/2016, Gazette 117/A/22-6-2016. See also ECRE 2016, p. 41. The Committees were to be composed of two administrative judges and a third member with a degree in Law, Political or Social Sciences or Humanities with a specialization and experience in international protection, human rights or international/ administrative law.
- 79.
NCHR (2016) Public Statement regarding the amendment of the composition of the Independence Appeals Committees. http://nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/prosfuges_metanastes/Dimosia%20dilwsi%20EEDA.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021; also see ECRE 2016, p. 42.
- 80.
- 81.
The decision not to make a preliminary reference was taken by 13 votes to 12. See Decision 2347/2017 of the Greek Council of State.
- 82.
CJEC, Case 166-73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Judgment, 16 January 1974, ECLI:EU:C:1974:3.
- 83.
The Council of State also ruled on the constitutionality of the new Appeals Committees and the involvement of EASO. It declared both constitutional and in line with EU law. For the analysis on the Appeals Committees, see paras 19–26; and for the involvement of EASO, paras 31–34 of Decision 2347/2017.
- 84.
Decision 2347/2017, paras 29–30.
- 85.
Articles 54–56 of Law 4375/2016.
- 86.
Decision 2347/2017, para 44.
- 87.
Decision 2347/2017, para 54.
- 88.
For the respective arguments, see paras 40 and 45–46 of Decision 2347/2017.
- 89.
- 90.
Oxfam International (2020) Rights groups press European Commission to investigate violations of EU law in Greece over treatment of migrants. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/rights-groups-press-european-commission-investigate-violations-eu-law-greece-over. Accessed 3 April 2021.
- 91.
Rijpma 2017, p. 572.
- 92.
See already Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L349/1, Article 14.
- 93.
Coman-Kund 2018, pp. 184–191.
- 94.
EBCG Regulation, Article 74.
- 95.
Frontex (2019) Frontex launches first operation in Western Balkans. https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-launches-first-operation-in-western-balkans-znTNWM. Accessed 25 June 2021.
- 96.
See in particular the joint investigation conducted by Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD, and TV Asahi: Bellingcat (2020) Frontex at Fault: European Border Force Complicit in “Illegal” Pushbacks. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/10/23/frontex-at-fault-european-border-force-complicit-in-illegal-pushbacks/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
- 97.
Compare Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC OJ L251/1, Article 54(3) [no longer in force] with EBCG Regulation, Article 74(1).
- 98.
EBCG Regulation, Article 74(1), Annex I.
- 99.
Ibid., Article 73(3).
- 100.
Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Albania, 28 February 2019, OJ L46/3 [in the following ‘Status Agreement EU-Albania’]; Status Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro, 3 June 2020, OJ L173/3 [in the following ‘Status Agreement EU-Montenegro’]; Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Serbia, 25 June 2020, OJ L202/3 [in the following ‘Status Agreement EU-Serbia’].
- 101.
Status Agreement EU-Albania, Article 4(1); Status Agreement EU-Montenegro, Article 5(1); Status Agreement EU-Serbia, Article 5(1).
- 102.
Status Agreement EU-Albania, Article 4(5–6); Status Agreement EU-Montenegro, Article 5(5–6); Status Agreement EU-Serbia, Article 5(5–6).
- 103.
EBCG Regulation, Article 74(3) in conjunction with Article 38(3).
- 104.
Ibid., Article 74(3) in conjunction with Articles 43(1–2), 46.
- 105.
Status Agreement EU-Albania, Article 4(3); Status Agreement EU-Montenegro, Article 5(3); Status Agreement EU-Serbia, Article 5(3).
- 106.
- 107.
Rijpma and Fink forthcoming, Section 3.5.
- 108.
Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L77/1.
- 109.
Hofmann et al. 2011, Chapter 20.
- 110.
TFEU, Article 263.
- 111.
For detail on the complex and often inconsistent use of the terms ‘legal effects’ and ‘legally binding’ in the definition of the ‘reviewable act’, see Rademacher 2014, pp. 8–76.
- 112.
This is very clearly stated in CJEU, Case T-458/17 Harry Shindler and Others v Council, Judgment of the General Court, 26 November 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:838, paras 39–41; confirmed in CJEU, Case C‑755/18 P Shindler and Others v Council, Order of the Court, 19 March 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:221, paras 36–37; Rademacher 2014, pp. 48–49.
- 113.
CJEC, C-60/81 International Business Machines Corporation v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 11 November 1981, ECLI:EU:C:1981:263, para 9; CJEU, Case C-362/08 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission, Judgment, 26 January 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:40, para 51.
- 114.
CJEU, Joined Cases C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P Deutsche Post AG and Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Judgment, 13 October 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:656, para 38.
- 115.
CJEEC, Case 25-62 Plaumann & Co. v Commission of the European Economic Community, Judgment, 15 July 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, 107; CJEU, Joined Cases C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P Deutsche Post AG and Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Judgment, 13 October 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:656, para 71.
- 116.
CJEU, Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Judgment, 3 October 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625, para 60.
- 117.
CJEU, Case C-274/12 P Telefónica SA v European Commission, Judgment, 19 December 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:852, para 35; CJEU, C-456/13 P T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission, Judgment, 28 April 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:284, paras 40–41.
- 118.
CJEC, Case C-386/96 P Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 5 May 1988, ECI:EU:C:1988:193, para 43; CJEU, Case T-458/17 Harry Shindler and Others v Council, Judgment of the General Court, 26 November 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:838, para 33.
- 119.
EBCG Regulation, Article 38(3)(d).
- 120.
See also Lehnert 2014, pp. 339–340.
- 121.
CJEU, C-456/13 P T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission, Judgment, 28 April 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:284, paras 43–50.
- 122.
CJEU, Case C-501/18 BT v Balgarska Narodna Banka, Judgment, 25 March 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:249, para 82; see already CJEU, Case C-16/16 P Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission, Judgment, 20 February 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:79, para 44.
- 123.
Also suggesting this in relation to Operational Plans, see Lehnert 2014, p. 287.
- 124.
Emphasis added.
- 125.
For a detailed analysis of the legal effects and reviewability of physical acts, see Xanthoulis 2019.
- 126.
See ibid., pp. 63–65; Rademacher 2017; CJEC, Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie BV and AKZO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 24 June 1986, ECLI:EU:C:1986:256, para 17.
- 127.
TFEU, Article 340(2).
- 128.
One of the first clear statements is in CJEC, Case 4/69 Alfons Lütticke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 28 April 1971, ECLI:EU:C:1971:40, para 10.
- 129.
CJEU, Case C-352/98 P Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 4 July 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:361, para 42.
- 130.
Ibid., para 43.
- 131.
- 132.
To name just one example for each, see CJEU, Joined Cases C-8 to C-10/15 P Ledra Advertising v European Commission and European Central Bank (ECB), Judgment, 20 September 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:701, para 66; and CJEU, Joined Cases C-138 & C-146/17 P European Union v Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne, Judgment, 13 December 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1013.
- 133.
- 134.
See, for instance, FRA 2020.
- 135.
The way this aspect affects the seriousness of a violation for the purposes of EU public liability law is further developed in Fink 2018, pp. 44–67.
- 136.
This is discussed in depth in Fink 2019, pp. 1240–1244.
- 137.
CJEU, Autosalone Ispra Snc v European Atomic Energy Community, Judgment of the Court of First Instance, 30 November 2005, ECLI:EU:T:2005:432, para 41; CJEU, Case C-146/91 KYDEP v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 15 September 1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:329, para 58.
- 138.
This is discussed in detail in Fink 2020, in particular pp. 544–545.
- 139.
EBCG Regulation, Article 80.
- 140.
- 141.
TFEU, Article 268; CJEU, Case T-277/97 Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors of the European Communities, Judgment of the Court of First Instance, 15 June 1999, ECLI:EU:T:1999:124, para 49.
- 142.
CJEEC, Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, Judgment, 5 February 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, p. 13.
References
Amnesty International (2017) A Blueprint for Despair: Human Rights Impact of the EU-Turkey Deal. https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/2017/02/EU-Turkey-Deal-Briefing.pdf?x87333 Accessed 3 April 2021
Baldwin-Edwards M (2006) Migration between Greece and Turkey: from the “Exchange of Populations” to the non-recognition of borders. Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe 9:115–122
Cannizzaro E (2017) Denialism as the Supreme Expression of Realism: A Quick Comment on NF v. European Council. European Papers 2:251–257
Carlier Y-L, Leboeuf L (2018) Chroniques: Droit européen des migrations [Features: European Migration Law]. Journal de droit européen 3:96–97
Carrera S et al. (2017) It wasn’t me! The Luxembourg Court Orders on the EU-Turkey Deal. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/it-wasnt-me-luxembourg-court-orders-eu-turkey-refugee-deal/. Accessed 3 April 2021
Coman-Kund F (2018) European Union agencies as global actors: A legal study of the European Aviation Safety Agency, FRONTEX and EUROPOL. Routledge, London
Council of the European Union (2015) Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey - EU-Turkey statement. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/29/eu-turkey-meeting-statement/. Accessed 11 February 2021
Council of the European Union (2016) EU Turkey Statement. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/. Accessed 11 February 2021
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (2020) Complaint to the European Commission Concerning Infringements of EU Law by Greece: On Behalf of Wemove Europe and Oxfam International. https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-09/wemove-oxfam-complaint-to-ec-asylum-greece-eu.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
Eckes C (2009) Test Case for the Resilience of the EU’s Constitutional Foundations. European Public Law 15: 351–378
European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European agenda on migration, COM(2015) 240 final
European Commission (2016) Implementing the EU-Turkey Agreement – Questions and Answers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/MEMO_16_1221. Accessed 25 May 2021
European Commission (2018) Turkey 2018 Report, SWD(2018) 15 final. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/20180417-turkey-report.pdf. Accessed 3 April
European Commission (2020) Turkey 2020 Report, SWD(2020) 355 final. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/turkey_report_2020.pdf. Accessed 3 April
European Council (2015) Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey - EU-Turkey statement. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/29/eu-turkey-meeting-statement/. Accessed 11 February 2021
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2016) (Update) Country Report: Greece. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/report-download_aida_gr_2016update.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2017) (Update) Country Report: Greece. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/report-download_aida_gr_2017update.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2019) (Update) Country Report: Greece. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/report-download_aida_gr_2019update.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
Fink M (2018) Frontex and Human Rights: Responsibility in “Multi-Actor Situations” under the ECHR and EU Public Liability Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fink M (2019) EU liability for contributions to Member States’ breaches of EU law. Common Market Law Review 56:1227
Fink M (2020) The Action for Damages as a Fundamental Rights Remedy: Holding Frontex Liable. German Law Journal 21:532
FRA (2019) Update of the 2016 Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on fundamental rights in the ‘hotspots’ set up in Greece and Italy. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-opinion-hotspots-update-03-2019_en.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2021
FRA (2020) Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Gatti M, Ott A (2019) The EU-Turkey statement: legal nature and compatibility with EU institutional law. In: Carrera S et al (eds) Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 175–200
GCR (2019) GCR’s Comments on the draft bill “On International Protection”. https://www.gcr.gr/media/k2/attachments/GCR_on_bill_about_International_Protection_en.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021
Gkliati M (2017) The EU-Turkey Deal and the Safe Third Country Concept before the Greek Asylum Appeals Committees. Movements: Journal for Critical Migration and Border Regime Studies 3:213–224
Guild E, Costello C, Moreno-Lax V (2017) Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, Study for the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2021
Gutman K (2017) The Non-Contractual Liability of the European Union: Principle, Practice and Promise. In: Giliker P (ed) Research Handbook on EU Tort Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 26–62
Gürkan S, Coman R (2021) The EU-Turkey deal in the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’: when intergovernmentalism cast a shadow on the EU’s normative power. Acta Politica 56: 276–305
Hofmann H, Rowe G, Türk A (2011) Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Icduygu A, Aksel D (2014) Two-to-Tango in Migration Diplomacy: Negotiating Readmission Agreement between the EU and Turkey. European Journal of Migration and Law 16:337–363
Idriz N (2017) The EU-Turkey Deal in front of the Court of Justice of the EU: An Unsolicited Amicus Brief. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3080838. Accessed 3 April 2021
Idriz N (2018) The EU-Turkey Statement or the ‘Refugee Deal’: The Extra-legal Deal of Extraordinary Times? In: Siegel D, Nagy V (eds) The migration crisis? Criminalization, security and survival. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 61–84
International Rescue Committee (2020) The Cruelty of Containment: The Mental Health Toll of the EU’s ‘Hotspot’ Approach on the Greek Islands. https://eu.rescue.org/report/cruelty-containment-mental-health-toll-eus-hotspot-approach-greek-islands. Accessed 3 April 2021
Kaya H (2020) The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees: Assessing its Impact on Fundamental Rights. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Kokott J, Sobotta C (2012) The Kadi Case – Constitutional Core Values and International Law – Finding the Balance? European Journal of International Law 23:1015–1024
Legal Centre Lesbos (2018) June 2018 Report on Human Rights Violations in Lesvos. http://legalcentrelesvos.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Legal-Centre-Lesbos-Report-on-Human-Rights-Violations.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
Legal Centre Lesbos (2021) Crimes Against Humanity in the Aegean. http://legalcentrelesvos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Collective-Expulsions-in-the-Aegean-LCL-01.02.2021-1.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
Lehnert M (2014) Frontex und operative Maßnahmen an den europäischen Außengrenzen. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Lenaerts K (2019) The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Refugee Crisis. In: Lenaerts K et al (eds) An Ever-Changing Union. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 3–19
Luyten K, Mentzelopoulou M-M (2018) Hotspots at EU External Borders: State of Play. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/623563/EPRS_BRI(2018)623563_EN.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021
Machnikowski P (2017) European Union. In: Oliphant K (ed) The Liability of Public Authorities in Comparative Perspective. Intersentia Ltd, Cambridge, pp 559-586
Naert F (2013) The International Responsibility of the Union in the Context of its CSDP Operations. In: Evans MD, Koutrakos P (eds) The international responsibility of the European Union: European and international perspectives. Hart Publishing, Oxford
NCHR (2016) Public Statement regarding the amendment of the composition of the Independence Appeals Committees. http://nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/prosfuges_metanastes/Dimosia%20dilwsi%20EEDA.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021
Oxfam, GCR (2019) No Rights Zone. https://www.oxfamfrance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Oxfam-GCR-Briefing-Paper-No-Rights-Zone-.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2021
Öztürk N Ö, Soykan C (2019) Third Anniversary of EU-Turkey Statement: A Legal Analysis. https://tr.boell.org/en/2019/10/03/third-anniversary-eu-turkey-statement-legal-analysis. Accessed 3 April 2021
Rademacher T (2014) Realakte im Rechtsschutzsystem der Europäischen Union [Real acts in the legal protection system of the European Union]. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Rademacher T (2017) Factual Administrative Conduct and Judicial Review in EU Law. European Review of Public Law 29:399
Rijpma J (2017) External Migration and Asylum Management: Accountability for Executive Action Outside EU-territory. European Papers 2:571
Rijpma J J, Fink M (forthcoming) The Management of The European Union’s External Borders. In: De Bruycker P, Tsourdi L (eds) Research Handbook on EU Asylum and Migration Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Sari A, Wessel R (2013) International Responsibility for EU Military Operations: Finding the EU’s Place in the Global Accountability Regime. In: van Vooren B et al. (eds) The EU’s Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smeets S, Beach D (2020) When success is an orphan: informal institutional governance and the EU–Turkey deal. West European Politics 43:129–158
The Greek Ombudsman (2017) Return of Third-Country Nationals – Special Report 2017. https://www.synigoros.gr/resources/docs/2018_-epistrofes_eng_web.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2021
Van Gerven W (2004) Remedies for Infringements of Fundamental Rights. European Public Law 10:261
Ward A (2012) Damages under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. ERA Forum 12:589.
Xanthoulis N (2019) Administrative factual conduct: Legal effects and judicial control in EU law. Review of European Administrative Law 12:39
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fink, M., Idriz, N. (2022). Effective Judicial Protection in the External Dimension of the EU’s Migration and Asylum Policies?. In: Kassoti, E., Idriz, N. (eds) The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum. Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-486-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-487-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)