EU Boots on the Ground and Effective Judicial Protection against Frontex’s Operational Powers in Return: Lessons from Case T‑600/21

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Galina Cornelisse
{"title":"EU Boots on the Ground and Effective Judicial Protection against Frontex’s Operational Powers in Return: Lessons from Case T‑600/21","authors":"Galina Cornelisse","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article comments on Case T-600/21 to highlight the serious shortcomings in direct actions before EU courts against allegations of fundamental rights violations by Frontex. It contributes to existing scholarship on legal accountability failings with regard to operational activities by Frontex for two reasons. First, the contribution argues that Frontex’s operational competences in the area of return are clearly circumscribed, not only by the Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, but also by crucial substantive and procedural safeguards contained in the Return Directive. Secondly, the article proposes a number of changes to current remedies against executive action of Frontex, in particular with regard to evidentiary requirements and the qualification of the EU conduct amenable to review. It argues that Article 47 of Charter, as interpreted by the Court of Justice itself, puts that same court under a clear and unequivocal obligation to adapt its own procedures accordingly in order to protect the very core of the right to effective judicial protection, namely access to courts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article comments on Case T-600/21 to highlight the serious shortcomings in direct actions before EU courts against allegations of fundamental rights violations by Frontex. It contributes to existing scholarship on legal accountability failings with regard to operational activities by Frontex for two reasons. First, the contribution argues that Frontex’s operational competences in the area of return are clearly circumscribed, not only by the Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, but also by crucial substantive and procedural safeguards contained in the Return Directive. Secondly, the article proposes a number of changes to current remedies against executive action of Frontex, in particular with regard to evidentiary requirements and the qualification of the EU conduct amenable to review. It argues that Article 47 of Charter, as interpreted by the Court of Justice itself, puts that same court under a clear and unequivocal obligation to adapt its own procedures accordingly in order to protect the very core of the right to effective judicial protection, namely access to courts.

欧盟的实地武装力量和有效的司法保护,防止 Frontex 的行动权力回流:T-600/21 号案件的教训
本文通过对 T-600/21 号案件的评论,强调了欧盟法院在对 Frontex 侵犯基本权利的指控采取直接行动方面存在的严重缺陷。由于以下两个原因,本文对有关 Frontex 业务活动法律责任缺失的现有学术研究有所贡献。首先,文章认为,Frontex 在回返领域的业务权限不仅受到《欧洲边境和海岸警卫队条例》和《欧盟基本权利宪章》的明确限制,而且还受到《回返指令》中所载的重要实质性和程序性保障措施的明确限制。其次,文章对目前针对 Frontex 行政行为的补救措施提出了一些修改建议,特别是在证据要求和可接受审查的欧盟行为的限定方面。文章认为,根据法院本身对《宪章》第四十七条的解释,法院有明确和毫不含糊的义务相应调整自己的程序,以保护有效司法保护权的核心,即诉诸法院的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信