Advocate General Ćapeta’s Opinion in WS and Others v Frontex before the Grand Chamber: The End of Frontex’s Shielding? Joint Liability of Frontex and Member States in Return Operations

 

Antje Kunst*

* Antje Kunst is an international lawyer and barrister of Garden Court North Chambers, admitted to the Bar of England and Wales, and the Bar of Berlin, advising and representing individuals in a wide range of matters related to fundamental rights within the CFSP and other fields. She has appeared in numerous cases before both the Court of Justice and the General Court, within the Court of Justice of the European Union.  

Photo credit: Asurnipal, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Introduction

On 12 June 2025 Advocate General (AG) Tamara Ćapeta, following a hearing by the CJEU Grand Chamber in February 2025, rendered an important opinion (‘Opinion’) on the appeal of WS and Others v. Frontex,  in Case C-679/23 P against the General Court’s judgment of 6 September 2023.  The General Court’s judgment has been rightly heavily criticised (see for example here, and here). Two authors went as far as stating that the shielding Frontex from meaningful responsibility is not only harmful to victims of fundamental righta breaches committed by Frontex, but that it also undermines the institutional framework of EU agencies and affects the legal credibility of the Court (see here).

The clarity that was lacking in the General Court’s judgment is made up for by the AG, who addressed the issues directly and even offered two possible readings of what the General Court may have intended to find, including that it might have failed to attribute the unlawful conduct to Frontex. (see paras. 60-67 and 84 of the Opinion)

As outlined  here WS and Others v. Frontex involves a Syrian refugee family with four children, who are ethnic Kurds. They arrived on the Greek island of Milos in October 2016 by boat with the intention of claiming asylum. Even though they formally declared their interest in applying for international protection, just six days later, they were deported by flight to Turkey in a joint return operation conducted by Greece and Frontex. Because of the fear of being returned to Syria by the Turkish authorities (para. 59 of the GC’s judgment), the family decided to flee from Turkey to Iraq, where they reside to this day.

The applicants filed a claim for compensation, alleging that Frontex had violated its own obligations under the then-applicable Frontex Regulation (the 2016 Frontex Regulation) and several fundamental rights under the EU Charter during the return operation.

The significance of the case lies in the fact that, for the first time, the Court of Justice examines the joint liability of Frontex and Member States for breaches of fundamental rights arising from joint return operations. There is also an opportunity for the Court to develop its case-law on the causal link between the alleged unlawful conduct of an EU agency -specifically Frontex- and the damage suffered by individuals. This blog post focusses on these two issues.

 

Admissibility of the action

Any credible claim that fundamental rights have been violated deserves access to an effective judicial remedy. In cases like this, that remedy is a compensation claim under Article 340(2) TFEU to make good any damage caused by EU institutions, bodies and agencies.

Despite Frontex’s objections on four grounds, the AG rightly concluded that the claim is admissible (see paras. 42- 55 of the Opinion). This includes the General Court’s failure to assess relevant facts like the existence of a return decision which are arguments of points of law. If the Court of Justice agrees, which is expected, it would set an important precedent, opening the door for similar actions against Frontex to be heard in the future.

 

Frontex has its own obligation to verify under the 2016 Frontex Regulation

The AG makes it clear: Frontex has its own independent obligations under EU law when it takes part in joint return operations. That includes a duty to verify whether a valid return decision exists for each person put on the plane (paras. 68–83 of the Opinion).

Crucially, she stresses that Frontex -like all EU bodies- must uphold fundamental rights while carrying out its tasks. It is a legal obligation under Article 51(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. So, when Article 34(1) of 2016 Frontex Regulation sets out Frontex’s duty, it is simply restating what EU law already requires (para. 72 of the Opinion).

The AG takes a close look at the 2016 Frontex Regulation and shows that Frontex’s responsibilities during return operations are clearly spelled out therein.

First, Article 28 of the Regulation ties Frontex’s operations directly to the 2008 EU Return Directive, which strictly prohibits returning individuals without an enforceable return decision. Second, Article 4(h) of the Regulation sets out the same point. This is supported by consistent case law from the Court of Justice. The idea is simple but crucial: the existence of return decision helps ensure that the return does not violate the principle of non-refoulement.

The AG makes an important -if obvious- point: the 2016 Frontex Regulation clearly intends that joint return operations coordinated or organised by Frontex must only involve individuals who are the subject of individual, enforceable return decisions.

She goes on to conclude that Frontex bears its own responsibility in this process- again an obvious point despite Frontex's consistent denials. By verifying that return decisions exist for everyone on board, Frontex is fulfilling its legal duty to ensure respect for fundamental rights, including the principle of non-refoulement, in the performance of its tasks, as required by Article 34(1) of the 2016 Frontex Regulation.

Consequently, the General Court erred in law that there could not be a causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct of Frontex and the damage suffered ( see para. 83 of the Opinion)

 

Joint and several liability of Frontex and the host Member State?

In paragraphs 84–97 of the Opinion, the AG observes that the General Court may have erred in finding that Frontex and a Member State could not be held jointly and severally liable for the same damage. She clarifies the concept of joint and several liability: when more than one actor contributes to a single harm, each may be held fully liable, and the injured party has the right to claim compensation from any one of them for the entire damage (see para. 85 of the Opinion). The issue of shared liability is a much-debated topic in legal scholarship (e.g., here). Can both Frontex and a Member State be liable for separate breaches of EU law that give rise to a single harm? According to the AG, the answer is yes.

She goes on to clarify that under the EU’s integrated border management system, Member States can be held liable for any action or omission. Frontex, on the other hand, is accountable only for actions or failures that fall within the scope of its assigned tasks under EU law (para. 88 of the Opinion).

She offers an important clarification regarding the Court’s earlier ruling in Kočner v Europol (para. 90 of the Opinion), which concerns joint liability of an EU agency and Member States: that case did not establish a general principle that joint and several liability must be expressly provided for in EU legislation, as it was in Kočner.

In other words, joint and several liability can apply even when not explicitly laid down in legislation. At the same time, she distinguishes Kočner from the present case. In Kočner, it was not possible to attribute the unlawful conduct- namely, the data processing, to Europol or a Member State. By contrast, in the current case, she explains, it is possible to attribute the same omission - failing to ensure a valid return decision - to both Frontex and Greece (para. 91 of the Opinion).

She concludes correctly had either Frontex or the Member State conducted the necessary verification the Syrian family would have been excluded from the joint return operation, assuming there was no return decision. Consequently, responsibility for the damage in this case can be attributed to both, since either one had the capacity to prevent it.

 

Member State’s primary responsibility does not exclude Frontex’s liability

The AG rejected Frontex’s argument that the agency cannot be held liable simply because Member States bear primary responsibility for return procedures under the 2016 Regulation. She emphasizes that this cannot mean Frontex is absolved of liability for failures -here the omission to verify whether a valid return decision existed. She rightly pointed out that accepting such reasoning would effectively shield Frontex from accountability for unlawful actions or omissions during joint return operations. (para. 92 of the Opinion)

Ćapeta reaches this important conclusion: in situations where both Frontex and Member States share obligations in joint return operations, Frontex can be held liable for damage resulting from a breach of those obligations, even if a Member State may also be held liable for the same damage (para. 93 of the Opinion) This position should be adopted by the Court of Justice; otherwise, Frontex will continue to hide behind a Member State to evade liability.

 

Causal link - broken through own decisions?

The AG disagrees with the General Court’s conclusion that the harm suffered by the appellants -their forced relocation to Türkiye, flight to and eventual settlement in Iraq- was the result of their own choices breaking the causal chain, and not any action or omission by Frontex. She finds this correctly to be an error of law.

Regarding factual causality, the AG refers to the ‘but for’ test and to the General Court’s finding that the alleged unlawful conduct being a conditio sine qua non for the damage to arise is not sufficient to establish a causal link.  

The AG is of the view that the ‘but for test’ is fulfilled in the present case on the assumption that there was no return decision: had Frontex fulfilled its duty to verify whether a valid return decision existed, it might have discovered that none was in place. The appellants likely would not have been included in the joint return operation and would not have suffered the alleged damage. (see paras. 103 and 106 of the Opinion).  In this context the AG notes that, from an early stage, the Court’s case law has imposed limits on the ‘but for’ test when assessing liability, particularly by excluding the liability of EU institutions or bodies for damage deemed too remote (so-called legal causality) (para. 109 of the Opinion).

As set out here, in the present case, however, the damage is not too remote: Frontex’s operation constitutes the most proximate and direct cause of the harm suffered by the family.

As the AG explains, a finding of damage of being too remote often comes into play when others, sometimes even the injured party, have contributed to the harm (paras. 110-112 of the Opinion). In such cases, the causal chain may be considered broken, and liability may not attach. The AG refers to past case law where the injured party’s own actions or decisions were seen as breaking the chain of causation, predominantly in market cases where the injured parties were economic operators. But in this case this reasoning must not apply (paras. 114 to 116 of the Opinion).

A Syrian Kurdish family - two parents and their four children - fled Syria at the height of the war. What followed was a serious breach of their fundamental rights, most notably the principle of non-refoulement. As the AG points out, the family was undeniably in a position of vulnerability.

After being returned to Turkey, they eventually made their way to Iraq - a place they considered safer. While that move may have technically been their own decision, it cannot be called a ‘free choice’. As AG Ćapeta puts it, it was a ‘difficult life-choice decision’.

On that basis, the Court of Justice should follow Ćapeta’s reasoning and find that the factual chain of causation was not broken by the appellants’ actions. Without the unlawful omission by Frontex, they would never have been forced to make such a difficult decision in the first place.

 

Conclusion: The Shielding of Frontex Should End

The AG’s Opinion should mark the beginning of the end of Frontex’s shielding from accountability in EU joint return operations. It is now up to the Court of Justice to carry this principled stance forward. Based on the questions raised by the judges during the oral hearing, there is a strong indication that the Court will overturn the General Court’s judgment - though perhaps not entirely.

The Court may well agree with the AG that a final ruling is not yet possible and that the case should be referred back to the General Court for a fuller factual assessment. Nonetheless, a clear and thorough judgment will be essential - not only to guide the outcome of this case, but also to provide legal clarity for similar future cases. What emerges already from the facts presented and the Court’s existing case law is this: the EU judiciary must eventually take the necessary step of establishing Frontex’s non-contractual liability for the unlawful deportation of the family and award appropriate damages.