Recently published reports and court judgements confirm once again: the illegal practice of pushbacks is deadly and puts the lives of people seeking protection at risk. Nevertheless, there seems to be no move away from this practice. This advocacy blog deals with the legal dimensions but also the role of Frontex in this complex.
In recent years, the European Union's border enforcement strategies have come under intense scrutiny for their treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. This is observed particularly on the frontiers of Greece, where the tragic shipwreck off Pylos in June 2023 resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives, intensifying concerns about the conduct of Greek authorities and the EU's border agency, Frontex.
The Pylos disaster stands as a stark reminder of the perils faced by those seeking refuge, with investigations into the incident unveiling alarming details. An independent investigative report by the Greek Ombudsman's has recommended disciplinary action against 8 coast guard officers for alleged negligence during the shipwreck, highlighting that the vessel was under surveillance for nearly 12 hours before it capsized, with only 104 survivors out of approximately 750 passengers.
But this incident is not isolated. Reports have consistently documented systematic "pushback" operations, where migrants are forcibly returned without due process. In January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Greece for the illegal expulsion of a Turkish asylum seeker, emphasizing the breach of the international non-refoulement principle which dictates that no person should be returned to a country where their “life or freedom would be threatened" on account of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. . The court recognized Greece's practice of pushbacks, noting the unlawful detention and expulsion without assessing the risk upon return.
Frontex's involvement further complicates this narrative. The agency's mandate expanded significantly following the migration crisis of the mid-2010s, leading to increased responsibilities and scrutiny over its operations. Today, Frontex´s primary responsibilities are to support EU member states and Schengen countries in order to protect the union´s external borders, as well as combat transnational crime through border surveillance, migrant return operations, and identity checks. Despite its mandate to ensure European border security, these allegations raise questions about the agency’s adherence to human rights standards. Investigations by the European Court of Auditors and the EU anti-fraud revealed failures in upholding EU principles and protecting these fundamental rights. In one case, a journalist’s request for public access to the opinion of Frontex's Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) was refused, citing the protection of public interest and international relations. This exemplifies the agency’s prioritization of merciless security measures over fundamental human rights at Greece’s land and sea borders. The lack of transparency, accountability, enforcement and independent monitoring systems within Frontex leads to large compliance gaps which, if left unaddressed, will continue to subject asylum seekers to extreme vulnerability at European borders.
The EU's approach to border management, characterized by increased militarization and the deployment of advanced surveillance technologies, has been criticized for prioritizing deterrence over humanitarian considerations. Investigations have revealed that these "smart borders," equipped with artificial intelligence and automated surveillance, facilitate illegal expulsions and undermine fundamental rights, including the right to asylum. That being said, relying on national authorities to report rights violations further dilutes accountability, as these authorities are often also implicated in violations. National authorities in Greece often withhold information on rights violations through denying involvement and underreporting incidents. In this matter, Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) has recorded significant discrepancies between reported cases and documented violations, particularly in Greece. One recent investigation revealed emails advising Frontex personnel not to file reports on pushbacks, raising concerns about the external pressures on reporting. While the source of these instructions remains unclear, evidence suggests national officials play a key role in limiting accountability, allowing human rights abuses to go largely unreported.
The human toll on these policies and behaviour is profound. The Mediterranean remains one of the world's deadliest migration routes, with thousands perishing in pursuit of safety. The Pylos tragedy is no exception, but in clear continuity with a widespread issue of misconduct by and impunity of Greek forces, resulting in frequent fatalities as a result of current border enforcement practices. These developments underscore a wider intentional and coordinated policy of migration deterrence in the EU which have ignited a broader debate about the EU's commitment to human rights in its migration policies. The ECHR's ruling against Greece serves as a critical reminder of the legal and moral obligations to protect those seeking asylum, urging the EU to reconcile its security concerns with the imperative to uphold human dignity and international law.
Ultimately, the EU's current border enforcement strategies reveal a troubling disregard for human rights. The Pylos shipwreck and documented pushback practices highlight systemic issues within border management policies. Addressing these challenges necessitates a fundamental shift towards transparency and accountability from border security agencies such as Frontex, and a genuine commitment to the protection of vulnerable individuals at Europe's borders. As a war of aggression in Ukraine and Israeli operations in Gaza continue to produce serious human rights violations, the inaction of international bodies reveals a deeper truth of the 2020s: The failure to protect fundamental rights is not due to a lack of legal frameworks but rather a deliberate absence of political will. International norms exist, yet their enforcement remains selective, shaped by geopolitical interests rather than universal principles.
Comments