Keywords
Reglamento 2016/1624 – Frontex – responsabilidad – derechos humanos – sentencia T‐ 600/21., Regulation 2016/1624 – Frontex – liability – human rights – judgement T‐ 600/21.
¿Un gran poder conlleva una gran responsabilidad? El caso de Frontex
Abstract
Este trabajo aborda la cuestión de la responsabilidad de Frontex frente las posibles violaciones de
derechos humanos cometidas en el ejercicio de sus funciones. Una problemática que ha estado presente
desde los inicios de la Agencia, y cuyo debate se ha avivado aún más tras una reciente y desalentadora
sentencia en la que el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea ha desestimado la demanda de
responsabilidad extracontractual interpuesta contra la Agencia por una familia siria que consideró que la
operación de retorno a la que fue sometida en 2016 era ilícita. Según el razonamiento del Tribunal, Frontex
brinda apoyo a los Estados, pero carece de competencias en las cuestiones alegadas y, por tanto, de
responsabilidad. Bajo el controvertido fallo del Tribunal subyace la idea de que, pese a las sucesivas
reformas que ha experimentado la Agencia, y mediante las cuales ha adquirido nuevas funciones, esta no
ha asumido una mayor carga de responsabilidad. Un enfoque problemático que plantea importantes dudas
acerca del futuro de Frontex.
This paper addresses the question of Frontex's liability for possible human rights violations committed in the exercise of its functions. This issue has been present since the Agency's beginnings and continues to be the subject of debate. Thus, the discrepancies on the matter have become even more evident following a recent and discouraging judgment in which the General Court of the European Union has rejected the claim for non–contractual liability brought against the European Border and Coast Guard Agency by a Syrian family who consider that the return operation to which they were subjected in 2016 was unlawful. According to the Court's reasoning, Frontex provides support to states, but lacks competence in the matters alleged and thus liability. And underlying the Court's controversial ruling is the idea that, despite the successive reforms that the Agency has undergone, and through which it has acquired new functions, it has not assumed a greater burden of responsibility. A problematic approach that raises important questions about the future of Frontex.
This paper addresses the question of Frontex's liability for possible human rights violations committed in the exercise of its functions. This issue has been present since the Agency's beginnings and continues to be the subject of debate. Thus, the discrepancies on the matter have become even more evident following a recent and discouraging judgment in which the General Court of the European Union has rejected the claim for non–contractual liability brought against the European Border and Coast Guard Agency by a Syrian family who consider that the return operation to which they were subjected in 2016 was unlawful. According to the Court's reasoning, Frontex provides support to states, but lacks competence in the matters alleged and thus liability. And underlying the Court's controversial ruling is the idea that, despite the successive reforms that the Agency has undergone, and through which it has acquired new functions, it has not assumed a greater burden of responsibility. A problematic approach that raises important questions about the future of Frontex.
Información detallada
Materias, derechos, colecciones e identificadores
URI / Handle
http://hdl.handle.net/11531/98095Rights
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada España