The EU’s top court has revived a Syrian refugee’s claim for damages against Frontex, ruling that the bloc’s General Court did not properly assess evidence in a case alleging an unlawful expulsion from Greece to Turkey during the height of Aegean “pushback” allegations.
In a Grand Chamber judgment delivered in Luxembourg on 18 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) set aside the General Court’s 2023 order dismissing Alaa Hamoudi’s action for non-contractual liability and sent the case back for fresh examination.
Hamoudi says that on 28 April 2020 he was among 22 people, including children, who reached the Greek island of Samos and intended to seek asylum. He alleges police confiscated phones, detained the group, and later forced them onto a life raft which was towed into Turkish waters and left adrift for hours until the Turkish coast guard intervened. Hamoudi has said a Frontex surveillance aircraft flew over the incident.
Frontex is not accused of physically carrying out the expulsion. The claim instead argues that the EU agency, which coordinates and supports member-state border operations, bears responsibility through its role in the relevant operation and its duties under EU law, including fundamental rights safeguards.
Court faulted “manifestly insufficient” approach
The legal dispute concerns an action for damages under Article 268 TFEU, which requires proof of damage, unlawful conduct and a causal link. The General Court dismissed Hamoudi’s case in December 2023, holding that he had not shown, to the requisite standard, that he was present at and involved in the alleged incident and therefore had not established actual damage.
On appeal, the CJEU held that, in exceptional cases, the General Court must use its procedural powers to ensure effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the EU Charter. It said the lower court cannot simply reject claims for lack of evidence when it has the ability to order measures of inquiry—such as requiring production of documents—to resolve uncertainty, or must explain why such steps would be immaterial.
The court also addressed the practical difficulties faced by migrants in obtaining documentation that may sit with authorities or agencies involved in operational coordination. Hamoudi’s appeal argued that relevant material—such as incident reporting and findings by oversight bodies—was not accessible to him. The CJEU noted that the General Court has tools to compel production of documents and information and to hear witnesses, and that these powers must be exercised consistently with the right to an effective remedy.
In the AP account of the ruling, Judge Ben Smulders said the evidence presented was “sufficiently detailed, specific and consistent”, while stressing that the General Court must now re-examine the case and reach a fresh decision.
Hamoudi’s lawyers described the judgment as “historic”, arguing it could affect other claims arising from alleged summary expulsions at the EU’s external borders. In a statement carried by AP, Hamoudi said the decision was an “important step” for people who experienced similar treatment and lacked the ability to challenge it.
Parallel ruling: Syrian family return operation case also reopened
The CJEU’s decision came alongside a second Grand Chamber judgment the same day in WS and Others v Frontex, concerning a 2016 joint return operation coordinated by Frontex after Syrian refugees arrived on the Greek island of Milos and were transferred to Turkey. In that case, the court set aside most of the General Court’s 2023 judgment and also referred the matter back.
The WS judgment focuses on Frontex’s obligations during return operations and the question of causation between alleged breaches of those obligations and the damage claimed.
Wider scrutiny of Frontex operations in Greece
Frontex has faced sustained scrutiny over its role in the Aegean. An internal European Parliament “Frontex Scrutiny Working Group” report in 2021 said it did not find conclusive evidence that Frontex directly carried out pushbacks in the serious incidents examined, but concluded that the agency had failed to address and follow up indications of fundamental-rights violations promptly and effectively.
Separately, a leaked European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) report reported by European media in 2022 alleged that senior figures in Frontex had covered up pushbacks and misled MEPs. Frontex responded publicly that the OLAF report reflected a snapshot of events in 2020 and said it had taken steps following the investigation.
In April 2025, Reuters reported that Frontex was reviewing 12 cases of potential rights violations by Greece, including alleged pushbacks, while Greek authorities continued to deny wrongdoing.
In written comments reported by AP on Thursday, Frontex said the rulings “do not decide who is at fault”, but demonstrate that courts expect close scrutiny where the agency is involved and that fundamental rights must be treated seriously.
