The lawyer at Front-lex, a Dutch-based civil society organisation, is accusing judges at the European General Court of demanding excessive evidence from asylum seekers seeking justice for alleged abuses, particularly at the EU’s external borders.
Iftach Cohen, the lawyer representing the organisation, expressed frustration at the hostility towards rare cases brought by victims of human rights violations. He highlighted a specific case involving Frontex, the EU’s border agency, which was taken to court by Front-lex following evidence from Bellingcat, an investigative outlet, showing an alleged pushback of 22 people off the Greek island of Samos in April 2020.
The case involved Syrian national Alaa Hamoudi, who was among those forced back to Turkey during the documented incidents. Despite compelling evidence, including video footage, the judges dismissed the case against Frontex, citing issues with the evidence presented.
Front-lex is now appealing the decision in the hopes that the European Court of Justice will overturn the ruling by the European General Court.
Experts like Dr Joyce De Coninck from Ghent University have criticized the court’s reluctance to assess Frontex’s conduct and its potential violations of fundamental rights. They argue that the court should consider the burden of proof and standards required to prove such cases, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals.
The case highlights broader issues related to accountability and responsibility when it comes to Frontex’s operations and the protection of asylum seekers’ rights at the EU’s external borders.
