HIKMA SUMMIT
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

With the creation of the Schengen Area in the 90s, it was obvious that in order to secure its functions, external EU borders should have been secured better than before. For this reason, Frontex (or European Border and Coast Guard Agency) saw an ever growing importance since its creation in 2004 onwards.

The Agency states on its website that its task is to “support EU Member States and Schengen-associated countries in the management of the EU’s external borders and the fight against cross-border crime.” However, “ensuring the protection and respect of fundamental rights” is also included in the competencies of the Agency; over the years few have failed to see the discrepancy between Frontex’s competencies and national border patrols’ actions on the ground.

In fact, from 2015 onwards the assessment and processing of asylum requests increasingly left space to “legalised pushbacks”, which raised serious questions from human rights NGOs on the utility and real function of Frontex.

Let’s start by saying that pushbacks are an illegal practice which consists in denying the rightful asylum request procedure at the border to people on the move. A concrete example is the one brought before the European Court of Justice in 2021 by a Syrian family, which claimed it was put on a flight to Türkiye before their assessment and asylum request procedure was completed in the country of arrival, Greece. Removing (in this case) a family from the country where the asylum request procedure was activated is against both European and International Law. More specifically, it risks being labelled as “refoulement”, which ultimately goes against the Non-Refoulement principle enshrined in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. The latter clearly states that "No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

Back in 2022 OLAF, also known as the Anti-Fraud Agency of the EU, published a report where leaked emails and Frontex personnel interviews confirmed the agency’s lack of law enforcement and shameless negligence when it came to protecting human rights. One example in the report states that in 2020 Frontex authorities would have witnessed the Greek Coast Guard towing “an overcrowded fragile boat” towards open sea putting the life of all the people on board at risk, and how the Agency’s aircraft was “immediately instructed to fly away from the scene by the Hellenic Coastguards Expert.”

Among the many reprehensible episodes over the years, a recent tragedy confirms what the OLAF report had stated in 2022. Back in December 2024 three Egyptian teenage boys died from frigid temperatures on the Bulgarian-Turkish border; a border that is famous for a well documented practice of human rights abuse. The three boys had been geo-located and subsequently emergency calls were made to 112 by human rights activists from the “No Name Kitchen” and “Collettivo Rotte Balcaniche” organisations. When these calls proved to be unsuccessful the activists tried to reach the boys themselves. These attempts were apparently hindered by the Bulgarian Border Police (from now on “BBP”), which apparently also found one of the bodies before the activists did, but decided to leave him there to rot in the snow.
Shouldn't Frontex have been there?

Technically, yes. However, back in September 2024, documents proving that Frontex officers were being intimidated into silence by the BBP were uncovered. Testimonies went as far as stating that multiple EU officers witnessed a crying and pleading Syrian woman being pushed back into Turkish territory by the BBP without a rightful assessment, but were forced into silence. Bulgarian authorities denied these events and violations ever took place or materialised.

“APOLOGIES” AND DISCREPANCIES

These episodes expose how the Agency fears Member States’ reprisals so much that it is willing not to do its job properly. Frontex once justified itself saying that the agency heavily relies on the member states’ assessment of the situations and intervenes only if needed. Yet, that is not really the Agency’s job, is it? This would equal to the police not intervening on a crime scene because the murderer didn’t call them, and pretending this statement makes sense.

Another excuse put forward was that Frontex does not decide on returns or applications, because that is a member state’s competence. That is true, however, again, this is not the point. The point is that there is collected evidence that a €922 million budget goes into an agency that does not follow its own regulations.

It is natural to ask ourselves what this money is really intended for. Especially since the entering into force of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in 2024, which on paper would set up a common European system to manage the influx of people on the move. A plan that looks so foundering when it comes to the guarantee of human rights, that it deserves its own article. One of the pillars, “Secure external Borders”, sees “robust screening” as a dominating voice. This means that “those not fulfilling the conditions to enter the EU will be registered and subject to identification, security and health checks” and sent back [editor’s note]. However, how can anyone be allowed into the EU if screenings are replaced with illegal pushbacks?

The plan goes on to say that a “reinforced cooperation with Frontex” is on the plate.
Conscious that this agency is negligent, subject to Member States’ intimidations and that little has changed since these accusations were made to the Agency, stating that a stronger cooperation is envisaged subtly implies that Brussels is okay with the agency not fulfilling its duties and tolerating violations of human rights.

CONCLUSIONS

If on the one hand the EU claims it is doing its best to safeguard human rights, on the other hand it fails on the practical task of doing so. In order to stay relevant the EU should at least be coherent.

It takes courage to stand by your words, and even more to face the petty reactions of Member States. The message being sent is clear: allowing 16-year-olds to die at our borders (and, while we’re at it, being excluded from discussions about our own security with Trump and Putin) is preferable to facing the consequences of having principles. The same applies to the failure, whether due to inability or unwillingness, to act against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Frontex’s lack of discipline is not an isolated case, it is one of the many symptoms that the Union needs urgent reforms; if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything- and we are now seeing the results.

Links:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jan/27/bulgaria-border-police-block-rescue-egyptian-migrant-boys-freeze-death-human-rights-activists

https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/233972-olaf-final-report-on-frontex/

https://balkaninsight.com/2024/09/06/eu-border-force-officers-intimidated-into-silence-on-migrant-abuse-in-bulgaria/

https://bloodyborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NNK_Frozen-Lives_25-01-20_2.pdf

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/09/06/syrian-refugees-lose-landmark-case-against-frontex-in-eu-general-court