The good, the bad and the ugly : the EU's human rights responsibility gap in focus

Abstract

In its recent decision in ST v Frontex the CJEU missed once again an opportunity to review Frontex’s conduct in light of human rights standards. The decision is the latest in a series of key decisions concerning EU human rights responsibility over the course of the past year, including WS and Others v. Frontex, Hamoudi v. Frontex, Sea Watch v Frontex, as well as Kočner and KS and KD. While these cases concern different legal procedures, different actors and touch on diverse domains of EU law, such as integrated border management (IBM), data protection, and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), a common thread runs through them: all arose from situations in which Member States collaborate inextricably with EU actors, and all concern the ensuing question of the EU’s legal responsibility for its complicity in human rights violations. This contribution explains how some of these cases perpetuate the shortcomings of the EU’s human rights responsibility regime, while others show the Court’s willingness and ability to redress these.