The case concerns a number of Syrian refugees who arrived on the Greek island of Milos in 2016. After having been transferred to the island of Leros, they expressed their desire to lodge an application for international protection. However, following a joint return operation carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and Greece, they were transferred to Turkey. From there, they went to Iraq, where they have resided ever since.

In the view of the above-mentioned refugees, if Frontex had not infringed its obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights in the context of the return operation, they would not have been unlawfully returned to Turkey and they would have obtained the international protection to which they were entitled, given their nationality and the situation in Syria at the material time. In particular, Frontex infringed the principle of non-refoulement, the right to asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsion, the rights of the child, the prohibition of degrading treatment, the right to good administration and to an effective remedy.

In its judgment today, the Court stated: "As regards return operations, Frontex’s task is only to provide technical and operational support to the Member States. However, it is the Member States alone that are competent to assess the merits of return decisions and to examine applications for international protection. The refugees in question are therefore incorrect in so far as they claim that, but for Frontex’s alleged failures, they would not have been unlawfully returned to Turkey and would not have suffered the material and non-material damage invoked, since they would have obtained the international protection they desired, given the situation in Syria."

For further information, please read the press release of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the judgment.