For the First Time, a “Pushback” Victim Sues Frontex for Half a Million Euro

UPDATE – 30 March 2024 – front-LEX files Appeal in the Case Hamoudi v. Frontex!

*** Responding to front-LEX’s damages lawsuit, Frontex argued that Alaa Hamoudi’s nose in the visual evidence he provided is dissimilar to how his nose appears in his passport. The Agency refused to hand over to the Court the EU’s own Anti-Fraud Agency (OLAF) report which confirms Hamoudi’s allegations in connection with the incident. ***

In its judgement on Dec 13, 2023, the Court of First Instance adopted Frontex’s position, finding the videos, photos and other forensic evidence submitted to substantiate Hamoudi’s presence in this ‘pushback’ (sourced from a joined forensic investigation including Lighthouse Reports and Bellingcat investigative journalists) to be insufficient to prove that he was one of its victims. Somehow unable to determine ‘his or her’ features, the General Court dismissed the Action – applying an unattainable and incorrect standard of proof.

This judgement forms part of a concerning string of cases in which the CJEU has simply avoided assessing the joint responsibility of Frontex in well-documented ‘pushback’ operations. Given the vast evidence produced in this case, the Court’s judgement leaves open the disturbing question of how asylum seekers can ever prove and seek redress for the fundamental rights violations committed by Frontex at sea.

Now, front-LEX appeals this ruling before the Court of Justice – refugees should have their day in court and enjoy the standard of proof everyone else enjoys. The EU’s “complete system of remedies” should provide legal protection and effective remedy not in theory but in practice!

UPDATE – On 18 December 2025 – International Migrants Day – the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its landmark judgment in Case C-136/24 P, Hamoudi v Frontex. The Court set aside the order under appeal that had rejected Hamoudi’s action for damages against Frontex, filed by Front-LEX in 2022

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU found that the evidence adduced by Hamoudi forms “a body of consistent evidence, constituting prima facie evidence that he was affected by the alleged incident of 28 and 29 April 2020.”

In referring the case back to the General Court, the CJEU found that the first instance erred in law in rejecting Hamoudi’s requests to order Frontex to submit evidence to which it has exclusive access, namely the OLAF report in its entirety, including the annexes thereto, and the Operational Plan for the rapid border intervention in the Aegean Sea in 2020.

The Court of Justice went beyond upholding Hamoudi’s personal pursuit of justice and, for the first time, established that in collective expulsion cases brought against Frontex, tailor-made rules on the method, standard, and burden of proof must apply. The CJEU also established distinct rules on the taking of evidence and on the duty of the General Court to investigate pushback cases in full compliance with the victims’ fundamental rights to a legal remedy and effective judicial protection

These special rules will, from now on, help ensure greater procedural balance between Frontex and its victims before the Court, will benefit all future victims of Frontex’s activities, and will bring to an end the “de facto immunity” from which Frontex has enjoyed for over 20 years of its activity.