Thanks to all who followed the live content!

We take away that Frontex cannot be shielded from any responsibility! The Advocate General will deliver her opinion on the 12th June.

Good idea, we'll get back on this asap! Very glad to hear that you find the content informative.

Eleanor Sharpston is a English barrister who represents, among others, the applicant family that suffered the pushback.

She concludes that the case is about Frontex' own obligation to be a safety net. We know that the procedures have changed and that there are better safeguards in place now. But in this concrete case, should Frontex not be held accountable for damages resulting from its actions?

A judge is suspicious of this, how would this work if the applicants do not even know what is happening to them? To the Court's knowledge, they thought they were brought to Athens. Had they known they would be pushed back, could they have complained immediately?

Can Frontex not be expected to do the bare minimum in protecting the rights of the people? The judges highlight that Frontex' position awfully sounds like "our obligation centres around formalities"...

Frontex answers the question by making several assumptions of other plausible explanations to the scenario, the President of the Court intervenes immediately. This is not a case in abstract, but we speak about this particular family and their story!

The lawyer of Frontex states that, of course, Frontex cannot be sheltered from any liability whatsoever. But the agency has received and seen a list of returnees. At this point, his answer is interrupted by the judge as we have heard that story before...

The judge intervenes - Does the Frontex Regulation not establish that Frontex can - additional to the member states - be held liable. Or can only the member state be held liable for the totality of the operation?

Frontex answers, albeit in complicated and vague terms, there is, compared to the member state's responsibility, a "considerably smaller amount of responsibility" of Frontex.

She points to Article 60 of the Frontex Regulation: In the case of non-contractual liability, the Agency shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its staff in the performance of their duties.

The President asks again: The question here is whether there is an obligation of Frontex to check the EXISTENCE of a return decision, not whether the decision is correct in substance. Should Frontex in its answer avoid this question, they will be stopped immediately. Frontex continues to struggle...

Frontex is clearly struggling to answer the precise question. We admit that it is a hard question to answer - because the answer should clearly be a yes. Frontex has to have fundamental rights on its radar! Have they failed to verify the absolute minimum, they should be held accountable!

The judge asks again: It is very clear that there has been changes to the rules of procedure, but the question is why? Has Frontex not previously argued that there was no need to verify lists submitted by the member states, due to the principle of sincere cooperation between them and the EU?