According to the press release of the CJEU of 18 December 2025:

"Mr Alaa Hamoudi, a Syrian national, stated that he was a victim, on 28 and 29 April 2020, of a pushback. He claimed to have been part of a group of 22 people who disembarked on the island of Samos, in Greece, on 28 April 2020, for the purpose of seeking asylum. Once they arrived, the local police nevertheless confiscated their phones and drove them to the beach, where they were forced to re-embark and were returned to sea. The following day, a boat from the Turkish coast guard took those people aboard and relocated them to Türkiye. According to Mr Hamoudi, during that pushback, a surveillance aeroplane operated by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), flew over the scene several times.

In the context of an action before the General Court of the European Union, Mr Hamoudi requested that Frontex be ordered to compensate him for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of that pushback in which Frontex had been involved. Taking the view that the evidence produced by Mr Hamoudi did not demonstrate conclusively that he had been present at the pushback and, accordingly, that he had suffered damage as a result of it, the General Court dismissed his action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, without acting on the requests of Mr Hamoudi seeking an order for Frontex to produce certain documents in its possession capable of supporting that action. Mr Hamoudi then brought an appeal before the Court of Justice.

In its judgment today, the Court of Justice sets aside the order under appeal and refers the case back to the General Court.

The Court of Justice finds that the General Court infringed the Mr Hamoudi’s right to effective judicial protection by not correctly applying the rules on the burden of proof and the taking of evidence in the context of an alleged pushback involving Frontex.

The Court recalls that Frontex, as a component of the European Border and Coast Guard, is legally responsible for activities which it oversees or coordinates. In addition, the Frontex Regulation requires that agency to ensure, during those activities, respect for fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement.

The Court notes that the right to an effective remedy, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, would be illusory if victims of a pushback in a zone in which Frontex was conducting operations were required to demonstrate by way of conclusive proof that that pushback occurred and that they were present at it. At the time of the facts, those victims are in a highly vulnerable position which makes it very difficult for them to collect that evidence, or even makes it impossible for them to do so, which could grant Frontex de facto immunity and jeopardise the effective protection of the fundamental rights of those victims. In addition, Frontex is likely to possess information making it possible to prove the existence of pushbacks given its task of collecting operational data and its obligation to ensure respect for fundamental rights during its operations.

Consequently, the Court finds that the right to effective judicial protection requires an adaptation of the burden of proof such that a person who claims to be a victim of a pushback involving Frontex must produce not conclusive proof but rather prima facie evidence that that pushback occurred and that he or she was present at it. Furthermore, the Court finds that, in the present case, the witness statement of Mr Hamoudi and a press article chronicling the pushback operation of which he claims to have been a victim were sufficiently detailed, specific and consistent to constitute prima facie evidence.

The Court states that, where such prima facie evidence is produced, the General Court is required to investigate the case in order to be able to assess the truth of that pushback and of the applicant’s presence at it. The General Court should therefore have adopted measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry for the purpose of obtaining from Frontex all relevant information at that agency’s disposal, as Mr Hamoudi had requested.

The Court of Justice therefore sets aside the order under appeal and refers the case back to the General Court so that it can issue a fresh ruling taking into account the requirements stemming from the right of potential victims of a pushback to effective judicial protection."