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

"On 9 October 2016, a family of Syrian nationals of Kurdish ethnicity, composed of two parents and their four children, arrived on the Greek island of Milos, where they expressed their wish to lodged an application for international protection. However, only a few days later, that family was transferred to Türkiye, following a joint return operation carried out by Greece and Frontex. Fearing that they would be sent back to Syria by the Turkish authorities, the family then fled to Iraq.

Taking the view that their transfer to Türkiye constituted an unlawful refoulement and that, during that transfer, their fundamental rights were infringed, the family lodged complaints with Frontex, which dismissed them.

The family then applied to the General Court of the European Union to order Frontex to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly caused by the conduct of that agency before, during and after the return operation. The family submit in particular that if Frontex had complied with its obligation to ensure the respect for fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement during that operation, those rights would not have been infringed and the family would not have been returned to Türkiye, but would have obtained international protection in the European Union.

In 2023, the General Court dismissed the action brought by the family on the ground that there was no causal link between the allegedly illegal conduct of Frontex and the damage suffered, without assessing the other conditions for liability. It held that, since Frontex had no competence as regards either the assessment of the merits of return decisions or the examination of applications for international protection, it could not be held liable for any damage connected with the return of those persons to Türkiye.

Ruling on the appeal, the Court largely sets aside the judgment of the General Court and refers the case back to it.

In its judgment, the Court holds, first, that EU law imposes on Frontex a set of obligations intended to ensure respect for fundamental rights in the context of joint return operations. Secondly, it recalls that those operations may concern only those persons who have been the subject of enforceable written return decisions. Therefore, Frontex is required to verify that such decisions exist for all the persons whom a Member State intends to include in joint return operations, in order to ensure that those operations respect the principle of non-refoulement. The Court thus upholds the Syrian family’s appeal, and finds that the General Court erred in considering that Frontex provided only technical and operational support to Member States, without being obliged to verify whether there was a return decision.

Furthermore, the Court held that the General Court also erred in law in finding that any infringements of fundamental rights occurring during a return flight fall within the sole responsibility of the host Member State, to the exclusion of any responsibility on the part of Frontex.

The Court therefore sets aside in large part the judgment under appeal and refers the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment again, taking into account Frontex’s obligations connected with the protection of the fundamental rights of persons included in joint return operations."