Practices of extraterritorialisation have become cornerstones of the European Union member states' border control. Most of them are highly dependent on the willingness of third countries to cooperate. An increasingly important phenomenon is that cooperation is secured through relationships established by administrative authorities. This article deals with the challenges arising from the active engagement of Frontex in setting up cooperation structures.It is argued that the so-called working arrangements concluded between Frontex and the respective authorities of third countries, in their current form, show considerable deficiencies from the perspectives of the rule of law, democracy and human rights protection. They are not open to judicial review, the Parliament is not involved in their conclusion and they are not disclosed to the public. Furthermore, the human rights record of cooperating authorities is not considered. Concerns in this respect are frequently attempted to be dispelled by recourse to the 'technical' as opposed to 'political' nature of working arrangements. Likewise, it is assumed that merely 'technical relationships' cannot affect individuals. These arguments are not convincing. Quite the contrary, the political implications of working arrangements and their operation in a highly human rights sensitive field demand conformity with the fundamental values the European Union is based on.

Frontex has become one of the major players in European external border management. As its powers and resources have increased, so have the challenges surrounding its compliance with fundamental rights. A major concern continues to be how to ensure legal accountability for fundamental rights violations that occur in the context of its activities. While Member States can be held accountable before their own national courts and before international courts, neither of these options are available in relation to Frontex. But it can be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union to account for the conformity of its conduct with EU law. This Article explores the potential of the EU action for damages to offer a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by Frontex. It identifies where public liability law falls short of providing a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by EU bodies, explores the possibilities to close that gap, and assesses the implications this has for Frontex’s liability. The Article argues that the action for damages may be the means to close the accountability gap in the specific case of Frontex, but also more generally in circumstances where EU administration is delivered in the form of informal or factual conduct. If it is to fulfill that role, the CJEU would have to lower the threshold for EU liability where fundamental rights are concerned.

The Global Europe Book Series: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU's External Action Series is a peer-reviewed book series that explores the legal and policy issues pertaining to the EU's global actorness. The editors of the book series welcome edited volumes as well as monographs exploring the EU's identity as an international actor. The coverage extends to submissions identifying the internal and external factors that may challenge the EU's capacity to exercise value-based global leadership on crucial issues affecting European citizens as well as those from other parts of the world; critically reflecting on whether the external projection of the EU as a virtuous normative power comports with its practice on the ground as well as addressing the descriptive, normative and conceptual challenges that complement the ever-expanding global

No abstract