Introduction
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, commonly known as Frontex, is an EU agency tasked with border control of the Schengen Area established in 2004. It acts in coordination with border agencies of member states. Since its creation, Frontex has faced several criticisms from civil society and was subject to investigations over breaching human rights and international law, as well as concealing information from the European Parliament (EP) (Collis, 2021; Nielsen, 2021; Palaiologos, 2021).
The EP has called out Frontex multiple times, asking for improved transparency (Statewatch, 2020). Consequently, the EP has also refused to approve Frontex’s budget on multiple occasions due to concerns over transparency and respect of human rights (Access Info Europe, 2021; Al Jazeera, 2021; ECRE, 2022). Nevertheless, Frontex consistently denies access over the documents it holds (Izuzquiza, 2022). Many NGOs and activists see this lack of transparency as a shield against facing accountability for its involvement and complicity in serious human rights violations (Izuzquiza, 2022).
Most interesting about the agency is its approach towards criticism and demand for accountability by civil society. As will be shown in this article, Frontex has repeatedly chased activists who demanded access to its documents with significant legal fees, something unusual for a public administration body and, arguably, undemocratic. This piece will cover two major instances where Frontex carried out such actions to shed light on the organisation’s intimidatory practices who aim at discouraging transparency efforts.
Case 1
The first case of lawsuit against Frontex by civil society actors came to public attention in 2017 (Statewatch, 2020). Transparency activists Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott requested the organisation to disclose the names, flags, and types of vessels it had used in Operation Triton (active in the Mediterranean and later replaced by Operation Themis) during its 2017 operations (Statewatch, 2020; Access Info Europe, 2021a). When Frontex refused to share the information, the activists took it to the EU General Court. The Court ruled in favour of Frontex.
Having won the litigation, Frontex demanded the activists pay €23,700 to cover its legal costs (Statewatch, 2020). Civil society organisations reacted with outrage, given the extreme rarity of large, publicly funded agencies pursuing such costs, particularly when the organisation in question has a budget of around €1 billion (Statewatch, 2021; Access Info Europe, 2021a; Statista, n.d.). In 2020, more than 40 NGOs signed a letter urging Frontex to drop the demand over the legal costs (Access Info Europe, 2021a; Access Info Europe, 2021b). Similarly, an online petition collected 87,000 signatures (Access Info Europe, 2021a), and civil society started collecting money to cover Izuzquiza and Semsrott’s expenses (Statewatch, 2020).
Rather than welcoming these requests, in late 2020 Frontex took Izuzquiza and Semsrott to Court to reclaim the money, with the possibility of the activists ending up paying an even higher fee (Access Info Europe, 2021b). However, in 2021, the Court ruled Frontex had overcharged the activists (Access Info Europe, 2021a). In particular, it concluded that the time billed for a private lawyer was disproportionate and excessive, and that part of the demanded money was charged to cover travel expenses to Brussels without any justification of why such travels were necessary (Access Info Europe, 2021a). Ultimately, the Court decided the amount to be paid should be reduced from €23,700 to €10,520. Frontex had not only charged civil society transparency actors, it had also inflated the costs for Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott.
Frontex’s approach raised concerns, especially considering the right of access European citizens benefit from (Eurojust, n.d.). EU citizens have general and unconditional entitlement, requiring no justification, to documents, across all policies, activities, decisions, formats, and media (Eurojust, n.d.). While exceptions can be made as to what can be shared, requesting transparency is legitimate and should not come with a high-priced fee from an institution.
Various organisations and institutions spoke about Frontex’s demands, including the EP, which expressed concerns over excessively charging civil society .They also demanded that Frontex withdraw the economic requests and avoid charging activists in the future (Izuzquiza, 2021). This sentiment was echoed by Izuzquiza and Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info, an NGO dedicated to transparency advocacy (Statewatch, 2020; Access Info Europe, 2021b). They view Frontex’s approach to be an intentional deterrent for future transparency claims, with organisations and activists being afraid of being charged with high fees.
In discussions with Members of the EP, then Head of Frontex Fabrice Leggeri justified the organisation’s requests claiming that Frontex has an obligation “to protect the financial interests of the EU” as a part of “the European public administration” (Statewatch, 2021). However, these statements become less credible when faced with investigations by the EU’s anti-fraud body, OLAF, which, in 2021, looked into Frontex spending €94,000 on a single dinner (Statewatch, 2021). In 2022, Leggeri resigned after OLAF investigations found numerous human rights violations committed by Frontex, with the organisation’s reporting system purposely set up to cover illegal push-backs in the Aegean (Loschi, 2022; European Parliament, 2022).
Case 2
Fontex did not change its approach towards civil society, notwithstanding the concerns expressed and the recommendation put forth by the EP, as well as the change of leadership following Leggeri’s resignation. There has been a more recent case of Frontex chasing NGOs for legal fees.
On July 30th, 2021, Seabird and Sea-Watch 3, an aircraft and a vessel operated by NGO Sea Watch, witnessed a pullback in the central Mediterranean (Izuzquiza, 2022). A boat with around 20 people aboard had made it into international waters from Libya (Izuzquiza, 2022). Sea-Watch 3 was approaching to rescue and bring the people to the European shores (Izuzquiza, 2022). Instead, the boat was intercepted by the Libyan coast guard and brought back, with the people aboard risking detention and torture, according to Sea Watch (Izuzquiza, 2022). Sea Watch claims a Frontex drone was seen flying over the boat three times before the coast guard reached it (Izuzquiza, 2022).
Consequently, in October 2021, Sea Watch filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to access footage and reports related to Frontex’s involvement in the incident (Pech, 2021). The documents concerned Frontex air operations on July 30th (Pech, 2021). In particular, Sea Watch sought to investigate whether Frontex had infringed on the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where they could reasonably face torture, inhuman treatment, or persecution (UNHCR, n.d.). Infringing on this principle breaches Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 33(1) of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and Article 3 (1) of the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum (UNHCR, n.d.).
Frontex denied access to the documents (ANSA & Infomigrants, 2024). It argued exceptions to the right of access applied, including public security concerns (ANSA & Infomigrants, 2024). Partial disclosure was also refused on the basis that the workload of redacting all documents would have been disproportionate to the amount of information that could be revealed, which would have gone against the principle of sound administration (ANSA & Infomigrants, 2024). In response, Sea Watch brought Frontex to the General Court of the EU with the goal of obtaining the disclosure of the documents (Statewatch, 2025).
Sea Watch lost its legal battle with Frontex (ANSA & Infomigrants, 2024). However, the Court found Frontex had provided reasoning for the non-disclosure of only 71 out of the 73 documents Sea Watch had demanded access to, and had failed to mention the existence of a number of photographs covered by Sea Watch requests (Pech, 2021). After winning the case, Frontex demanded that the NGO pay €11,093.32 in legal costs (Sea-Watch, 2025). Once again, Frontex hit civil society with heavy legal costs, a move rarely seen among EU public bodies. Thus, the move sparked outrage among civil society groups.
Sea Watch, together with supporting NGOs, sent a letter to Frontex Director Hans Leijtens, calling the move as “an act of institutional intimidation designed to deter public oversight and silence accountability efforts” (Sea-Watch, 2025). The letter lamented that, despite a change of leadership, the organisation’s approach did not change with respect to that of Leggeri’s direction (Sea-Watch, 2025). According to the NGOs, Frontex has been consistently showing a clear “culture of disrespect towards civil society” (Sea-Watch, 2025). The letter was signed by more than 30 organisations, reflecting widespread concerns over Frontex’s obstruction of transparency and accountability efforts (Statewatch, 2025).
Frontex Approach & the Chilling Effect on Civil Society
The “chilling effect” refers to an administrative body or government’s attempt to intimidate people or organisations to make them hold back from exercising their rights (Pech, 2021). Legal fees can be seen as a form of legal intimidation. Given Frontex’s budget, the legal fees demanded to activists and NGOs are virtually negligible for the border and coast agency, yet financially damaging for civil society. Frontex’s approach aims to deter future attempts to call for transparency and defend human rights (Semsrott, 2020). It is, therefore, not surprising that the EP demanded Frontex on numerous occasions “to immediately end its practice of demanding that applicants cover the costs of external lawyers in court cases related to access-to-information requests” (Statewatch, 2025).
The constant denial of information and financial demands shield Frontex from scrutiny, with the organisation growing stronger and continuing carrying out its violations of human rights and international law, at the cost of innocent people. The organisation does not seem to change its policy. Recently, it demanded legal costs from two asylum-seekers who brought it to the European Court of Justice for its operations in the Aegean Sea (Statewatch, 2022).
Conclusion
The cases outlined in this piece highlight an entrenched strategy through which Frontex seeks to intimidate critics and resist accountability. By systematically seeking compensation from civil society actors, the agency seeks to create a chilling effect that discourages NGOs and activists from carrying out their legitimate calls for transparency. This form of legal intimidation may undermine democratic oversight and jeopardise EU citizens’ right of access.
Frontex’s approach to criticism erodes democratic principles and risks normalising secrecy over human rights abuses in the EU. A shift in attitude towards civil society must occur in order to maintain international law standards. It is important that European bodies call for more transparency from Frontex, to safeguard basic democratic oversight and prevent migrants and asylum-seekers from undergoing inhumane treatment.
Bibliography
Access Info Europe. (2021a, April 19). EU General Court reduces the legal costs claimed by Frontex against transparency activists. Access Info. https://www.access-info.org/2021-04-19/eu-court-legal-costs-frontex-activists/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Access Info Europe. (2021b, March 19). MEPs to vote on Frontex claiming legal costs from transparency activists. Access Info. https://www.access-info.org/2021-03-19/meps-frontex-legal-costs/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Al Jazeera. (2021, March 23). EU refuses to approve Frontex’s budget over human rights concerns. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/3/23/eu-refuses-to-sign-off-on-frontex-budget-over-human-rights-issues. Accessed August 27, 2025.
ANSA & Infomigrants. (2024, April 25). Sea-Watch warns Italian authorities, loses legal battle against Frontex. Infomigrants. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/56676/seawatch-warns-italian-authorities-loses-legal-battle-against-frontex. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Collis, H. (2021, February 6). EU border agency Frontex met with scores of unregistered lobbyists: report. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/frontex-accused-of-scores-of-meetings-with-unregistered-lobbyists-report/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
European Council on Refugees and Exiles. (2022, October 21). Frontex: MEPs vote to refuse approval of budget, Commission “shocked” by OLAF report but confident in Management Board as agency calls misconduct “practices of the past” NGOs finds no difference. ECRE. https://ecre.org/frontex-meps-vote-to-refuse-approval-of-budget-commission-shocked-by-olaf-report-but-confident-in-management-board-as-agency-calls-misconduct-practices-of-the-past/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
European Parliament. (2022, October 18). Frontex: MEPs refuse to discharge EU border agency over its management in 2020. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221014IPR43210/frontex-meps-refuse-to-discharge-eu-border-agency-over-its-management-in-2020. Accessed August 27, 2025.
European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation. (n.d.). Right of access. Eurojust. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/about-us/access-documents/right-access. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Izuzquiza, L. (2021, May 4). European Parliament to Frontex: Drop the demand for legal fees. FragDenStaat. https://fragdenstaat.de/en/articles/exclusive/2021/05/frontex-excessive-fees-parliament. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Izuzquiza, L. (2022, April 28). We are joining Sea-Watch to take Frontex to court. FragDenStaat. https://fragdenstaat.de/en/articles/lawsuits/2022/04/we-are-joining-sea-watch-to-take-frontex-to-court/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Loschi, C. (2022, May 5). Frontex’s evolution from the undisputable to the untenable EU border agency. Security Praxis. https://www.securitypraxis.eu/frontex-evolution-from-the-undisputable-to-the-untenable-border-agency/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Nielsen, N. (2021, January 11). EU anti-fraud office launches probe into Frontex. EUobserver. https://euobserver.com/migration/150574. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Palaiologos, Y. (2021, January 14). OLAF raided EU border chief’s office over migrant pushback claims. ekathimerini.com. https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/261205/olaf-raided-eu-border-chiefs-office-over-migrant-pushback-claims/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Pech, L. (2021). THE CONCEPT OF CHILLING EFFECT ITS UNTAPPED POTENTIAL TO BETTER PROTECT DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE EU. Open Society Foundations.
Sea-Watch. (2025, July 17). Open letter to Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens. Sea-Watch. https://sea-watch.org/en/open-letter-to-frontex-executive-director-hans-leijtens/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Semsrott, A. (2020, March 5). Open letter: 44 organisations demand Frontex withdraw invoice. FragDenStaat. https://fragdenstaat.de/en/articles/action/2020/03/open-letter-44-organisations-demand-frontex-withdraw-invoice/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Statista. (n.d.). Annual budget of Frontex in the European Union from 2006 to 2024. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/973052/annual-budget-frontex-eu/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Statewatch. (2021, January 27). EU: Frontex unrepentant about chasing transparency activists for court costs. Statewatch. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/january/eu-frontex-unrepentant-about-chasing-transparency-activists-for-court-costs/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Statewatch. (2022, January 5). EU: Frontex asks court to reject human rights case, seeks legal costs from asylum seekers. Statewatch. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2022/january/eu-frontex-asks-court-to-reject-human-rights-case-seeks-legal-costs-from-asylum-seekers/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Statewatch. (2025, July 17). Frontex chases human rights activists for thousands of euros in court costs. Statewatch. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2025/july/frontex-chases-human-rights-activists-for-thousands-of-euros-in-court-costs/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Statewatch. Frontex: Billion-euro border agency sues individual transparency activists. (2020, December 2). Statewatch. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2020/december/frontex-billion-euro-border-agency-sues-transparency-activists/. Accessed August 27, 2025.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (n.d.). UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement. UNHCR. https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/1997/en/36258. Accessed August 27, 2025.
