Cover of book: The EU’s Liability for its Refugee Camps
Book Titles Open Access Full access

The EU’s Liability for its Refugee Camps

Responsibility for Fundamental Rights Violations in the Integrated EU Hotspot Administration
Authors:
Publisher:
 15.04.2025

Summary

The work argues that the EU is legally responsible for fundamental rights violations in the EU hotspots. In a doctrinally precise, theoretically ambitious and empirically sound manner, it begins with an overview of the EU’s role in the European asylum administration since 2015. It then presents the integrated EU hotspot administration and its systemic deficits. On this basis, it establishes the EU’s legal responsibility under EU liability law, discussing the central questions of attribution and causation in great detail. The work is of interest to all those who deal with the European asylum system in an academic, journalistic, legal, administrative or political capacity.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2025
Publication date
15.04.2025
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-2323-3
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-4972-5
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht
Volume
341
Language
English
Pages
411
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 18 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 1 EU Hotspots as a Critical Challenge to Human Rights Download chapter (PDF)
    2. 2 Europe’s Largest Refugee Camps Download chapter (PDF)
    3. 3 The EU’s Judicial Responsibility (Research Question) Download chapter (PDF)
    4. 4 The EU’s Liability for EU Hotspots (Thesis) Download chapter (PDF)
    5. 5 State of Research and Contribution of this Study Download chapter (PDF)
    6. 6 Typical Case Constellations Download chapter (PDF)
    7. 7 Method Download chapter (PDF)
  3. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1.1 The EU as an ‘Ordinary’ and Ambivalent Public Actor Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 1.2 The EU as a Critical Actor in Asylum Administration Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 1.3 The Failure to Regulate the EU’s Responsibility Download chapter (PDF)
      4. 1.4 The Challenge to Redefine the EU’s Responsibility Download chapter (PDF)
    2. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Initial EU Hotspot Approach of 2015 Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The EU-Türkiye Statement of March 2016: From Relocation to Return Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Political Insistence on a Non-Functional Return Policy Download chapter (PDF)
        4. d The EU Hotspot Approach 2.0 of 2020 Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Relevant Informal Rules as EU Soft Law Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b In Search for a Legal Basis in Primary Law Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Belated Formalisation in National and EU Secondary Law Download chapter (PDF)
        4. d Formalisation of Key Elements in EU Secondary Law and Remaining Regulatory Gaps Download chapter (PDF)
        5. e Persisting Relevance of Informal Rules and Logic of Crisis Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 2.3 EU Hotspots as a Testing Ground Download chapter (PDF)
    3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The EUAA’s Competences as a Political Compromise Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The EUAA’s Internal Decision-Making Structure Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Inter-Agency Cooperation as a Defining Feature of the European Asylum Administration Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Frontex’s Competences and Internal Decision-Making Structures Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Commission’s Administrative Competences under Art. 17 para 1 TEU Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Commission’s Internal Decision-Making Structures Download chapter (PDF)
    4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Reception-Related and Procedure-Related Support Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Administrative Support and EU Responsibility Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Operational Supervision as a Consolidated Form of Supervision Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Monitoring as an Emerging Form of Supervision Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Factual Conduct as a Strategy to Evade Judicial Review Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Ensuring Judicial Review by Unfolding the Potential of EU Constitutional Law Download chapter (PDF)
  4. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1.1 A Multitude of Actors Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 1.2 The ‘Migration Management Support Teams’ Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Identification and First Registration Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Hearing and Examination of Claim Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Administrative and Judicial Appeals Download chapter (PDF)
        4. d Deportation Procedure Download chapter (PDF)
      4. 1.4 The Agencies’ Reception-Related Support Download chapter (PDF)
    2. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 2.1 Belated Consolidation of the Commission’s Supervision Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 2.2 Coordination and Ensuring Legality Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 2.3 Procedure-Related vs. Reception-Related Supervision Download chapter (PDF)
      4. 2.4 Reduced Discretion in Case of Systemic Deficiencies Download chapter (PDF)
      5. 2.5 The Agencies’ Obligation to Assist the Commission Download chapter (PDF)
      6. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The European Regional Task Force (EURTF) Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Steering Committee Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Deployment of Staff to the Ground Download chapter (PDF)
        4. d The Dedicated Task Force Migration Management Download chapter (PDF)
      7. 2.7 The Commission’s Concrete Supervisory Measures Download chapter (PDF)
    3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Art. 4 ChFR) Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Prohibition of Systemic Detention of Asylum Seekers (Art. 6 ChFR) Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Right to Good Administration (Art. 41 ChFR) Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Specific Procedural Guarantees for Children (Art. 24 and Art. 41 ChFR) Download chapter (PDF)
        3. Download chapter (PDF)
          1. i Why Türkiye is Not a Safe Third Country Download chapter (PDF)
          2. ii The Administrative Practice in the EU Hotspots Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 3.3. Qualification as Systemic Deficiencies Download chapter (PDF)
    4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 4.1 The EUAA’s Misconduct at Operational Level Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 4.2 Frontex’s Misconduct at Operational Level Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 4.3 The Commission’s Misconduct at Supervisory Level Download chapter (PDF)
    5. 5 EU Responsibility for EU Hotspots? Download chapter (PDF)
  5. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 1 Auxiliary Character of Non-Judicial Review Download chapter (PDF)
    2. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Commission’s Unequal Enforcement Policy Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Why the Commission’s Practice is Problematic from a Broader Constitutional Perspective Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Greek Courts’ Failure to Refer Relevant Questions to the CJEU Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Illegality of the Non-Referral Practice under Art. 267 para 3 TFEU Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Very Limited Potential of the Annulment Procedure and the Action for Failure to Act Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Challenging Non-Formally Binding Conduct via Art. 263, 265 TFEU? Download chapter (PDF)
    3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 3.1 Preconditions, Potentials and Pitfalls Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Legal Protection Gap Argument: A Broad Reading of Art. 340 para 2 TFEU Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Action for Damages as a Mechanism for Vigilant Individuals Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Relevant Fundamental Rights as Individual Rights Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b A Fundamental Rights Violation as a Sufficiently Serious Breach Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c A Fundamental Rights Violation as a Damage Download chapter (PDF)
      4. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Towards Restitution in Kind and Recognition of Unlawfulness Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b From the Function of Compensation to Declaratory Relief Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Lowering the Threshold for Liability: A Project De Lege Ferenda Download chapter (PDF)
    4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 4.1 Defining the Potential Trigger for EU Liability Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 4.2 A Sufficiently Serious Breach and Individual Rights Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 4.3 Legal Basis in Case of the Agencies Download chapter (PDF)
    5. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 5.1 Concepts of Attribution and Causation Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 5.2 Imputation and the ‘Normative Bridge Function’ Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Agencies’ Liability for Inherent Violations: A Question of Attribution Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Agencies’ Liability for Resulting Violations: A Question of Causation I Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c The Commission’s Liability for Resulting Violations: A Question of Causation II Download chapter (PDF)
      4. 5.4 Non-Applicability of DARS and DARIO Download chapter (PDF)
      5. 5.5 Case Law Relevant to the Doctrine on EU Liability Download chapter (PDF)
  6. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1.1 Public Conduct vs. Ultra Vires Conduct Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 1.2 Union Conduct vs. Intergovernmental Conduct Download chapter (PDF)
    2. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 2.1 External Appearance Criterion Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 2.2 Internal Competence Criterion Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 2.3 Relationship Between the Criteria Download chapter (PDF)
    3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 3.1 Attribution of Conduct to the EUAA Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 3.2 Attribution of Conduct to Frontex Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 3.3 The Agencies’ Liability for Inherent Violations Download chapter (PDF)
  7. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1.1 Failure of the Conventional Causation Criterion Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 1.2 Why WS et al. vs. Frontex is No Counterargument Download chapter (PDF)
    2. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 2.1 Liability for Administrative Support Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 2.2 Liability for Non-Formally Binding Conduct Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The First Post-KYDEP Generation – from Geotronics to Camós Grau Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Second Post-KYDEP Generation – Tillack and Arizmendi Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c The Third Post-KYDEP Generation – Ledra and Bourdouvali Download chapter (PDF)
    3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 3.1 Liability for Breach of Supervisory Obligation Download chapter (PDF)
      2. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a The Doctrinal Shift From Supervisory Obligations Under Secondary Law to Art. 17 TEU Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b The Doctrinal Shift From the Supervisory Obligation to the Supervisory Standard Download chapter (PDF)
    4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 4.1 Degree of Bindingness as Decisive Factor Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 4.2 Degree of Bindingness in Case of Omission Download chapter (PDF)
      3. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a Financial Incentives or Pressure Download chapter (PDF)
        2. b Political Authority Download chapter (PDF)
        3. c Superior Technical Expertise or Information Download chapter (PDF)
    5. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 5.1 The Agencies’ Individual Recommendations Download chapter (PDF)
      2. 5.2 The Commission’s Failure to Supervise Download chapter (PDF)
      3. 5.3 The EU’s Liability for Resulting Violations Download chapter (PDF)
  8. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 1 Doctrinal Analysis in a Politicised Context Download chapter (PDF)
    2. 2 Why WS et al. vs. Frontex Should Not Discourage Download chapter (PDF)
    3. 3 Why Claiming Damages From the EU is Worth a Try Download chapter (PDF)
  9. Bibliography 395 - 411 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (268)

  1. Bibliography Open Google Scholar
  2. Pekka Aalto, Public Liability in EU Law. Brasserie, Bergaderm and Beyond, Hart Publishing 2011 Open Google Scholar
  3. Karin Aberg, „Examining the Vulnerability Procedure: Group-based Determinations at the EU Border“, Refugee Survey Quarterly (2021), p. 1–27 Open Google Scholar
  4. Philip Alston, J. H. H. Weiler, „An ‘Ever Closer Union’ in Need of a Human Rights Policy“, European Journal of International Law 9 (1998), p. 658–723 Open Google Scholar
  5. Georgios Anagnostaras, „The Common European Asylum System: Balancing Mutual Trust Against Fundamental Rights Protection“, German Law Journal 21 (2020), p. 1180–1197 Open Google Scholar
  6. Stine Andersen, The Enforcement of EU Law: The Role of the European Commission, Oxford University Press 2013 Open Google Scholar
  7. H. Audretsch, Supervision in European Community Law, North-Holland 1986 Open Google Scholar
  8. Ino Augsberg, „Art. 340 AEUV (ex-Artikel 288 EGV)“, in Hans von der Groeben, Jürgen Schwarze, Armin Hatje (ed.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Vertrag über die Europäische Union, Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, Nomos 2015 Open Google Scholar
  9. Jürgen Bast, „Scharade im kontrollfreien Raum: Hat die EU gar keinen Türkei-Deal geschlossen?“, Verfassungsblog of 03/03/2017 Open Google Scholar
  10. Jürgen Bast, „Transnationale Verwaltung des europäischen Migrationsraums: Zur horizontalen Öffnung der EU-Mitgliedstaaten“, Der Staat 46 (2007), p. 1–32 Open Google Scholar
  11. Jürgen Bast, „Handlungsformen und Rechtsschutz“, in Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (ed.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Theoretische und dogmatische Grundzüge, Springer 2009, p. 489–557 Open Google Scholar
  12. Jürgen Bast, Frederik von Harbou, Janna Wessels, Human Rights Challenges to European Migration Policy. The REMAP Study, Nomos 2022 Open Google Scholar
  13. Filipe Brito Bastos, „Derivate Illegality in European Composite Administrative Procedures“, Common Market Law review 55 (2018), p. 101–134 Open Google Scholar
  14. Hemme Battjes, „In Search of a Fair Balance: The Absolute Character of the Prohibition of Refoulement under Article 3 ECHR Reassessed“, Leiden Journal of International Law 22 (2009), p. 583–621 Open Google Scholar
  15. Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Becker, „The Unexpected Winner of the Crisis: The European Commission’s Strengthened Role in Economic Governance“, Journal of European Integration 36 (2014), p. 213–229 Open Google Scholar
  16. Zygmunt Baumann, Strangers at Our Door, Polity Press 2016 Open Google Scholar
  17. Stefan Becker, Michael W. Bauer, „Die Europäische Kommission. Koordinationsbürokratie mit Regierungsanspruch“, in Peter Becker, Barbara Lippert (ed.), Handbuch Europäische Union, Springer 2020, p. 369–389 Open Google Scholar
  18. Werner Berg, „Art. 340 AEUV“, in Ulrich Becker, Armin Hatje, Johann Schoo, Jürgen Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, Nomos 2019 Open Google Scholar
  19. Felix Biermann, Nina Guérin, Stefan Jagdhuber, Berthold Rittberger, Moritz Weiss, „Political (non-)reform in the euro crisis and the refugee crisis: a liberal intergovernmentalist explanation“, Journal of European Public Policy (2019), p. 246–266 Open Google Scholar
  20. Michael Blauberger, Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, „The Court of Justice in times of politicisation: ‘law as a mask and shield’ revisited“, Journal of European Public Policy 27 (2020), p. 382–399 Open Google Scholar
  21. Armin von Bogdandy, „The European Union as a Human Rights Organization? Human Rights and the Core of the European Union“, Common Market Law Review 37 (2000), p. 1307–1338 Open Google Scholar
  22. Armin von Bogdandy, „Grundprinzipien“, in Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (ed.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Theretische und dogmatische Grundzüge, Springer 2009, p. 13–71 Open Google Scholar
  23. Armin von Bogdandy, „Principles of a Systemic Deficiencies Doctrine: How to Protect Checks and Balances in the Member States“, Common Market Law Review 57 (2020), p. 705–740 Open Google Scholar
  24. Armin von Bogdandy, The Emergence of European Society through Public Law. A Hegelian and Anti-Schmittian Approach, Oxford University Press 2024 Open Google Scholar
  25. Armin von Bogdandy, Michael Ioannidis, „Systemic Deficiency in the Rule of Law: What it is, what has to be done, what can be done“, Common Market Law Review 51 (2014), p. 59–96 Open Google Scholar
  26. Armin von Bogdandy, Matthias Kottmann, Carlino Antpöhler, Johanna Dickschen, Simon Hentrei, Maja Smrkolj, „Reverse Solange – Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights Against EU Member States“, Common Market Law Review 49 (2012), p. 489–520 Open Google Scholar
  27. Armin von Bogdandy, Pál Sonnevend (ed.), Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area. Theory, Law and Politics in Hungary and Romania, Nomos 2015 Open Google Scholar
  28. Tanja A Börzel, Ulrich Sedelmeier, „Larger and More Law Abiding? The Impact of Enlargement on Compliance in the European Union“, Journal of European Public Policy 24 (2016), p. 197–215 Open Google Scholar
  29. Mark Bovens, „Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework“, European Law Journal 13 (2007), p. 447–468 Open Google Scholar
  30. Stephan Breitenmoser, Robert Weyeneth, „Artikel 74 AEUV“, in Hans von der Groeben, Jürgen Schwarze, Armin Hatje (ed.), Europäisches Unionsrecht, Nomos 2015 Open Google Scholar
  31. Hannah Bru, Aikaterini Anastasopoulou, Heini Hyrkkö, „The Circumvention of the Dublin III Regulation Through the Use of Bilateral Agreements to Return Asylum Seekers to Other Member States“, in European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (ed.), Research Paper Ghent University 2019 Open Google Scholar
  32. Madalina Busuioc, European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability, Oxford University Press 2013 Open Google Scholar
  33. Başak Çalı, Cathryn Costello, Stewart Cunningham, „Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies“, German Law Journal 21 (2020), p. 355–384 Open Google Scholar
  34. Giuseppe Campesi, „Seeking Asylum in Times of Crisis: Reception, Confinement, and Detention at Europe’s Southern Border“, Refugee Survey Quarterly 37 (2018), p. 44–70 Open Google Scholar
  35. Enzo Cannizzaro, „Denialism as the Supreme Expression of Realism. A Quick Comment on NF v. European Council“, European Papers (2017), p. 215–257 Open Google Scholar
  36. Iris Canor, „My brother’s keeper? Horizontal solange: ‘An ever closer distrust among the peoples of Europe’“, Common Market Law Review 50 (2013), p. 383–422 Open Google Scholar
  37. Sergio Carrera, „The 20 years anniversary of the Tampere programme: Securitization, intergovernmentalism and informalization“, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 27 (2020), p. 3–9 Open Google Scholar
  38. Sergio Carrera, Leonhard Den Hertog, Joanna Parkin, „The Peculiar Nature of EU Home Affairs Agencies in Migration Control: Beyond Accountability versus Autonomy?“, European Journal of Migration and Law 15 (2013), p. 337–358 Open Google Scholar
  39. Sergio Carrera, Leonhard Den Hertog, Marco Stefan, „It wasn't me! The Luxembourg Court Orders on the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal“, CEPS Policy Insights (15/04/2017) Open Google Scholar
  40. Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild, „‘Joint Operation RABIT 2010’. FRONTEX Assistance to Greece's Border with Turkey: Revealing the Deficiencies of Europe's Dublin Asylum System“, CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe (2010) Open Google Scholar
  41. Sergio Carrera, Marco Stefan, „Complaint Mechanisms in Border Management and Expulsion Operations in Europe. Effective Remedies for Victims of Human Rights Violations?“, CEPS Policy Insights (2018) Open Google Scholar
  42. Marta Cartabia, „Europe and Rights: Taking Dialogue Seriously“, European Constitutional Law Review 5 (2009), p. 5–31 Open Google Scholar
  43. Federico Casolari, „The EU's Hotspot Approach to Managing the Migration Crisis: A Blind Spot for International Responsibility?“, Italian Yearbook of International Law 25 (2015), p. 109–134 Open Google Scholar
  44. Federico Casolari, „The unbearable lightness of soft law: on the European Unions recourse to informal instruments in the fight against irregular immigration“, in Francesca Ippolito, Gianluca Borzoni, Federico Casolari (ed.), Bilateral Relations in the Mediterranean. Prospects for Migration Issues, Edward Elgar 2020, p. 215–228 Open Google Scholar
  45. Sabino Cassese, „European Administrative Proceedings“, Law and Contemporary Problems 86 (2004), p. 21–36 Open Google Scholar
  46. Andrés Delgado Casteleiro, The International Responsibility of the European Union. From Competence to Normative Control, Cambridge University Press 2016 Open Google Scholar
  47. Mariavittoria Catanzariti, Alexander H. Türk, „EU agencies and the rise of a mixed administration in the EU multi-jurisdictional setting: facing the challenges of the rule of law“, in Miroslava Scholten, Alex Brenninkmeijer (ed.), Controlling EU Agencies. The Rule of Law in a Multi-jurisdictional Legal Order, Edward Elgar 2020, p. 18–38 Open Google Scholar
  48. Merijn Chamon, „Agencification in the United States and Germany and What the EU Might Learn From It“, German Law Journal 17 (2016), p. 119–152 Open Google Scholar
  49. Merijn Chamon, EU Agencies. Legal and Political Limits to the Transformation of the EU Administration, Oxford University Press 2016 Open Google Scholar
  50. B. S. Chimni, „The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: a View from the South“, Journal of Refugee Studies 11 (1998), p. 350–374 Open Google Scholar
  51. Meltem Ciger-Ineli, „Protecting Syrians in Turkey: A Legal Analysis“, International Journal of Refugee Law 29 (2017), p. 555–579 Open Google Scholar
  52. Françoise Comte, „A New Agency Is Born in the European Union: The European Asylum Support Office“, European Journal of Migration and Law 12 (2010), p. 373–405 Open Google Scholar
  53. Roberto Cortinovis, „The Evolution of Frontex Governance: Shifting from Soft to Hard Law?“, Journal of Contemporary European Research 11 (2015), p. 252–267 Open Google Scholar
  54. Cathryn Costello, „Administrative governance and the Europeanisation of asylum and immigration policy“, in Herwig C.H. Hofmann, Alexander H. Türk (ed.), EU Administrative Governance, Edward Elgar 2006, p. 287–340 Open Google Scholar
  55. Cathryn Costello, „Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored“, Human Rights Law Review 12 (2012), p. 287–339 Open Google Scholar
  56. Cathryn Costello, Itamar Mann, „Border Justice: Migration and Accountability for Human Rights Violations“, German Law Journal 21 (2020), p. 311–334 Open Google Scholar
  57. Cathryn Costello, Minos Mouzourakis, „The Common European Asylum System. Where did it all go wrong?“, in Maria Fletcher, Ester Herlin-Karnell, Matera Claudio (ed.), The European Union as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Routledge 2017, p. 263–299 Open Google Scholar
  58. Paul Craig, „Standing, Rights, and the Structure of Legal Argument“, European Public Law 9 (2003), p. 493–508 Open Google Scholar
  59. Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law, Oxford University Press 2018 Open Google Scholar
  60. Paul Craig, „Article 41“, in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, Angela Ward (ed.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Commentary, Nomos 2021, p. 1125–1152 Open Google Scholar
  61. Astrid Czaja, Die außervertragliche Haftung der EG für ihre Organe, Nomos 1996 Open Google Scholar
  62. Nasiya Daminova, „‘Access to Justice’ and the Development of the Van Gend en Loos Doctrine: The Role of Courts and of the Individual in EU Law“, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 10 (2017), p. 133–153 Open Google Scholar
  63. Philipp Dann, „Thoughts on a Methodology of European Constitutional Law“, German Law Journal 6 (2005), p. 1453–1474 Open Google Scholar
  64. Gareth Davies, „The General Court finds Frontex not liable for helping with illegal pushbacks: it was just following orders“, europeanlawblog of 11 Sept 2023 Open Google Scholar
  65. Joyce De Coninck, „Shielding Frontex. On the EU General Court’s “WS and others v Frontex”“, Verfassungsblog of 09/09/2023 Open Google Scholar
  66. Maartje de Visser, „The Concept of Concurrent Liability and Its Relationship with the Principle of Effectiveness: A One-Way Ticket into Oblivion“, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 11 (2004), p. 47–70 Open Google Scholar
  67. Bruno De Witte, Šejla Imamovic, „Opinion 2/13 on accession to the ECHR : defending the EU legal order against a Foreign Human Rights Court“, European Law Review 40 (2015), p. 683–705 Open Google Scholar
  68. Giacinto Della Cananea, „The European Union's Mixed Administrative Proceedings“, Law and Contemporary Problems 68 (2004), p. 187–218 Open Google Scholar
  69. Maarten Den Heijer, Jorrit R Rijpma, Thomas Spijkerboer, „Coercion, prohibition, and great expectations. The continuing failure of the Common European Asylum System“, Common Market Law Review 53 (2016), p. 607–642 Open Google Scholar
  70. Angeliki Dimitriadi, Antonia-Maria Sarantaki, „The refugee ‘crisis’ in Greece: politicisation and polarisation amidst multiple crises“, CEASEVAL Research on the Common European Asylum System 11 (2018) Open Google Scholar
  71. Oliver Dörr, „Art. 263 AEUV“, in Eberhard Grabitz, Meinhard Hilf, Martin Nettesheim (ed.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, C.H. Beck 2023 Open Google Scholar
  72. ECRE, „Holding Frontex to Account. ECRE's Proposals for Strengthening Non-Judicial Mechanisms for Scrutiny of Frontex“, Policy Paper 7, May 2021 (2021) Open Google Scholar
  73. ECRE, Reception, detention and restriction of movement at EU external borders, Heinrich Böll Stiftung 2021 Open Google Scholar
  74. Hanna Eklund, „Peoples, Inhabitants and Workers: Colonialism in the Treaty of Rome“, The European Journal of International Law 34 (2023), p. 831–854 Open Google Scholar
  75. Mariolina Eliantonio, „Judicial Review in an Integrated Administration: the Case of 'Composite Procedures'“, Review of European Administrative Law 7 (2015), p. 65–102 Open Google Scholar
  76. Mariolina Eliantonio, Nikos Vogiatzis, „Judicial and Extra-Judicial Challenges in the EU Multi- and Cross-Level Administrative Framework“, German Law Journal 22 (2021), p. 315–324 Open Google Scholar
  77. Gerda Falkner, „A Causal Loop? The Commission's New Enforcement Approach in the Context of Non-Compliance with EU Law After CJEU Judgements“, Journal of European Integration 40 (2018), p. 769–784 Open Google Scholar
  78. Kevin Featherstone, „External conditionality and the debt crisis: the ‘Troika’ and public administration reform in Greece“, Journal of European Public Policy 22 (2015), p. 295–314 Open Google Scholar
  79. David Fernandez-Rojo, „The introduction of an individual complaint mechanism within FRONTEX: two steps forward, one step back“, Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht 4 (2016), p. 225–234 Open Google Scholar
  80. David Fernández-Rojo, EU Migration Agencies. The Operation and Cooperation of FRONTEX, EASO and EUROPOL, Edward Elgar 2021 Open Google Scholar
  81. David Fernández Rojo, „From EASO to the European Agency for Asylum: 'Business as Usual?'“, eumigrationlawblog of 15/10/2018 Open Google Scholar
  82. Francette Fines, „A General Analytical Perspective on Community Liability“, in Ton Heukels, Alison McDonnell (ed.), The Action for Damages in Community Law, Wolters Kluwer 1997 Open Google Scholar
  83. Melanie Fink, Frontex and Human Rights. Responsibility in 'Multi-Actor Situations' under the ECHR and EU Public Liability Law, Oxford University Press 2018 Open Google Scholar
  84. Melanie Fink, „EU Liability for Contributions to Member States' Breaches of EU Law“, Common Market Law Review 56 (2019), p. 1227–1264 Open Google Scholar
  85. Melanie Fink, „The Action for Damages as a Fundamental Rights Remedy: Holding Frontex Liable“, German Law Journal 21 (2020), p. 532–548 Open Google Scholar
  86. Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Timo Tohidipur, „Europäisches Grenzkontrollregime. Rechtsrahmen der europäischen Grenzschutzagentur Frontex“, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 67 (2007), p. 1219–1276 Open Google Scholar
  87. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, James C. Hathaway, „Non-refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence“, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 53 (2015), p. 235–284 Open Google Scholar
  88. Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, „Territoriality, Democracy, and Borders: A Retrospective on the ‘Refugee Crisis’“, German Law Journal 17 (2016), p. 907–922 Open Google Scholar
  89. Martin Gellermann, „Art. 340 AEUV “, in Rudolf Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, C.H. Beck 2018 Open Google Scholar
  90. Giulia Gentile, „Ensuring Effective Judicial Review of EU Soft Law via the Action for Annulment before the EU Courts: a Plea for a Liberal-Constitutional Approach“, European Constitutional Law Review (2020), p. 466–492 Open Google Scholar
  91. María-Teresa Gil-Bazo, „The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union's Law“, Refugee Survey Quarterly 27 (2015), p. 33–52 Open Google Scholar
  92. Alberto Gil Ibáñez, The Administrative Supervision and Enforcement in EC Law: Powers, Procedures and Limits, Hart Publishing 1999 Open Google Scholar
  93. Mariana Gkliati, „The first steps of Frontex accountability: Implications for its Legal Responsibility for Fundamental Rights Violations“, eumigrationlawblog of 13/08/2021 Open Google Scholar
  94. Mariana Gkliati, „The Application of the EU-Turkey Agreement: A Critical Analysis of the Decisions of the Greek Appeals Committee“, European Journal of Legal Studies 10 (2017), p. 81–124 Open Google Scholar
  95. Mariana Gkliati, Herbert Rosenfeldt, „Accountability of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency: Recent developments, legal standards and existing mechanisms“, RLI Working Paper 30 (2018) Open Google Scholar
  96. Matthias Goldmann, „Dogmatik als rationale Rekonstruktion: Versuch einer Metatheorie am Beispiel völkerrechtlicher Prinzipien“, Der Staat 53 (2014), p. 373–399 Open Google Scholar
  97. Guy S Goodwin-Gill, Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford University Press 2007 Open Google Scholar
  98. Barbara Grabowska-Moroz, Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov, „The Loss of Face for Everyone Concerned. EU Rule of Law in the Context of the ‘Migration Crisis’“, in V Stoyanova, S Smet (ed.), Migrants’ Rights, Populism and Legal Resilience in Europe, Cambridge University Press 2022, p. 187–208 Open Google Scholar
  99. Scott Greer, „Structural adjustment comes to Europe: Lessons for the Eurozone from the conditionality debates“, Global Social Policy 14 (2013), p. 51–71 Open Google Scholar
  100. Steven Greer, „Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law?“, Human Rights Law Review 15 (2015), p. 101–137 Open Google Scholar
  101. Elspeth Guild, „The Frontex Push-Back Controversy: Lessons on Oversight (Part I)“, eumigrationlawblog of 19/04/2021 Open Google Scholar
  102. Elspeth Guild, „The Europeanisation of Europe’s Asylum Policy“, International Journal of Refugee Law (2006), p. 630–652 Open Google Scholar
  103. Elspeth Guild, „Does the EU Need a European Migration and Protection Agency?“, International Journal of Refugee Law 28 (2016), p. 585–600 Open Google Scholar
  104. Elspeth Guild, Sergio Carrera, Leonhard Den Hertog, Joanna Parkin, Implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Impact on EU Home Affairs Agencies. Frontex, Europol and the European Asylum Support Office. Study for the LIBE Committee, European Parliament 2011 Open Google Scholar
  105. Kathleen Gutman, „The Evolution of the Action for Damages Against the European Union and Its Place in the System of Judicial Protection“, Common Market Law Review 48 (2011), p. 695–750 Open Google Scholar
  106. Peo Hansen, Stefan Jonsson, Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism, Bloomsbury Academic 2014 Open Google Scholar
  107. James C. Hathaway, „The Emerging Politics of Non-Entrée“, Refugees 91 (1992), p. 40 Open Google Scholar
  108. Katri Havu, „Damages Liability for Non-Material Harm in EU Case Law“, European Law Review 44 (2019), p. 492–514 Open Google Scholar
  109. Ton Heukels, Alison McDonnell, „The Action for Damages in a Community Law Perspective: Introduction“, in Ton Heukels, Alison McDonnell (ed.), The Action for Damages in Community Law, Wolters Kluwer 1997 Open Google Scholar
  110. Chris Hilson, The Role of Discretion in EC Law on Non-Contractual Liability, Common Market Law Review 42 (2005), p. 677-695 Open Google Scholar
  111. Herwig Hofmann, Morgane Tidghi, „Rights and Remedies in Implementation of EU Policies by Multi-Jurisdictional Networks“, European Public Law (2014), p. 147–164 Open Google Scholar
  112. Herwig Hofmann, Alexander Türk, „Legal challenges in EU administrative law by the move to an integrated administration“, in Herwig Hofmann, Alexander Türk (ed.), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law, Edward Elgar 2009, p. 355–379 Open Google Scholar
  113. Herwig Ch Hofmann, Liisa Holopainen, Elina Paunio, Laurent Pech, Clara Rauchegger, Debbie Sayers, Angela Ward, „Article 47“, in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, Angela Ward (ed.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Commentary, Nomos 2022 Open Google Scholar
  114. Herwig C.H. Hofmann, Gerard C. Rowe, Alexander H. Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union, Oxford University Press 2011 Open Google Scholar
  115. Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Alexander Türk, „The Development of Integrated Administration in the EU and its Consequences“, European Law Journal 13 (2007), p. 253–271 Open Google Scholar
  116. Jens Hofmann, Rechtsschutz und Haftung im Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund, Duncker & Humblot 2004 Open Google Scholar
  117. Rainer Hofmann, Adela Schmidt, „‘EU-Türkei-Deal’ ohne Beteiligung der EU? – Die Beschlüsse des EuG zur Erklärung EU-Türkei vom 18. März 2016“, Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 44 (2017), p. 317–327 Open Google Scholar
  118. Rainer Hofmann, Adela Schmidt, „Ist die Türkei für Asylantragsteller ein sicherer Drittstaat? – Das Urteil des Hellenischen Staatsrats vom 22.9.2017“, Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik 38 (2018), p. 1–6 Open Google Scholar
  119. Alisha C Holland, „Forbearance“, American Political Science Review 110 (2016), p. 232–246 Open Google Scholar
  120. Michael Ioannidis, „Weak Members and the Enforcement of EU Law“, in András Jakab, Dimitry Kochenov (ed.), The Enforcement of EU Law and Values. Ensuring Member States' Compliance, Oxford University Press 2017, p. 476–492 Open Google Scholar
  121. Marc Jacob, Matthias Kottmann, „Art. 340 AEUV“, in Eberhard Grabitz, Meinhard Hilf, Martin Nettesheim (ed.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union C.H. Beck 2023 Open Google Scholar
  122. András Jakab, Dimitry Kochenov (ed.), The Enforcement of EU Law and Values. Ensuring Member States' Compliance, Oxford University Press 2017 Open Google Scholar
  123. Hans Jarass, „Art. 25 Rechte älterer Menschen“, Charta der Grundrechte der EU, C.H. Beck 2021 Open Google Scholar
  124. Hans Jarass, „Art. 41 Recht auf eine gute Verwaltung“, Charta der Grundrechte der EU, C.H. Beck 2021 Open Google Scholar
  125. Hans Jarass, „Art. 47 Recht auf einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf und ein unparteiisches Gericht“, Charta der Grundrechte der EU, C.H. Beck 2021 Open Google Scholar
  126. Hans Jarass, „Art. 52 Tragweite und Auslegung der Rechte und Grundsätze“, Charta der Grundrechte der EU, C.H. Beck 2021 Open Google Scholar
  127. Anastasia Karatzia, „An Overview of Litigation in the Context of Financial Assistance“, Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law (2016), p. 573–590 Open Google Scholar
  128. Eva Kassoti, Narin Idriz, „The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum“, in Eva Kassoti, Narin Idriz (ed.), The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Springer 2022, p. 1–12 Open Google Scholar
  129. Daniel Kelemen, Tommaso Pavone, „Where Have the Guardians Gone? Law Enforcement and the Politics of Supranational Forbearance in the European Union“, SSRN (2021) Open Google Scholar
  130. Thorsten Kingreen, „Artikel 25 EU-GRCharta“, in Christian Calliess, Matthias Ruffert (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  131. Thorsten Kingreen, „Artikel 52 EU-GRCharta“, in Christian Calliess, Matthias Ruffert (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  132. Paul Kirchhof, „Staatliche Souveränität als Bedingung des Asylrechts“, in Georg Jochum, Wolfgang Fritzemeyer, Marcel Kau (ed.), Grenzüberschreitendes Recht – Crossing frontiers. Festschrift für Kay Hailbronner, C.F. Müller 2013, p. 105–121 Open Google Scholar
  133. Karl E Klare, „Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism“, South African Journal on Human Rights 14 (1998), p. 146–188 Open Google Scholar
  134. Dimitry Kochenov, „The Essence of EU Citizenship Emerging From Ten Years of Academic Debate: Beyond the Cherry Blossoms and the Moon?“, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62 (2013), p. 97–136 Open Google Scholar
  135. Dimitry Kochenov, „Biting Intergovernmentalism: The Case for the Reinvention of Article 259 TFEU to Make It a Viable Rule of Law Enforcement Tool“, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 7 (2015), p. 153–174 Open Google Scholar
  136. Christina Last, Garantie wirksamen Rechtsschutzes gegen Maßnahmen der Europäischen Union. Zum Verhältnis von Art. 47 Abs. 1, 2 GRCh und Art. 263 ff. AEUV, Mohr Siebeck 2008 Open Google Scholar
  137. Liora Lazarus, Cathryn Costello, Nazila Ghanea, Katja S. Ziegler, „The Evolution of Fundamental Rights Charters and Case Law. Report for the European Parliament Directorate-General for Internal Policies“, SSRN (2011) Open Google Scholar
  138. Stephen H Legomsky, „Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection“, International Journal of Refugee Law 51 (2003), p. 567–677 Open Google Scholar
  139. Roman Lehner, „The EU‐Turkey‐‘deal’: Legal Challenges and Pitfalls“, International Migration 57 (2018), p. 176–185 Open Google Scholar
  140. Matthias Lehnert, Frontex und operative Maßnahmen an den europäischen Außengrenzen. Verwaltungskooperation – materielle Rechtsgrundlagen – institutionelle Kontrolle, Nomos 2014 Open Google Scholar
  141. Koen Lenaerts, „La vie après l'avis: Exploring the Principle of Mutual (Yet Not Blind) Trust“, Common Market Law Review 54 (2017), p. 805–840 Open Google Scholar
  142. Sarah Léonard, „EU border security and migration into the European Union: FRONTEX and securitisation through practices“, European Security 19 (2010), p. 231–254 Open Google Scholar
  143. Gaia Lisi, Mariolina Eliantonio, „The Gaps in Judicial Accountability of EASO in the Processing of Asylum Requests in Hotspots“, European Papers 4 (2019), p. 589–602 Open Google Scholar
  144. Tobias Lock, „Is Private Enforcement of EU Law Through State Liability a Myth? An Assessment 20 Years After Frankovich“, Common Market Law Review 49 (2012), p. 1675–1702 Open Google Scholar
  145. Chiara Loschi, Peter Slominski, „The EU hotspot approach in Italy: strengthening agency governance in the wake of the migration crisis?“, Journal of European Integration 44 (2022), p. 769–786 Open Google Scholar
  146. Anna Lübbe, „‘Systemic Flaws’ and Dublin Transfers: Incompatible Tests Before the CJEU and the ECtHR?“, International Journal of Refugee Law 27 (2015), p. 135–140 Open Google Scholar
  147. Francesco Maiani, „Hotspots and Relocation Schemes: The Right Therapy for the Common European Asylum System?“, eumigrationlawblog of 03/02/2016 Open Google Scholar
  148. Francesco Maiani, „The Dublin III Regulation: A New Legal Framework for a More Humane System?“, in Vincent Chetail, Philippe De Bruycker, Francesco Maiani (ed.), Reforming the Common European Asylum System, 2016 Open Google Scholar
  149. Federico Mancini, Democracy and Constitutionalism in the European Union, Hart Publishing 2000 Open Google Scholar
  150. Itamar Mann, „Maritime Legal Black Holes: Migration and Rightlessness in International Law“, The European Journal of International Law 29 (2018), p. 347–372 Open Google Scholar
  151. Luisa Marin, „Frontex and the Rule of Law Crisis at EU Borders“, Verfassungsblog of 05/09/2022 Open Google Scholar
  152. Nora Markard, Helene Heuser, „‘Hotspots’ an den EU-Außengrenzen: Menschen- und europarechtswidrige Internierungslager“, Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik (2016), p. 165–172 Open Google Scholar
  153. Thomas Matthies, Relocation. Die Umsiedlung von Asylbewerbern in der Europäischen Union, LIT Verlag 2021 Open Google Scholar
  154. Natasa Mavronicola, „Is the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Absolute in International Human Rights Law? A Reply to Steven Geer“, Human Rights Law Review 17 (2017), p. 479–498 Open Google Scholar
  155. Natasa Mavronicola, Francesco Messineo, „Relatively Absolute? The Undermining of Article 3 ECHR in Ahmad v UK“, The Modern Law Review 76 (2013), p. 589–619 Open Google Scholar
  156. Vittoria Meissner, „The European Border and Coast Guard Agency Frontex After the Migration Crisis: Towards a ‘Superagency’?“, in Johannes Pollak, Peter Slominski (ed.), The Role of EU Agencies in the Eurozone and Migration Crisis. Impact and Future Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan 2021, p. 151–174 Open Google Scholar
  157. Joana Mendes, „Bounded Discretion in EU Law: A Limited Judicial Paradigm in a Changing EU“, The Modern Law Review 80 (2017), p. 443–472 Open Google Scholar
  158. Valsamis Mitsilegas, „The Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual“, Yearbook of European Law (2012), p. 319–372 Open Google Scholar
  159. Caterina Molinari, „EU Readmission Deals and Constitutional Allocation of Powers: Parallel Paths that Need to Cross?“, in Eva Kassoti, Narin Idriz (ed.), The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Springer 2022, p. 15–35 Open Google Scholar
  160. Jörg Monar, „Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts“, in Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (ed.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Theoretische und Dogmatische Grundzüge, Springer 2009, p. 749–797 Open Google Scholar
  161. Violeta Moreno-Lax, „Must EU Borders have Doors for Refugees? On the Compatibility of Schengen Visas and Carriers' Sanctions with EU Member States' Obligations to Provide International Protection to Refugees“, European Journal of Migration and Law 10 (2008), p. 315–364 Open Google Scholar
  162. Violeta Moreno-Lax, Europe in Crisis: Facilitating Access to Protection, (Discarding) Offshore Processing and Mapping Alternatives for the Way Forward, Study for the Red Cross, 2015 Open Google Scholar
  163. Violeta Moreno-Lax, Mariagiulia Giuffré, „The Rise of Consensual Containment: From ‘Contactless Control’ to ‘Contactless Reponsibility’ for Forced Migration Flows“, in Satvinder Singh Juss (ed.), Research Handbook on International Refugee Law, Edward Elgar 2019, p. 82–108 Open Google Scholar
  164. Carolyn Moser, Accountability in EU Security and Defence. The Law and Practice of Peacebuilding, Oxford University Press 2020 Open Google Scholar
  165. Carolyn Moser, Berthold Rittberger, „The CJEU and EU (de-)constitutionalization: Unpacking jurisprudential responses“, International Journal of Constitutional Law 20 (2022), p. 1038–1070 Open Google Scholar
  166. Minos Mouzourakis, „All but last resort: The last reform of detention of asylum seekers in Greece“, eumigrationlawblog of 18/11/2019 Open Google Scholar
  167. Anna Mrozek, Grenzschutz als supranationale Aufgabe. Der Schutz der europäischen Außengrenzen unter der Beteiligung der Bundespolizei, Nomos 2013 Open Google Scholar
  168. Christoph-David Munding, Das Grundrecht auf effektiven Rechtsschutz im Rechtssystem der Europäischen Union, Duncker & Humblot 2010 Open Google Scholar
  169. Roberta Mungianu, Frontex and Non-Refoulement. The International Responsibility of the EU, Cambridge University Press 2016 Open Google Scholar
  170. Andrew W Neal, „Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX“, Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2009), p. 333–356 Open Google Scholar
  171. Paul F Nemitz, „Artikel 17 EUV“, in Ulrich Becker, Armin Hatje, Johann Schoo, Jürgen Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, Nomos 2019 Open Google Scholar
  172. Robert Nestler, Vinzent Vogt, „Dublin-III-reversed. Ein Instrument zur Familienzusammenführung“, Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik 37 (2017), p. 21–29 Open Google Scholar
  173. Darren Neville, Amalia Rigon, Sarah Salome Sy, On the frontline: the hotspot approach to managing migration, Study conducted for the European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 2016 Open Google Scholar
  174. Salvatore F. Nicolosi, David Fernandez-Rojo, „Out of control? The case of the European Asylum Support Office“, in Miroslava Scholten, Alex Brenninkmeijer (ed.), Controlling EU Agencies. The Rule of Law in a Multi-jurisdictional Legal Order, Edward Elgar 2020, p. 177–195 Open Google Scholar
  175. André Nollkaemper, Jean d'Aspremont, Christiane Ahlborn, Berenice Boutin, Nataša Nedeski, Ilias Plakokefalos, Dov (collaboration) Jacobs, „Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law“, European Journal of International Law 31 (2020), p. 15–72 Open Google Scholar
  176. André Nollkaemper, Dov Jacobs, „Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Conceptual Framework“, Michigan Journal of International Law 34 (2013), p. 359–438 Open Google Scholar
  177. John E. Noyes, Brian D. Smith, „State Responsibility and the Principle of Joint and Several Liability“, Yale Journal of International Law 132 (1988), p. 225–267 Open Google Scholar
  178. Peter Oliver, „Joint Liability of the Community and the Member States“, in Ton Heukels, Alison McDonnell (ed.), The Action for Damages in Community Law, Wolters Kluwer 1997, p. 285–309 Open Google Scholar
  179. Joanna Parkin, The Difficult Road to the Schengen Information System II: The legacy of ‘laboratories’ and the cost for fundamental rights and the rule of law, CEPS Policy Paper 2011 Open Google Scholar
  180. Christopher Paskowski, „Verwaltung ohne Verantwortung. Zur Abweisung der ersten Schadensersatzklage gegen Frontex durch das EuG“, Verfassungsblog of 27/09/2023 Open Google Scholar
  181. Reijer Passchier, Maarten Stremler, „Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in European Union Law: Considering the Existence of Substantive Constraints on Treaty Revision“, Cambridge Journal of Internationa and Comparative Law 5 (2016), p. 337–362 Open Google Scholar
  182. Steve Peers, „Building Fortress Europe: The Development of EU Migration Law“, Common Market Law Review 35 (1998), p. 1235–1272 Open Google Scholar
  183. Steve Peers, Marios Costa, „Judicial Review of EU Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon; Order of 6 September 2011, Case T-18/10 InuitTapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission & Judgment of 25 October 2011, Case T-262/10 Microban v. Commission“, European Constitutional Law Review 8 (2012), p. 82–104 Open Google Scholar
  184. Anne Peters, „The European Ombudsman and the European Constitution“, Common Market Law Review 42 (2005), p. 697–743 Open Google Scholar
  185. John Peterson, „Juncker’s political European Commission and an EU in crisis“, Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (2017), p. 349–367 Open Google Scholar
  186. Max Pichl, The ‘Moria Complex’. Irresponsibility, Incompetence and Disenfranchisement Five Years After the EU-Turkey Accord and Launch of the Hotspot System. A Study for medico international, 2021 Open Google Scholar
  187. Maria Pichou, „Reception or Detention Centres? The detention of migrants and the EU 'Hotspot' Approach in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights“, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 99 (2016), p. 114–131 Open Google Scholar
  188. Jörg Polakiewicz, Julia Katharina Kirchmayr, „Sounding the Alarm: The Council of Europe As the Guardian of the Rule of Law in Contemporary Europe“, in Armin von Bogdandy, Piotr Bogdanowic, Iris Canor, Christoph Grabenwarter, Maciej Taborowski, Matthias Schmidt (ed.), Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States, Springer 2021, p. 361–382 Open Google Scholar
  189. Johannes Pollak, Peter Slominski, „Experimentalist but not Accountable Governance? The Role of Frontex in Managing the EU's External Borders“, West European Politics 32 (2009), p. 904–924 Open Google Scholar
  190. Nina Półtorak, „Action for Damages in the Case of Infringement of Fundamental Rights by the European Union“, in Ewa Bagińska (ed.), Damages for violations of human rights. A comparative study of domestic legal systems, Springer 2016, p. 427–441 Open Google Scholar
  191. Anastasia Poulou, „Financial Assistance Conditionality and Human Rights Protection: What is the Role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?“, Common Market Law Review 54 (2017), p. 991–1026 Open Google Scholar
  192. Sacha Prechal, Rob Widdershoven, „Redefining the Relationship between 'Rewe-effectiveness' and Effective Judicial Protection“, Review of European Administrative Law 4 (2011), p. 31–50 Open Google Scholar
  193. Timo Rademacher, Realakte im Rechtsschutzsystem der Europäischen Union, Mohr Siebeck 2014 Open Google Scholar
  194. Timo Rademacher, „Factual Administrative Conduct and Judicial Review in EU Law“, European Review of Public Law 30 (2017), p. 399–435 Open Google Scholar
  195. René Repasi, „Judicial protection against austerity measures in the euro area: Ledra and Mallis“, Common Market Law Review 54 (2017), p. 1123–1156 Open Google Scholar
  196. Michael Rhimes, „The EU Courts Stand Their Ground: Why Are the Standing Rules for Direct Actions Still so Restrictive?“, European Journal of Legal Studies (2016), p. 103–172 Open Google Scholar
  197. Jorrit R Rijpma, „Hybrid Agencifiation in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and its inherent tension: The case of Frontex“, in Madalina Busuioc, Martijn Groenleer, Jarle Trondal (ed.), The Agency Phenomenon in the European Union. Emergence, Institutionalisation and Everyday Decision-Making, Manchester University Press 2012, p. 84–102 Open Google Scholar
  198. Jorrit R Rijpma, The Proposal for a European Border and Coast Guard: evolution or revolution in external border management? Study for the LIBE Committee, European Parliament 2016 Open Google Scholar
  199. Ariadna Ripoll Servent, „Failing under the ‘shadow of hierarchy’: explaining the role of the European Parliament in the EU’s ‘asylum crisis’“, in Edoardo Bressanelli, Nicola Chelotti (ed.), The European Parliament in the Contested Union. Power and Influence Post-Lisbon, Routledge 2020, p. 29–47 Open Google Scholar
  200. Isabel Rooms, Ariti Skarpa, „An Insurmountably High Standard for Damage Claims against the EU? Case T-834/17, UPS v Commission“, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 13 (2022), p. 487–489 Open Google Scholar
  201. Herbert Rosenfeldt, Frontex im Zentrum der Europäischen Grenz- und Küstenwache. Bestandsaufnahme, Unionsrechtmäßigkeit und Verantwortlichkeit, Mohr Siebeck 2021 Open Google Scholar
  202. Matthias Rossi, „Artikel 74 AEUV“, in Christian Calliess, Matthias Ruffert (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  203. Matthias Rossi, „Artikel 80 AEUV“, in Christian Calliess, Matthias Ruffert (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  204. Gerard C. Rowe, „Administrative supervision of administrative action in the European Union“, in Herwig Hofmann, Alexander Türk (ed.), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law, Edward Elgar 2009, p. 179–217 Open Google Scholar
  205. Matthias Ruffert, „AEUV Art. 340 (ex-Art. 288 EGV)“, in Matthias Ruffert, Christian Calliess (ed.), EUV/AEUV, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  206. Matthias Ruffert, „Artikel 17 EUV“, in Christian Calliess, Matthias Ruffert (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  207. Giacomo Rugge, „The Euro Group’s informality and locus standi before the European Court of Justice: Council v. K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others“, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (Heidelberg Journal of International Law) (2021), p. 917–936 Open Google Scholar
  208. Charles F. Sabel, Jonathan Zeitlin, „Experimentalist Governance“, in David Levi-Faur (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford University Press 2012, p. 169–184 Open Google Scholar
  209. Marek Safjan, Dominik Düsterhaus, „A Union of Effective Judicial Protection: Addressing a Multi-level Challenge through the Lens of Article 47 CFREU“, Yearbook of European Law 33 (2014), p. 3–40 Open Google Scholar
  210. Juan Santos Vara, Laura Pascual Matellám, „The Informalization of EU Return Policy: A Change of Paradigm in Migration Cooperation with Third Countries?“, in Eva Kassoti, Narin Idriz (ed.), The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Springer 2022, p. 37–52 Open Google Scholar
  211. Uwe Säuberlich, Die außervertragliche Haftung im Gemeinschaftsrecht. Eine Untersuchung der Mehrpersonenverhaltnisse, Springer 2005 Open Google Scholar
  212. Johannes Saurer, Der Einzelne im europäischen Verwaltungsrecht, Mohr Siebeck 2014 Open Google Scholar
  213. James D Savage, Amy Verdun, „Strengthening the European Commission's budgetary and economic surveillance capacity since Greece and the euro area crisis: a study of five Directorates-General“, Journal of European Public Policy 23 (2015), p. 101–118 Open Google Scholar
  214. Kim Lane Scheppele, Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov, Barbara Grabowska-Moroz, „EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union“, Yearbook of European Law 39 (2020), p. 2–21 Open Google Scholar
  215. Franz Schimmelpfennig, „European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises“, Journal of European Public Policy 25 (2018), p. 969–989 Open Google Scholar
  216. Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, „Europäische Verwaltung zwischen Kooperation und Hierarchie. Festschrift für Helmut Steinberger“, in Hans-Joachim Cremer (ed.), Tradition und Weltoffenheit des Rechts, Springer 2002, p. 1375–1399 Open Google Scholar
  217. Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, „Einleitung: Der Europäische Verwaltungsverbund und die Rolle des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts“, in Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Bettina Schöndorf-Haubold (ed.), Der Europäische Verwaltungsverbund. Formen und Verfahren der Verwaltungszusammenarbeit in der EU, Mohr Siebeck 2005, p. 1–23 Open Google Scholar
  218. Miroslava Scholten, Marloes van Rijsbergen, „The Limits of Agencification in the European Union“, German Law Journal 15 (2014), p. 1223–1255 Open Google Scholar
  219. Peter H. Schuck, „The Transformation of Immigration Law“, Columbia Law Review 84 (1984), p. 1–90 Open Google Scholar
  220. Linda Senden, „Soft Post-Legislative Rulemaking: A Time for More Stringent Control“, European Law Journal 19 (2013), p. 57–75 Open Google Scholar
  221. Foroud Shirvani, „Haftungsprobleme im Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund“, Europarecht 46 (2011), p. 619–635 Open Google Scholar
  222. Marta Simoncini, Administrative Regulation Beyond the Non-Delegation Doctrine. A Study on EU Agencies, Hart Publishing 2020 Open Google Scholar
  223. Melanie Smith, „Enforcement, monitoring, verification, outsourcing: the decline and decline of the infringement process“, European Law Review 33 (2008), p. 777–802 Open Google Scholar
  224. Francis Snyder, „The Effectiveness of European Community Law: Institutions, Processes, Tools and Techniques“, The Modern Law Review 56 (1993), p. 19–54 Open Google Scholar
  225. Francis Snyder, „Soft Law and Institutional Practice in the European Community“, in Stephen Martin (ed.), The Construction of Europe. Essays in honour of Emile Noël, Springer 1994, p. 197–227 Open Google Scholar
  226. Oana Ştefan, „Soft Law and the Enforcement of EU Law“, in András Jakab, Dimitry Kochenov (ed.), The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States' Compliance, Oxford University Press 2017 Open Google Scholar
  227. Oana Ştefan, „European Competition Soft Law in European Courts: A Matter of Hard Principles?“, European Law Journal 14 (2008), p. 753–772 Open Google Scholar
  228. Eric Stein, „Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution“, American Journal of International Law 75 (1981), p. 1–27 Open Google Scholar
  229. Alexandra Tarzikhan, „The European Union Agency for Asylum: A Promising Improvement or Vestige of the European Asylum Support office?“, Refugee Law & Migration Studies Brief 1 (2022), p. 1–10 Open Google Scholar
  230. Martina Tazzioli, „Refugees' Debit Cards, Subjectivities, and Data Circuits: Financial-Humanitarianism in the Greek Migration Laboratory“, International Political Sociology 13 (2019), p. 392–408 Open Google Scholar
  231. Fabien Terpan, „Soft Law in the European Union. The Changing Nature of EU Law“, European Law Journal 21 (2015), p. 68–96 Open Google Scholar
  232. Daniel Thym, „Muddy Waters: A Guide to the Legal Questions surrounding 'Pushbacks' at the External Borders at Sea and at Land“, eumigrationlawblog of 06/07/2021 Open Google Scholar
  233. Daniel Thym, „Why the EU-Turkey Deal is Legal and a Step in the Right Direction“, Verfassungsblog of 09/03/2016 Open Google Scholar
  234. Daniel Thym, „Artikel 74 AEUV“, in Winfried Kluth, Andreas Heusch (ed.), BeckOK Ausländerrecht, C.H. Beck 2022 Open Google Scholar
  235. Daniel Thym, „Legal Framework for EU Asylum Policy“, in Daniel Thym, Kay Hailbronner (ed.), EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Article-by-Article Commentary, C.H. Beck, Hart Publishing and Nomos 2022, p. 1129–1176 Open Google Scholar
  236. Daniel Thym, European Migration Law, Oxford University Press 2023 Open Google Scholar
  237. A.G. Toth, „The Concepts of Damage and Causality as Elements of Non-Contractual Liability“, in Ton Heukels, Alison McDonnell (ed.), The Action for Damages in Community Law, Wolters Kluwer 1997, p. 179–198 Open Google Scholar
  238. Angeliki Tsiliou, „When Greek judges decide whether Turkey is a Safe Third Country without caring too much for EU law“, eumigrationlawblog of 29/05/2018 Open Google Scholar
  239. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, „Bottom-Up Salvation? From Practical Cooperation Towards Joint Implementation Through the European Asylum Support Office“, European Papers 1 (2017), p. 997–1031 Open Google Scholar
  240. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, „Monitoring and Steering through FRONTEX and EASO 2.0: The Rise of a New Model of AFSJ agencies?“, eumigrationlawblog of 29/01/2018 Open Google Scholar
  241. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, „Holding the European Asylum Support Office Accountable for its role in Asylum Decision-Making: Mission Impossible?“, German Law Journal 21 (2020), p. 506–531 Open Google Scholar
  242. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, „The New Pact and EU Agencies: An Ambivalent Approach Towards Administrative Integration“, eumigrationlawblog of 06/11/2020 Open Google Scholar
  243. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, „Beyond the ‘Migration Crisis’: The Evolving Role of EU Agencies in the Administrative Governance of the Asylum and External Border Control Policies“, in Johannes Pollak, Peter Slominski (ed.), The Role of EU Agencies in the Eurozone and Migration Crisis. Impact and Future Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan 2021, p. 175–203 Open Google Scholar
  244. Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, Cathryn Costello, „‘Systemic Violations’ in EU Asylum Law: Cover or Catalyst?“, German Law Journal 24 (2023), p. 982–994 Open Google Scholar
  245. Alexander Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law, Edward Elgar 2009 Open Google Scholar
  246. Alexander Türk, „Judicial review of integrated administration in the EU“, in Herwig Hofmann, Alexander Türk (ed.), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law: Towards an Integrated Administration, Edward Elgar 2009, p. 218–256 Open Google Scholar
  247. Alexander H. Türk, „Liability and Accountability for Policies Announced to the Public and for Press Releases“, ECB Legal Conference 2017. Shaping a new legal order for Europe: a tale of crises and opportunities, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecblegalconferenceproceedings201712.en.pdf Open Google Scholar
  248. Orcun Ulusoy, Hemme Battjes, „Situation of Readmitted Migrants and Refugees from Greece to Turkey under the EU-Turkey Statement“, VU Migration Law Series (2017) Open Google Scholar
  249. Unisys, Study on the Feasibility of the Creation of a European System of Border Guards to Control the External Borders of the Union (ESBG), conducted for the European Commission, 2014 Open Google Scholar
  250. Helene Urth, Mathilde Heegaard Bausager, Hanna-Maija Kuhn, Joanne Van Selm, Study on the Feasibility and legal and practical implications of establishing a mechanism for the joint processing of asylum applications on the territory of the EU, conducted for the European Commission, 2013 Open Google Scholar
  251. Ilse van Liempt, Maybritt Jill Alpes, Saima Hassan, Sevda Tunaboylu, Orcun Ulusoy, Annelies Zoomers, Evidence-Based Assessment of Migration Deals. The case of the EU-Turkey Statement, 2017 Open Google Scholar
  252. Maarten Vink, Claudia Engelmann, „Informal European Asylum Governance in an International Context“, in Thomas Christiansen, Christine Neuhold (ed.), International Handbook on Informal Governance, Edward Elgar 2012, p. 534–553 Open Google Scholar
  253. Nikos Vogiatzis, The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan 2018 Open Google Scholar
  254. Ellen Vos, „EU Agencies and Independence“, in D Ritleng (ed.), Independence and Legitimacy in the Institutional System of the European Union, Oxford University Press 2016, p. 206–227 Open Google Scholar
  255. Jill Wakefield, Judicial Protection through the Use of Article 288(2) EC, Wolters Kluwer 2002 Open Google Scholar
  256. Angela Ward, „Damages under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights“, ERA Forum 12 (2012), p. 589–611 Open Google Scholar
  257. Ian Ward, A Critical Introduction to European Law, LexisNexis Buttersworths 1996 Open Google Scholar
  258. Martin Weitenberg, Der Begriff der Kausalität in der haftungsrechtlichen Rechtsprechung der Unionsgerichte, Nomos 2014 Open Google Scholar
  259. Matthias Wendel, „The Refugee Crisis and the Executive: On the Limits of Administrative Discretion in the Common European Asylum System“, German Law Journal 17 (2016), p. 1005–1032 Open Google Scholar
  260. Wouter P. J. Wils, „Concurrent liability of the Community and a Member State“, European law review 17 (1992), p. 191–206 Open Google Scholar
  261. Napoleon Xanthoulis, „Administrative factual conduct: Legal effects and judicial control in EU law“, Review of European Administrative Law 12 (2019), p. 39–73 Open Google Scholar
  262. Jonathan Zeitlin, „EU experimentalist governance in times of crisis“, West European Politics 39 (2016), p. 1073–1094 Open Google Scholar
  263. Catharina Ziebritzki, „A Hidden Success. Why the EU General Court’s Frontex Judgment is Better Than it Seems“, Verfassungsblog of 13/10/23 Open Google Scholar
  264. Catharina Ziebritzki, „Refugee Camps at the EU External Border – Is the Union responsible? The Integrated EU Hotspot Administration and the Potential of EU Public Liability Law“, in Markus Kotzur, David Moya, Ülkü Sezgi Sözen, Andrea Romano (ed.), The External Dimension of EU Migration and Asylum Policies. Human Rights, Development and Neighbourhood Policies in the Mediterranean Area, Nomos 2020 Open Google Scholar
  265. Catharina Ziebritzki, „Warum die ‘Instrumentalisierung’ Asylsuchender kein Argument für die Aussetzung ihrer Grundrechte ist“, Kritische Justiz 55 (2022), p. 152–166 Open Google Scholar
  266. Catharina Ziebritzki, The EU’s Responsibility in the Asylum Administration. Administrative Integration, Judicial Protection and the Case of the EU Hotspots, Dissertation at Frankfurt University, Law Department January 2024 Open Google Scholar
  267. Catharina Ziebritzki, Robert Nestler, „Implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement: EU Hotspots and restriction of asylum seekers' freedom of movement“, eumigrationlawblog of 22/06/2018 Open Google Scholar
  268. Catharina Ziebritzki, Robert Nestler, „‘Hotspots’ an der EU-Außengrenze. Eine rechtliche Bestandsaufnahme“, MPIL Research Paper Series (SSRN) 17 (2017) Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law", "Law General, Comprehensive Works and Collections"
Cover of book: Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Edited Book Full access
Michael Rodi, Johannes Saurer
Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Cover of book: Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Book Titles No access
Adomas Jankauskis
Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Cover of book: Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century
Edited Book No access
Ranjana Andrea Achleitner, Eva Fischer, Lena Hornkohl, Bernadette Zelger
Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century
Cover of book: Europa
Book Titles No access
Hans Jörg Schrötter
Europa
Cover of book: Human Dignity in the General Theory of Fundamental Rights
Book Titles No access
Augusto Wiegand Cruz
Human Dignity in the General Theory of Fundamental Rights

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex