Auf Mastodon teilen

Dear European Maritime Safety Agency, Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information: For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/meetings_with_aerospace_industry) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts or question in regards to this request. Thank you in advance. Yours faithfully, << Adresse entfernt >> Luisa Izuzquiza Anfragenr: 194220 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/194220/ Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> Luisa Izuzquiza

Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear EMSA, Thank you for your message and apologies for the delayed response. In response to each of your questions and requests for clarifications: 1. "Regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards." Thank you. Could you therefore please provide a link to the documents disclosed on 15 November 2019 and February 2020? If this is possible, I would agree to limit my request to documents relating to February 2020 onwards. 2. "This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request." I confirm I am still interested in receiving all of these documents. I understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response. 3. "As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies." I am interested in both particular branches and national companies. As indicated above, I understand - and accept - this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes. 4. "only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct." This correspondence actually would fall under the scope of my request and I confirm I would be interested in these documents as well. Hoping these clarifications are useful, I remain at your disposal in case you have any further questions in regards to my request. Thank you very much in advance. Yours faithfully, << Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 194220 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/194220/ Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> Luisa Izuzquiza

Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Once again, thank you for your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and your reply below. Please be informed that in line with the provisions of Article 7.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, EMSA extends the initial time limit by an additional 15 working days due to the fact that complete processing of your application was not possible for the below stated reasons: - processing of your application involves consultation, identification, processing and potential redaction of large number of documents; - EMSA is not the sole owner of the requested documents therefore consultations with third parties as per Article 4.4 might apply; - due to the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator

Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 4 to 6. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 7 to 9. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosure 10 and 11. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:23 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 7 to 9. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 12 to 14. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:26 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosure 10 and 11. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:23 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 7 to 9. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 15 and 16. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:26 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosure 10 and 11. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:23 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 7 to 9. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal

Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 17 to 19 (last enclosure). Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:40 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 15 and 16. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:26 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosure 10 and 11. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:23 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear applicant, Kindly find attached Enclosures 7 to 9. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 13 October 2020 20:13 To: '<< Adresse entfernt >> [#194220]' <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: RE: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms. Izuzquiza, This is a reply to your application for access to documents as registered on the 12th of August 2020 by EMSA and clarified on the 2nd of September 2020, whereby you request “documents which contain the following information: “[…] “For the period between 1 January 2016 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings. I would also like to request, as a follow-up to my request to EMSA filed on 8 October 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...) all documents which contain the following information: For the period between 8 October 2019 to date: - a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed; - all minutes and other reports of these meetings; - all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests; and - all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” The Agency processed your application in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. Given the large extent of documents to be processed and current working conditions due to COVID 19 whereby majority of EMSA staff performs teleworking and requested documents are spread throughout the organisation, and in line with your given consent in the reply received on the 2nd of September 2020 where you “understand - and accept - if this entails a longer processing time and therefore a slower response/ this can potentially make my request more burdensome and therefore increase processing and response timeframes”, the Agency split your application per group of companies, as follows: Part 1/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. Part 2/3: For […] the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). Part 3/3: For […] Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. Under Part 1/3, as previously stated, the only company falling within the scope is CEiiA. In respect of the time frame for which the documents are requested, note that the latest follow-up on the same subject matter was an access to documents application replied on the 11th of February 2020, therefore the timeline considered will be from 12th of February 2020 till the 12th of August (registration date). For the period 8 October 2019 to 24 January 2020 – refer to EMSA answer<https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/m...> published on asktheeu.org. For the period 25 January 2020 to 12 August 2020: * First bullet point – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: Israel Aerospace Industries (or IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a new list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” In January 2020 information was sent to the contractor that the only active specific contract at the time shall not be extended given that there were no operational requests from third parties. In the context of COVID 19 there were no new operations and in June 2020 the contract was not renewed therefore is now expired. As such there were no weekly reports in this time interval. All substantiating documents are to be found in Enclosure 1. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests” Kindly refer to Enclosure 1 to this email in which you will find that content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent of the Regulation No.1049/2001 have been redacted for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The provisions of Article 4.1(b) of the Regulation foresee that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. In case of personal data, the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall apply. This Regulation protects “personal data” which means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person. Surnames and forenames constitute, in themselves, personal data and thus fall within the scope of Article 4.1(b). Given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the documents shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. * The information contained in the documents entails information relating to contract implementation and contractor’s strategy on implementing the offered services. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, such information contained in the documents relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Kindly refer to the previous replies. Under Part 2/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are BAE Systems, Leonardo and identified subdivision Telespazio (Leonardo and Thales joint venture). EMSA did not concluded any contract with BAE. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Leonardo EMSA concluded the framework contract 2016/EMSA/OP/12/2016 with Leonardo as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/12/2016. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the EMSA webpage under the Procurement section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 2 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders. * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: BAE Systems, Leonardo and […]. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 3 and 8 under which you shall find the documentation relating to the meetings with the company. The only documents exchanged with the contractor Leonardo in course of regular contract implementation meetings are the weekly reports – kindly refer to Enclosure 9 providing a sample of such report. Note that the content of this reports falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the three companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 4-Leonardo-Non Disclosure Agreement-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 5-Leonardo-Specific Contract No1-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 6-Leonardo-Specific Contract No2-Interfacing-Redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Enclosure 7-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation and SC 3-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Enclosure 8-Leonardo-Meeting 10012018 and Termination letters-redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Telespazio EMSA concluded three framework contracts with Telespazio, e.g. 2018/EMSA/OP/2/2018 for lots 1, 2 and 3, as an outcome of the call for tenders EMSA/OP/2/2018. All procurement documents together with the draft contract may be found on the e-Tendering webpage under the EMSA calls for tenders section. Kindly refer to Enclosure 10 compiling the exchanges with this company during the call for tenders, the award letters, the NDA signed as a prerequisite for contract implementation together with the presentations made during the kick off meeting held with this contractor. As the multiple framework contracts are implemented through a cascade mechanism to which Telespazio is ranked first for lot 1, second for lot 2 and fourth for lot 3, this contractor was never triggered for a request for services. Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justification, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. Under Part 3/3, as previously stated, the only companies falling within the scope are Thales and identified subdivision Edisoft. EMSA has not concluded any contract with Thales. For the period 1 January 2016 to 12 August 2020: Edisoft * First bullet point of your application – “a list of all meetings held by EMSA with the following companies' representatives and/or intermediaries for these companies: […] Thales. The list should include: date of the meeting, individuals attending and their organisational affiliation, as well as the issues discussed” There is no document encompassing a list of meetings for this period nor containing the information as requested above. * Second bullet point – “all minutes and other reports of these meetings” Kindly refer to Enclosures 16 to 19 under which you shall find samples of Minutes of the meetings and presentations given (as applicable) - for the meetings held with this company during contract implementation. Only samples were provided as to substantiate the fact that the content of these documents falls under the exceptions stipulated by Articles 4(1) letters a) and b) and article 4(2) of the Regulation No.1049/2001 for the following reasons: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals are to be protected in line with the above justification on application of Article 4(1) letter b). * The information contained in the documents entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. The provisions of Article 4.2 of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […]: commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property […].” As such, information contained in the documents which entails technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing and information carrying a commercial value or relating to the execution of a service or of an action, falls under this exception, given that the disclosure of such information to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, would undermine the protection of the respective legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. * Furthermore, with regards the operational data, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. The provisions of Article 4.1(a) first indent of the Regulation foresee that access shall be refused “where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] the public interest as regards: public security […].” In the context where content of some of the reports contain detailed information related to reporting tools and methods used by national administrations and law enforcement officials used to conduct actions such as border control tasks and counter criminal activities and that their disclosure would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate activities such as irregular migration, trafficking in human beings and terrorism as the effectiveness of law enforcement measures would be significantly reduced, disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations and pose a risk to their security. Consequently, the course of ongoing and future similar operations would be hampered by depriving the operations of any strategy and element of surprise, ultimately defeating their purpose. * Furthermore, the non-disclosed parts refer to specifics of technical equipment. Disclosing such information would be tantamount to disclosing the exact type and capabilities of the equipment. This would open way for abuse, as numbers and types of equipment. Releasing such information would benefit terrorist organizations and criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operations. This would ultimately obstruct the purpose of such operations. In this light, the disclosure of information regarding the technical equipment deployed would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security in the sense of Article 4.1(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concluding, all related information falling under the above mentioned exceptions shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. Furthermore, a partial release of the documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, there are over 75 minutes of meetings for which the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. Additionally, a separate assessment of the application for access to documents was performed in order to assess if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure that would justify non-application of the exceptions in Article 4.1. With regards to this aspect, it was found that there is no such interest at stake as to justify public disclosure overriding the mentioned exceptions. * Third bullet point – “all correspondence, including attachments (including, but not limited to, emails, letters, and/or telephone call notes), between EMSA and any of the […] companies mentioned above, including any intermediaries representing their interests”. Kindly refer to the following attachments: Enclosure 11 -Overview<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%204-Leonardo-Non%20Disclosure%20Agreement-redacted_.pdf> of Edisoft contracts (which includes main contracts, specific contracts and their amendments) Enclosure 12 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%205-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No1-redacted_.pdf> Edisoft OP 06 2018 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 13 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%206-Leonardo-Specific%20Contract%20No2-Interfacing-Redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 16 2017 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 14 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 25 2015 procurement related exchanges - redacted Enclosure 15 – Edisoft OP 06 2018 contract implementation documents -redacted<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%208-Leonardo-Meeting%2010012018%20and%20Termination%20letters-redacted_.pdf> Enclosure 19 –<http://collab/workspaces/unitsc.3anda.2cooperation/Shared%20Documents/Access%20to%20documents/Request%202020%2008%2003%20Meetings%20with%20aerospace%20industry/Redacted%20Enclosures%20to%20Response%20to%20Luiza%20September%202020/Enclosure%207-Leonardo-Italy-Mobilisation%20and%20SC%203-redacted.pdf> Edisoft OP 15 2013 contract related documentation - redacted Note that after assessment in line with the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation No.1049/2001, the content falling under exceptions stipulated by Articles 4.1(a) first indent , 4(1) letter b) and 4(2) first indent have been redacted based on the above justifications, as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question, namely: * The information contained in the documents constitutes personal data, in particular the names of individuals. The disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data. * The information contained in the documents entails specific pricing, technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing, information carrying a commercial value and operational data. Therefore, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s commercial strength on the market. * The information contained in the documents entail specifics of technical equipment. Therefore disclosure of such information would be tantamount to disclosing the weaknesses and strengths of operations in certain cases and pose a risk to their security and future planning of similar ones. * Fourth bullet point - “all documents prepared for the purpose of these meetings and/or exchanged during the course of these meetings.” Please refer to our previous replies above. Given the wide scope of your application and the number of documents to be assessed crossed-organisation by different units and departments in EMSA – consequently creating a bigger administrative load towards proper identification & assessment of the documents falling within the scope of your application, for this company only the list of contracts (specific contracts and amendments included) is provided together with the links to the published calls for tenders (Enclosure 11) and a sample of contract implementation documents (Enclosure 15). For the contracts resulted out of open calls for tenders - given that the content of the contracts is the same for all of these as the one initially published as part of the procurement documents and in line with the provisions of the Invitation to Tender document whereby “submission of a tender implies acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in the procurement documents and, where appropriate, the waiver of the tenderer's own general or specific terms and conditions” – the content of the draft contracts as published are not subject to any changes. As a result, the contracts that were signed by EMSA with Edisoft mirror the corresponding Tender Enclosure - Framework Contracts (which you will be able to access in the links in Enclosure 11). The only differences between the published templates and the final signed contracts are the details of the awarded company (name, registration details, address, communication point, bank account) and the names of the legal representatives and signatures of both parties on the last page of the Framework contract – some of which are considered personal data so these would be subject to non-disclosure as falling under exception of Article 4(1)b of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001. The referenced article foresees that access to a document shall be refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data and given that your application for access to documents did not contain any express and legitimate justifications or arguments substantiating the need to obtain the personal data concerned, the conclusion is that all personal data in the contracts shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Annex I of each of the published contracts are the Tender Specifications documents published at the same time with the draft contracts and accessible at the same hyperlinks. Annex II is composed out of the Contractor’s tender. Kindly find that access to this document shall not be given (valid for all contracts in the list), as content of it falls under the exception foreseen by Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 as justified below. In line with the referenced article, access shall be refused to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property. Given the type of information (technical information, information relating to methodologies, know-how, specific pricing or any other information carrying a commercial value) contained in the bids submitted by the awarded contractor, disclosure to the general public, including a potential competitor on the market, of such information relating to the execution of a service or of an action would undermine the protection of the relevant legal person’s expertise, strategy and creativity and thus their commercial strength. Therefore, all related information falling under this exception shall be protected as it is very likely that disclosure of it would be liable to actually undermine the interest protected by the exception in question. As a consequence, the contractor’s tender (Annex II of the Framework Contracts) shall be protected and therefore not disclosed. Furthermore, a partial release of these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the parts that are eligible for disclosure, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. Consequently, the partial disclosure of the document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case. In respect of specific contracts and further amendments made during contract duration – the list in Enclosure 11 includes subject matter thereof. In the context where the templates of the specific contracts are published in the mentioned hyperlinks and EMSA has already provided an overview of number of the contracts/ amendments and their subject matters together with a sample of such implementation for one of the four contracts, a further partial release of all these documents could not be undertaken as the redacting would be disproportional in relation to the number of documents, simultaneously undermining the principle of sound administration. More specifically, the administrative burden necessary to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself. Consequently, even the partial disclosure of all these document(s) at issue must be refused owing to the particular circumstances of the present case whereby all the documents are similar so same redactions as in the samples would apply. Note that due to large size of the attachments this reply shall be followed-up by following emails containing Enclosures only. EMSA tried addressing all the points as per your application. However, in the context of normal contract implementation (outside contracts and meetings), given the technical/IT subject matter of these contracts, it is most probable that either in the foreseeable large volume of documents exchanged which are subject to assessment a large number of passages are to be censured, or same redactions would apply to same/similar documents in content thus not bringing any added value from an informational point of view, therefore further analysis would involve an inappropriate administrative burden. The institutions may, in particular cases in which the volume of documents for which access is requested or in which the number of passages to be censured would involve an inappropriate administrative burden, balance the interest of the applicant for access against the workload resulting from the processing of the application for access in order to safeguard the interests of good administration (Council v Hautala, C‑353/99 P, EU:C:2001:661, paragraph 30, and Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 27). In trying to find a balanced fair solution, kindly confirm if you are still interested in other type of correspondence for this company or would you be interested in narrowing down your clarification reply to the specific documentation already subject to this reply (e.g. only contracts documents exchanged and meetings related documentation). Note that, in line with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No.1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents, you may file a confirmatory application within 15 working days of receiving this email. I remain at your disposal for further clarifications. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal From: Documents Sent: 12 August 2020 18:58 To: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Subject: FW: Meetings with aerospace industry [#194220] Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Thank your interest in the activities of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Please be informed that your application has been registered and will be processed in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to documents. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for applications in the remit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the channel to be used is: EMSA website/ Publications/ EMSA Documents/Documents Request Form, that will ensure a prompt handling. As you have addressed your request to <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>, there was a delay in its registration as request for public access to documents. Firstly, regarding your request related to BAE Systems, Leonardo and Thales, please consider that: 1. EMSA has already published this information on 15 November 2019 and February 2020. Information provided under this request will thus only relate to February 2020 onwards. 1. This request entails the processing of a very large number of documents. Please confirm that you are still interested in receiving these documents or if you would like to narrow your request. 1. As the companies referred to are large groups, please clarify if you are interested in particular branches or national companies. Secondly, regarding your request related to Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit Systems, and/or CEiiA, please note that no meetings with the above-mentioned companies were held, only normal correspondence with CEiiA related to contractual implementation, which we understand not to be in the remit of your request. Please confirm that this understanding is correct. Finally, please note that the 15 working days for EMSA to reply will start counting from the date of receipt of your clarification(s). However, please bear in mind that, depending on your clarification and extent of your request, it may lead to a reply by EMSA beyond the 15 working days, as due to the holiday season and the current COVID-19 situation limiting access to EMSA’s premises, there is a reduced capacity of the Agency to process large requests. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, EMSA Document Access Coordinator [https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/EMSAlog...] EMSA / Praça Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal