Auf Mastodon teilen

Dear Ombudsman team, please find attached our complaint regarding Frontex' use of its own access to documents portal and the repeated refusal to answer requests by e-mail. Please don't hesitate to contact us if there are questions for clarification. Yours sincerely, Luisa Izuzquiza Arne Semsrott Anhänge: - complaint-ombudsman-platform.pdf Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear Obudsman Team, please find attached additional concerns regarding Frontex' handling of requests and its portal as described in our complaint 1261/2020/MAS. If possible, we would be glad if you could include these in your deliberations with Frontex and the meeting in the beginning of November as well. Your sincerely, Luisa Izuzquiza Arne Semsrott Anhänge: - 1261-2020-mas-additional-concerns.pdf Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Sehr geehrte<< Anrede >> meine Informationsfreiheitsanfrage „Operational Plans for Joint Operation Poseidon 2018 and 2019“ vom 20.05.2020 (#187083) wurde von Ihnen nicht in der gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Zeit beantwortet. Sie haben die Frist mittlerweile um 185 Tage überschritten. Bitte informieren Sie mich umgehend über den Stand meiner Anfrage. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Arne Semsrott Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear Mr Semsrott, We are pleased to inform you that our reply including documents regarding your application PAD-2020-00084 were sent on 3 July 2020. Please be informed that 22 December 2020 until 1 January 2021, both including, are non-working days for the Transparency Office. Yours sincerely, Transparency Office

Dear Transparency Office, I did not get an e-mail on 3 July and the link doesn't work. Could you send them to me again? Mit freundlichen Grüßen Arne Semsrott Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear Ombudsman team, thank you for sending me the minutes of your meeting with the Frontex Transparency team. Since Frontex has stated to you that its portal is designed to be user-friendly, let me point to another aspect of its portal that has not been addressed yet. Since logging into Frontex' portal is only possible by solving the so-called Captcha code, people with visual impairments are not able to log in. Against Ombudsman Decision in Case OI/6/2017/EA, Frontex has not taken into account that in order to browse the internet, some people rely on tools such as screenreaders. These tools are not able to read the Captcha as it is designed to not be able to be deciphered by software. Even without visual impairments, it is often not ease to decipher it. Thus, by forcing people to use its platform that is not in line with prevalent web accessibility standards, Frontex is barring people with visual impairments from accessing their right to information. Yours sincerely, Arne Semsrott Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear Mr Bonnor, dear team at the European Ombudsman office, We would like to thank you for having sent us a copy of the Ombudsman’s proposal in our case, as well as Frontex's reply to this proposal. We hereby submit our comments. 1. Proposals regarding Frontex’s use of copyright We agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment that the copyright disclaimer used by Frontex in its letters of response to access to documents requests is “overly restrictive”, “unnecessary”, and “may be read by some as a legal threat”. In this regard, we welcome the Ombudsman’s proposal that “Frontex should no longer use its current copyright claim when replying to requests for public access to documents”. We condemn Frontex’s response to this proposal, which refers to a revision of such policy, as well as an intention to keep using this copyright claim until further notice, “evaluated and adjusted on a case-by-case basis”. In this regard, we stress that the Ombudsman’s recommendation is not to adjust or revise the use of the copyright claim, but to cease to use it as a whole. We recall that the use of this restrictive disclaimer enacts a chilling effect on requesters, and that the restrictions that the disclaimer stipulates are not in line with EU law. We therefore call on Frontex to act in line with the Ombudsman’s proposal and immediately cease to use its copyright disclaimer. Finally, we also welcome the Ombudsman’s proposal that “Frontex should consider updating its copyright policy based on the best practices of other EU institutions”, agreeing with the Ombudsman’s assessment that the current version of such policy is “much more restrictive” than other institutions’. In this regard, we regret Frontex’s failure to address this recommendation in its letter of response, and we call on Frontex to act in line with the Ombudsman proposal and update its general copyright policy in line with existing best practices. 2. Proposal regarding the availability of documents released in response to an access to documents request We agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment that “[no] administrative or legal problems arise in allowing applicants access to the documents for a much longer period.” In this regard, we welcome the Ombudsman’s recommendation that “Frontex should ensure that all documents uploaded into its public access portal can be accessed by applicants for at least two years.” We, however, stress that the best possible practice is not to establish a time limit for the accessibility of documents at all - making the documents available indefinitely once they have been released. We recall that the value of public information is both timeless and unpredictable, especially in the case of documents related to migration, asylum and border control. As an example, documents released through access to documents requests over two years ago have been used as evidence in the legal challenge brought by front-LEX against Frontex for failure to act (see here: https://www.front-lex.eu/wp-content/u...). This was only possible due to the fact that these documents had been made publicly available in an unlimited way. To this regard, we condemn Frontex’s response which insists on the agency’s practice of sending “new access links”, and stresses the intention of continuing to do so “until a sustainable solution is found”. We recall that the practice of sending new access links is, in fact, impractical. It also largely fails to meet the Ombudsman’s recommendation - something that we condemn. First, Frontex’s practice of sending new links upon request puts an unfair burden on the requester, who must keep insisting to have access to documents that she/he has otherwise lawfully obtained via the exercise of her/his fundamental right of access to EU documents. This burden shift is exemplified by Frontex itself when it argues that “applicants have themselves been publishing documents made available to them on private portals.” It must be made clear that this is not a preference or choice by applicants themselves, but the only option applicants actually have given Frontex’s refusal to make documents permanently available in a sustainable way. Second, it is hard to understand how creating and sending new access links on a recurrent basis is a suitable solution for Frontex itself. The agency seems to be imposing an unnecessary burden on itself which can hardly be considered to be in line with the principle of good administration. To this extent it must be recalled that proactive transparency has been widely recognised as a practice that not only benefits greater access to public information (with the many additional benefits this entails for the society at large), but also benefits public institutions by the means of efficiency. We therefore call on Frontex to act in line with the Ombudsman’s proposal by making access links active indefinitely, and therefore making documents available with no time limit. 3. Proposal regarding the channels of communication with Frontex We once again agree with the Ombudsman’s assessment that the absence of an option to receive Frontex’s reply directly by e-mail “[constitutes] a new hurdle for individuals” and “reduces the seamless technical communication with some online transparency platforms” such as FragDenStaat. In this regard, we welcome the Ombudsman recommendation that, upon express wish of the applicant, Frontex should “send its replies by e-mail and not through its public access portal (...) and not only a notification to access Frontex’s public access portal”. We condemn Frontex’s insistence on sending its responses only via its internal portal, refusing to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation. We note the irony in Frontex’s response when the agency stresses the burden it faces due to the “drastic increase in number and complexity of such applications, and the numbers and file sizes of documents released”. If Frontex wishes to handle and process access to documents requests more efficiently, we would suggest the approach underlined here in point 2, which would make Frontex’s tasks more streamlined and efficient - as well as improving the public’s access to Frontex’s documents. It is hard to understand how e-mail communication, which we believe Frontex - and the wider European population - is quite familiar with in the year 2021, presents so many “technical shortcomings” that it justifies halting its use - doing so, of course, only in the very specific case at hand, when it comes to making responses to access to documents requests and documents disclosed easily accessible to requesters. We also note with some concern how Frontex, an agency that takes pride in pioneering the use of “state-of-the-art” technologies applied to its border surveillance duties, keeps encountering unsolvable “technical shortcomings” when it comes to the way it handles access to documents requests. (See, for instance, Ombudsman cases 1808/2018/FP and 1817/2018/FP regarding the agency’s troubles to find a technical solution in order to properly redact documents, resulting in the agency choosing to print documents, redact them by hand, scanning the document, and threatening to charge the requester € 0.20 per per for the application of this manual redaction technique.) To this extent, we note that these “technical shortcomings” invariably and worryingly: a) seem to be exclusive to Frontex; b) result in approaches taken by the agency which makes the agency’s own work notably less efficient, delaying and hindering the agency’s own way of handling access to documents requests; and c) imposes an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the requester, whose right to request and obtain Frontex documents becomes, in the words of the Ombudsman, a hurdle. We therefore call on Frontex to explore and apply “state-of-the-art” technologies, including the use of e-mail, to the compliance of its fundamental rights obligations, such as ensuring the fundamental right of access to EU documents. We also therefore call on Frontex to act in line with the Ombudsman’s proposal by sending its responses to access to documents requests and confirmatory applications by e-mail upon requesters’ express wish. We remind Frontex that this would be the only “bespoke solution which considers the needs of applicants and Frontex” and that its current approach does the exact opposite. Finally, we would like to raise to the Ombudsman’s attention that Frontex’s refusal to comply with the third proposed solution will in fact prevent the monitoring of whether and how Frontex complies with the first solution. Frontex has stated that it will continue to apply its copyright disclaimer “evaluated and adjusted on a case-by-case basis” without offering any criteria on how this application will vary and why. We note with great concern that this could lead to arbitrary and unfair restrictions on the basis of adhoc copyright prohibitions - something that will be impossible to monitor given that the responses Frontex sends to requesters, where it includes its copyright restrictions, are exclusively and privately posted on the Frontex portal. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. We remain at your disposal for any questions or doubts in regards to any of the above. Sincerely, Arne Semsrott Luisa Izuzquiza Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear EO team, thank you. We welcome Frontex' decision to delete the Captcha requirement. While FragDenStaat will be able to transfer information from the PAD to FragDenStaat, asktheEU will not have the capacity for doing so since the process involves programming a software for import. It would still be much better if Frontex answered directly by e-mail. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Arne Semsrott Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>

Dear Mr Semsrott, Many thanks for this rapid and clear information. Please let us know if you intend to submit additional comments on Frontex's opinion, or if we can register your email as the comments on that opinion. Thank you. Kind regards, [geschwärzt]

Dear Mr Bonnor, that's it. Thank you! Mit freundlichen Grüßen Arne Semsrott Anfragenr: 187083 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/187083/ Postanschrift Arne Semsrott << Adresse entfernt >>