Auf Mastodon teilen

-- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag der Antragstellenden auf dem Internet-Portal veröffentlicht. Falls Sie Fragen dazu haben oder eine Idee, was für eine Anfrage bei Ihnen im Haus notwendig wäre, besuchen Sie: https://fragdenstaat.de/fuer-behoerden/

-----Original Message----- From: << Adresse entfernt >> [#233012] <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Sent: 15 November 2021 16:15 To: EASO INFO <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: Report on Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans [#233012] [Some people who received this message don't often get email from <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentif....] Dear European Asylum Support Office, Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting: For what regards the work done by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) with Europol and Frontex on the issuing of the reports: Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans; Joint Analysis on Secondary Movements, as listed on the EMPACT General Factsheet - Facilitated Illegal Immigration - 2020 Results, page 2 - (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.ou...<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.ou...>), I am requesting the following: 1. The full joint reports produced by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) with EUROPOL and Frontex on the topic of migrant smuggling; 2. The agenda of all meetings in which the reports "Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans; Joint Analysis on Secondary Movements" were discussed; 3. A list of all attendees, including job title and name of the agency, governmental body, European institution, organisation or company each attendee represents; 4. All presentations by EASO, Frontex and Europol shown 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. Sincerely, << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 233012 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.ou...<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.ou...> Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag

-----Original Message----- From: Luisa Izuzquiza [#233012] <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Sent: 15 November 2021 16:15 To: EASO INFO <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: Report on Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans [#233012] [Some people who received this message don't often get email from <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear European Asylum Support Office, Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting: For what regards the work done by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) with Europol and Frontex on the issuing of the reports: Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans; Joint Analysis on Secondary Movements, as listed on the EMPACT General Factsheet - Facilitated Illegal Immigration - 2020 Results, page 2 - (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.consilium.europa.eu%2Fmedia%2F50206%2Fcombined-factsheets.pdf&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7Cad0c0adce723467c41d808d9a9b4bcbe%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637727415998301524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=MKGjTb5ShGpRuU7lVr8tBVN%2Bc4hMcT7tcbTRjLF64YU%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.consilium.europa.eu%2Fmedia%2F50206%2Fcombined-factsheets.pdf&data=04%7C01%7C%7C5932ba5ca4cb4047c69408d9a9b5919f%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637727419837023819%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=rZafR%2BWnWvb1J1VWWuOzO7ok%2FaH0Z8ZxU0zAf27gk44%3D&reserved=0>), I am requesting the following: 1. The full joint reports produced by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) with EUROPOL and Frontex on the topic of migrant smuggling; 2. The agenda of all meetings in which the reports "Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans; Joint Analysis on Secondary Movements" were discussed; 3. A list of all attendees, including job title and name of the agency, governmental body, European institution, organisation or company each attendee represents; 4. All presentations by EASO, Frontex and Europol shown 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. Sincerely, Luisa Izuzquiza Luisa Izuzquiza Anfragenr: 233012 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffragdenstaat.de%2Fanfrage%2F233012%2Fupload%2F33352d1c591ff1c52e38104eccb51c4f45ae04ba%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7Cad0c0adce723467c41d808d9a9b4bcbe%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637727415998301524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=%2FjXQTJzM3PSFhDBiA%2FQfamkS3KAeI%2B3We%2BNBTsgdFg4%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffragdenstaat.de%2Fanfrage%2F233012%2Fupload%2F33352d1c591ff1c52e38104eccb51c4f45ae04ba%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C5932ba5ca4cb4047c69408d9a9b5919f%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637727419837023819%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=QnwRKLCVrCfziwChBO9hU4%2FzcAmjMX4aEfgGdzfCgqg%3D&reserved=0> Postanschrift Luisa Izuzquiza Luisa Izuzquiza FragDenStaat | Open Knowledge Foundation Deutschland e.V. << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag

-- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag der Antragstellenden auf dem Internet-Portal veröffentlicht. Falls Sie Fragen dazu haben oder eine Idee, was für eine Anfrage bei Ihnen im Haus notwendig wäre, besuchen Sie: https://fragdenstaat.de/fuer-behoerden/

-- Dear European Asylum Support Office, Please pass this on to the person reviewing confirmatory applications. On 15 November 2021 I filed a request for access to a series of documents regarding migrant smuggling in the Western Balkans. EASO acknowledged my request on 17 November. On 6 December, EASO responded to my request. EASO identified two documents falling under the scope of my request (namely “the Joint report” and “the Agenda”), granting access to the latter (already in the public domain), and refusing access to the former under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, protection of public security, and Article 4(3), protection of the decision-making process. To this extent, I hereby argue: 1. EASO’s application of Article 4(1)(a) is unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues disclosure of the requested documents would undermine public security. EASO bases its decision on the basis of the type of information the report contains, such as “detailed information regarding the modus operandi of criminal networks”, “detailed information regarding the modus operandi of law enforcement officials” or “details of the operational areas”. To this regard, EASO also argues disclosure “would provide smuggling and other criminal networks with intelligence, enabling them to change their modus operandi, which would ultimately put the life of migrants in danger”. First, it is worth recalling that the EU court has held that the mere fact that documents relate to a sensitive area of EU work does not make documents sensitive per se. It is therefore not sufficient to merely list the type of information that a document contains in order to refuse access to it. Second, according to well-established EU case law, EASO must demonstrate how disclosure would “specifically and actually” harm public security, and how this risk is not “reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical”. EASO’s unsubstantiated argument linking disclosure to putting the lives of migrants in danger cannot in any way meet the standard set by the EU General Court when it comes to refusals of access to documents. To this extent it is worth noting that, unfortunately, under the current EU border regime, there are many factors that put the lives of migrants at risk - greater transparency, which allows for greater accountability and a stronger protection of human rights, is however not one of these factors, but rather the opposite. 2. EASO’s application of Article 4(3) is also unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues that the document in dispute “contains information that is used for the development of risk analysis, which constitutes a specific form of internal decision-making processes”. To this extent, EASO argues that disclosure “would enable third parties to gain insights into these decision-making processes (...) depriving the JHA Agencies of the possibility to conduct such analysis wholly independently, free from any external pressure or third-party influence”. Once again, EASO is failing to comply with well-established case law by failing to demonstrate how disclosure would “specifically and actually” harm the decision-making process. As mentioned above, EASO’s response merely gives a brief description of the content of the requested document, offering no specific proof of how this content would endanger the protected interest besides merely stating it would. EASO mentions disclosure would expose the agency to “third-party influence” and “external pressure” without even mentioning whose influence and pressure, and how this would undermine EASO’s analysis. The vague nature of EASO’s arguments therefore fails to meet the standard of specificity set by the court. It is also worth recalling that, in the EU treaties, the fundamental right of access to documents is closely linked to the principles of public participation and democratic accountability. In this regard, greater transparency of decision-making processes, in particular when it comes to issues related to fundamental rights and international law, cannot be considered a risk but rather a fundamental pillar of any functioning democracy. 3. There is indeed an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the Joint Report. In its response, EASO states that after an examination the agency “has concluded that there is no such an overriding public interest.” This assertion is false. It is once again worth recalling that fundamental rights constitute an essential pillar of European law. To this regard, the report in dispute contains important information related and relevant to the protection and the safeguard of fundamental rights at Europe’s borders - specifically Western Balkans, where over the past years fundamental rights have been repeatedly and severely been endangered and even entirely suspended. International organisations, European bodies and courts, human rights watchdogs and journalists have repeatedly reported and denounced instances and patterns of deterioration of fundamental rights in the Western Balkans. In fact, some of the agencies involved in the production of the report in dispute have even been obliged to suspend their operations in this area due to the lack of proper human rights safeguards. In this context, it is of utmost importance to understand what is the JHA Agencies analysis of this context - especially so when this analysis is subject to shaping agencies’ deployment in this area, thus leading to possible contribution to rights violations. In that sense and in this context, the overriding public interest of disclosure is undeniable. 4. EASO’s failure to provide partial access is in violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides: “If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released.” To this extent, the proposition that the totality or even a substantial part of the report in dispute relates to demonstrably sensitive is not sustainable. EASO must therefore seriously consider partial disclosure, consistently with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the principle of widest possible access. EASO alleges that partial access cannot be granted to the requested document as its redaction “would entail a disproportionate administrative burden.” This argument is however inconsistent with the terms of Article 4(6), which provides that the scope of disclosure is determined with reference to the exceptions laid out in Article 4, rather than a test of proportionality. In its response, EASO itself concedes that “theoretically” some parts of the relevant document could be disclosed. It is therefore EASO’s legal obligation to examine whether this is the case, and to provide any and all fragments of the document considered eligible for disclosure. To this extent, EASO’s considerations on whether the parts eligible for disclosure are meaningful or “meaningless” are not relevant or applicable; instead of EASO’s unilateral evaluation, it is rather the requester’s place to determine whether the disclosed document has any value, why and how. In light of the arguments exposed above, and in view of EASO’s unlawful refusal - which has failed to comply with the legal obligations under Regulation 1049/2001, as well as EU case law - I hereby call on EASO to disclose the requested document in full. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you would have any doubts or questions with regards to this confirmatory application. Sincerely, << Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 233012 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/233012/ Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> Luisa Izuzquiza << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag der Antragstellenden auf dem Internet-Portal veröffentlicht. Falls Sie Fragen dazu haben oder eine Idee, was für eine Anfrage bei Ihnen im Haus notwendig wäre, besuchen Sie: https://fragdenstaat.de/fuer-behoerden/

-----Original Message----- From: << Adresse entfernt >> [#233012] <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Sent: 23 December 2021 19:59 To: EASO INFO <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: AW: RE: Report on Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans [#233012] Dear European Asylum Support Office, Please pass this on to the person reviewing confirmatory applications. On 15 November 2021 I filed a request for access to a series of documents regarding migrant smuggling in the Western Balkans. EASO acknowledged my request on 17 November. On 6 December, EASO responded to my request. EASO identified two documents falling under the scope of my request (namely "the Joint report" and "the Agenda"), granting access to the latter (already in the public domain), and refusing access to the former under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, protection of public security, and Article 4(3), protection of the decision-making process. To this extent, I hereby argue: 1. EASO's application of Article 4(1)(a) is unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues disclosure of the requested documents would undermine public security. EASO bases its decision on the basis of the type of information the report contains, such as "detailed information regarding the modus operandi of criminal networks", "detailed information regarding the modus operandi of law enforcement officials" or "details of the operational areas". To this regard, EASO also argues disclosure "would provide smuggling and other criminal networks with intelligence, enabling them to change their modus operandi, which would ultimately put the life of migrants in danger". First, it is worth recalling that the EU court has held that the mere fact that documents relate to a sensitive area of EU work does not make documents sensitive per se. It is therefore not sufficient to merely list the type of information that a document contains in order to refuse access to it. Second, according to well-established EU case law, EASO must demonstrate how disclosure would "specifically and actually" harm public security, and how this risk is not "reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical". EASO's unsubstantiated argument linking disclosure to putting the lives of migrants in danger cannot in any way meet the standard set by the EU General Court when it comes to refusals of access to documents. To this extent it is worth noting that, unfortunately, under the current EU border regime, there are many factors that put the lives of migrants at risk - greater transparency, which allows for greater accountability and a stronger protection of human rights, is however not one of these factors, but rather the opposite. 2. EASO's application of Article 4(3) is also unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues that the document in dispute "contains information that is used for the development of risk analysis, which constitutes a specific form of internal decision-making processes". To this extent, EASO argues that disclosure "would enable third parties to gain insights into these decision-making processes (...) depriving the JHA Agencies of the possibility to conduct such analysis wholly independently, free from any external pressure or third-party influence". Once again, EASO is failing to comply with well-established case law by failing to demonstrate how disclosure would "specifically and actually" harm the decision-making process. As mentioned above, EASO's response merely gives a brief description of the content of the requested document, offering no specific proof of how this content would endanger the protected interest besides merely stating it would. EASO mentions disclosure would expose the agency to "third-party influence" and "external pressure" without even mentioning whose influence and pressure, and how this would undermine EASO's analysis. The vague nature of EASO's arguments therefore fails to meet the standard of specificity set by the court. It is also worth recalling that, in the EU treaties, the fundamental right of access to documents is closely linked to the principles of public participation and democratic accountability. In this regard, greater transparency of decision-making processes, in particular when it comes to issues related to fundamental rights and international law, cannot be considered a risk but rather a fundamental pillar of any functioning democracy. 3. There is indeed an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the Joint Report. In its response, EASO states that after an examination the agency "has concluded that there is no such an overriding public interest." This assertion is false. It is once again worth recalling that fundamental rights constitute an essential pillar of European law. To this regard, the report in dispute contains important information related and relevant to the protection and the safeguard of fundamental rights at Europe's borders - specifically Western Balkans, where over the past years fundamental rights have been repeatedly and severely been endangered and even entirely suspended. International organisations, European bodies and courts, human rights watchdogs and journalists have repeatedly reported and denounced instances and patterns of deterioration of fundamental rights in the Western Balkans. In fact, some of the agencies involved in the production of the report in dispute have even been obliged to suspend their operations in this area due to the lack of proper human rights safeguards. In this context, it is of utmost importance to understand what is the JHA Agencies analysis of this context - especially so when this analysis is subject to shaping agencies' deployment in this area, thus leading to possible contribution to rights violations. In that sense and in this context, the overriding public interest of disclosure is undeniable. 4. EASO's failure to provide partial access is in violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides: "If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released." To this extent, the proposition that the totality or even a substantial part of the report in dispute relates to demonstrably sensitive is not sustainable. EASO must therefore seriously consider partial disclosure, consistently with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the principle of widest possible access. EASO alleges that partial access cannot be granted to the requested document as its redaction "would entail a disproportionate administrative burden." This argument is however inconsistent with the terms of Article 4(6), which provides that the scope of disclosure is determined with reference to the exceptions laid out in Article 4, rather than a test of proportionality. In its response, EASO itself concedes that "theoretically" some parts of the relevant document could be disclosed. It is therefore EASO's legal obligation to examine whether this is the case, and to provide any and all fragments of the document considered eligible for disclosure. To this extent, EASO's considerations on whether the parts eligible for disclosure are meaningful or "meaningless" are not relevant or applicable; instead of EASO's unilateral evaluation, it is rather the requester's place to determine whether the disclosed document has any value, why and how. In light of the arguments exposed above, and in view of EASO's unlawful refusal - which has failed to comply with the legal obligations under Regulation 1049/2001, as well as EU case law - I hereby call on EASO to disclose the requested document in full. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you would have any doubts or questions with regards to this confirmatory application. Sincerely, << Adresse entfernt >> Anfragenr: 233012 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.ou... Postanschrift << Adresse entfernt >> Luisa Izuzquiza << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag

-----Original Message----- From: Executive Office Mailbox <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Sent: 03 January 2022 11:11 To: '<<E-Mail-Adresse>>' <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Cc: Executive Office Mailbox <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: RE: Report on Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans [#233012] Importance: High Dear Ms Izuzquiza, Reference is made to your e-mail dated 23 December 2021. We hereby acknowledge receipt of your confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which was registered under reference number 00004 on 3 January 2022. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents and Decision nº 6 of the Management Board of EASO laying down practical arrangements regarding public access to documents of EASO, your application will be handled within 15 working days from the day of registration. The time limit will expire on 24 January 2022. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course. Best regards, European Asylum Support Office MTC Block A, Winemakers Wharf, Grand Harbour Valletta, MRS 1917, Malta Tel: +356 22487500 Email: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Website: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Feaso.europa.eu%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C3318be58dc664557ef6e08d9cea16089%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637768014768810910%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=BfQiutT1sVDrBymu74zi2hooapxe57JOx0WXDi9KPxU%3D&amp;reserved=0 -----Original Message----- From: Luisa Izuzquiza [#233012] <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Sent: 23 December 2021 19:59 To: EASO INFO <<<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>>> Subject: AW: RE: Report on Tackling Migrant Smuggling in the Western Balkans [#233012] Dear European Asylum Support Office, Please pass this on to the person reviewing confirmatory applications. On 15 November 2021 I filed a request for access to a series of documents regarding migrant smuggling in the Western Balkans. EASO acknowledged my request on 17 November. On 6 December, EASO responded to my request. EASO identified two documents falling under the scope of my request (namely "the Joint report" and "the Agenda"), granting access to the latter (already in the public domain), and refusing access to the former under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001, protection of public security, and Article 4(3), protection of the decision-making process. To this extent, I hereby argue: 1. EASO's application of Article 4(1)(a) is unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues disclosure of the requested documents would undermine public security. EASO bases its decision on the basis of the type of information the report contains, such as "detailed information regarding the modus operandi of criminal networks", "detailed information regarding the modus operandi of law enforcement officials" or "details of the operational areas". To this regard, EASO also argues disclosure "would provide smuggling and other criminal networks with intelligence, enabling them to change their modus operandi, which would ultimately put the life of migrants in danger". First, it is worth recalling that the EU court has held that the mere fact that documents relate to a sensitive area of EU work does not make documents sensitive per se. It is therefore not sufficient to merely list the type of information that a document contains in order to refuse access to it. Second, according to well-established EU case law, EASO must demonstrate how disclosure would "specifically and actually" harm public security, and how this risk is not "reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical". EASO's unsubstantiated argument linking disclosure to putting the lives of migrants in danger cannot in any way meet the standard set by the EU General Court when it comes to refusals of access to documents. To this extent it is worth noting that, unfortunately, under the current EU border regime, there are many factors that put the lives of migrants at risk - greater transparency, which allows for greater accountability and a stronger protection of human rights, is however not one of these factors, but rather the opposite. 2. EASO's application of Article 4(3) is also unlawful and contravenes established EU case law. In its response, EASO argues that the document in dispute "contains information that is used for the development of risk analysis, which constitutes a specific form of internal decision-making processes". To this extent, EASO argues that disclosure "would enable third parties to gain insights into these decision-making processes (...) depriving the JHA Agencies of the possibility to conduct such analysis wholly independently, free from any external pressure or third-party influence". Once again, EASO is failing to comply with well-established case law by failing to demonstrate how disclosure would "specifically and actually" harm the decision-making process. As mentioned above, EASO's response merely gives a brief description of the content of the requested document, offering no specific proof of how this content would endanger the protected interest besides merely stating it would. EASO mentions disclosure would expose the agency to "third-party influence" and "external pressure" without even mentioning whose influence and pressure, and how this would undermine EASO's analysis. The vague nature of EASO's arguments therefore fails to meet the standard of specificity set by the court. It is also worth recalling that, in the EU treaties, the fundamental right of access to documents is closely linked to the principles of public participation and democratic accountability. In this regard, greater transparency of decision-making processes, in particular when it comes to issues related to fundamental rights and international law, cannot be considered a risk but rather a fundamental pillar of any functioning democracy. 3. There is indeed an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the Joint Report. In its response, EASO states that after an examination the agency "has concluded that there is no such an overriding public interest." This assertion is false. It is once again worth recalling that fundamental rights constitute an essential pillar of European law. To this regard, the report in dispute contains important information related and relevant to the protection and the safeguard of fundamental rights at Europe's borders - specifically Western Balkans, where over the past years fundamental rights have been repeatedly and severely been endangered and even entirely suspended. International organisations, European bodies and courts, human rights watchdogs and journalists have repeatedly reported and denounced instances and patterns of deterioration of fundamental rights in the Western Balkans. In fact, some of the agencies involved in the production of the report in dispute have even been obliged to suspend their operations in this area due to the lack of proper human rights safeguards. In this context, it is of utmost importance to understand what is the JHA Agencies analysis of this context - especially so when this analysis is subject to shaping agencies' deployment in this area, thus leading to possible contribution to rights violations. In that sense and in this context, the overriding public interest of disclosure is undeniable. 4. EASO's failure to provide partial access is in violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides: "If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released." To this extent, the proposition that the totality or even a substantial part of the report in dispute relates to demonstrably sensitive is not sustainable. EASO must therefore seriously consider partial disclosure, consistently with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the principle of widest possible access. EASO alleges that partial access cannot be granted to the requested document as its redaction "would entail a disproportionate administrative burden." This argument is however inconsistent with the terms of Article 4(6), which provides that the scope of disclosure is determined with reference to the exceptions laid out in Article 4, rather than a test of proportionality. In its response, EASO itself concedes that "theoretically" some parts of the relevant document could be disclosed. It is therefore EASO's legal obligation to examine whether this is the case, and to provide any and all fragments of the document considered eligible for disclosure. To this extent, EASO's considerations on whether the parts eligible for disclosure are meaningful or "meaningless" are not relevant or applicable; instead of EASO's unilateral evaluation, it is rather the requester's place to determine whether the disclosed document has any value, why and how. In light of the arguments exposed above, and in view of EASO's unlawful refusal - which has failed to comply with the legal obligations under Regulation 1049/2001, as well as EU case law - I hereby call on EASO to disclose the requested document in full. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you would have any doubts or questions with regards to this confirmatory application. Sincerely, Luisa Izuzquiza Anfragenr: 233012 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>><mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffragdenstaat.de%2Fanfrage%2F233012%2Fupload%2F33352d1c591ff1c52e38104eccb51c4f45ae04ba%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C3318be58dc664557ef6e08d9cea16089%7Cd19e4243f4804af5889971f10798d806%7C0%7C0%7C637768014768820895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=w35GWZUWwNUINobuZnbC8Typo2sb8kSJVDgFj9Hlj90%3D&amp;reserved=0 Postanschrift Luisa Izuzquiza Luisa Izuzquiza FragDenStaat | Open Knowledge Foundation Deutschland e.V. << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag