I would like a confirmatory application for request 0236 so that all the documents requested are provided. I would also like all the redaction removed. The redaction in the document are many and do not appear to be justified. 1 - regarding "Sensitive operational information", "Number and type of technical equipment","Number and profile of Human Resources" and "Reporting tools and methods used by law enforcement officials" and "The equipment, human resources and reporting tools used by Frontex were disclosed to me in previous requests for the aerial surveillance contracts. Much of that information is also public. Thus, the specific resources related to a SIR do not provide additional information regarding Frontex' capacities. Furthermore, this information is not going to be useful to anyone seeking to circumvent Frontex' aggressive border enforcement since everyone - and especially migrants - know the kind of equipment used by Frontex at each border since they are on the receiving end of that equipment. Nevertheless, there is a strong public interest in this disclosure to understand the type of resources involved in the incidents reported by Frontex, and the possibility to cross-check this information with other sources. I would be happy to provide further input on this. 2 - "Personal Data" the position of the person within Frontex should be disclosed. The names of higher-ranking individuals should also be disclosed. Lastly, regarding the SIR that you have not included, the people who have access to the SIR are the same people who might be investigated. Furthermore, the SIR is now quite old. What Frontex is likely trying to achieve by not disclosing the document to avoid is public scrutiny and accountability, which goes against public interest. Frontex - European Border and Coast Guard Agency www.frontex.europa.eu | Pl. Europejski 6, 00-844 Warsaw, Poland | Tel. +48 22 205 95 00 | Fax +48 22 205 95 01

With regard to your point 1, Frontex appraises, for each individual serious incident report forming part of an application for public access to documents, whether an exception under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has to be applied – for which all factors prevailing at the time of such holistic appraisal are considered. The fact that certain pieces of information contained in other documents– e.g. as you bring forward, contained in aerial surveillance contracts made available to you - were released in the past can therefore not create a precedence for the release of the documents to which you seek access now. As in particular the aerial surveillance contracts are not comparable to serious incident reports, and since you do not bring forward any evidence that “[m]uch of that information is also public”, the pieces of information contained in documents that were released to you so far are therefore different from the pieces of information contained in the serious incident reports for which you apply now. Furthermore, the redactions, which Frontex had to apply in regard to the elements you quote, pertain to public interest exceptions under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.1 For these, the Agency enjoys a wide discretion for the purpose of determining whether disclosure to the public would undermine the interests protected by that provision.2 While I note that you did not bring forward additional arguments, I would like to recall that the exceptions under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are not subject to an overriding public interest test. As the reasons, which forced Frontex to expunge these elements in the documents released to you were sufficiently explained in the decision of 29 April 2021, I uphold the decision passed on that day. Concerning your point 2 related to personal data, in Frontex decision of 29 April 2021 all “personal data, and/or characteristic features” contained in the documents had to be expunged as these persons would be identifiable if released. Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 requires Frontex to reconcile the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EU) 2018/17253 - as also stated in Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU)2018/1725. According to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, disclosing data to third parties, including applicants for public access to documents, constitutes a separate processing operation and requires a legal basis. Based on Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, it is for the applicant to establish that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. The controller has the obligation, if there is a reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be prejudiced, to establish if it is proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests. More concretely, it would fall on you to establish that the transfer of personal data is necessary for a specific purpose in the public interest within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. For this, you must establish that the transfer of personal data would be the most appropriate measure among other possible measures for obtaining your objective and that the transfer is proportionate for achieving this objective – i.e. you would have to provide express and legitimate reasons to that effect.4 However, as you did not bring forward such legitimate reasons, you could not establish the prerequisite of necessity under this Article. Therefore, no analysis regarding the proportionality is required and I conclude that releasing the personal data contained in these 1 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). 2 Judgment of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para 65. 3 Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725 of 23 October 2018 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 23.10.2018, p. 39). 4 Judgment of 15 July 2015 in case T-115/13, Dennekamp v European Parliament, para 59. Frontex - European Border and Coast Guard Agency www.frontex.europa.eu | Pl. Europejski 6, 00-844 Warsaw, Poland | Tel. +48 22 205 95 00 | Fax +48 22 205 95 01

documents to you would prejudice their legitimate interests within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. In consequence, I uphold the decision of 29 April 2021 based on which Frontex had to ban access to personal data contained in the documents as required by Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Concerning your point 2 “regarding the SIR that [was] not included”, I concur with the reasons stated in the decision of 29 April 2021, since, as outlined under point 1 above, the exceptions under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that obliged Frontex not to release the document are not subject to an overriding public interest test. In addition to these exceptions, Frontex had to invoke the exception of ongoing investigations within the wide meaning of Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.5 These then ongoing investigations entailed Frontex officers and EU Member State officials to establish facts in a formalized manner in order to assess the – developing - situation in the serious incident described therein6, which also formed the basis for the creation of this Serious Incident Report. Due to the applicability of the absolute exceptions under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and since you did not bring forward “specific circumstances to justify the disclosure”7 of the document concerned, which could have been considered as part of the public interest test under Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but merely allege Frontex is likely trying to achieve by not disclosing the document to avoid is public scrutiny and accountability, which goes against public interest I uphold our reply to your initial application also in this regard. In accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, you are entitled to institute court proceedings and/or make a complaint to the European Ombudsman under the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5 Judgment of 4 October 2018 in case T-128/14, Daimler v Commission, para. 132. 6 Judgment of 7 September 2017 in case C-331/15 P, Schlyter v Commission, para. 47. 7 Judgment of 6 February 2020, in case T-485/18, Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA v European Commission, para. 81. Frontex - European Border and Coast Guard Agency www.frontex.europa.eu | Pl. Europejski 6, 00-844 Warsaw, Poland | Tel. +48 22 205 95 00 | Fax +48 22 205 95 01