documents which contain the following information: In your response to my confirmatory application under TO/PAD-2020-00250, you had identified eight documents dealing with European Border and Coast Guard Day dinner expenses for the years 2015-2019. These documents were redacted in their entirety for reasons specific to that query. However, I am now requesting unredacted access to these eight documents so that I can better understand the differences between all expenses related to the event held by Frontex in 2015 and the events that took place in the years 2016-2019. This means I need access to possible working methods, know-how, internal organization, proposed and actual prices, budgetary considerations as well as negotiation positions, that these documents may contain. Issues of commercial sensitivity or the protection of market actors is no longer a valid argument given that these events will no longer take place. There is also an overriding public interest due, in part, to amendments tabled by MEPs specifically related to the European Border and Coast Guard Day expenses in the discharge report. 1 In accordance with Article 8(2) of 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). 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

I note your arguments in your confirmatory application I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request to case PAD-2021-00124 and requesting these documents still be released. Yet, you do not bring forward any arguments demonstrating a change in the legal or factual situation which would have taken place since your applications PAD-2020-00250 and PAD-2021-00042. I note again that you had not brought forward such arguments in your application PAD-2021-00124 either. As a result, there is no need to examine whether the first element of Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20012 is present, and the question, whether an “overriding public interest” existed, therefore does not arise. I thus uphold the decision of 5 May 2021 and rectify the decision as follows, which has no bearing on that decision’s legal appraisal: “Please be informed that Frontex has identified eight documents falling within the scope of this application PAD-2021-00124. The eight documents already formed point 4 of your earlier application PAD-2020-00250, which were released to you on 22 March 2021 in reply to your confirmatory application PAD-2021-00042 where these documents formed part of Frontex reconsideration based on your point 1. As explained to you on 22 March 2021 Frontex availed itself of one company for the organization of the events in the years 2016 to 2019 making the redactions necessary for the remainder of the documents as the disclosure of the other pieces of information contained therein would undermine the protection of commercial interests of Frontex and other market actors, in particular information on working methods, know-how, internal organization, proposed and actual prices, budgetary considerations as well as negotiation positions. If released, these pieces of information would impede especially Frontex future ability to participate in the market.3 Consequently, as part of this application PAD-2021-00124 directed at the same documents falling under point 4 of your earlier application PAD-2020-00250, to which partial access has been granted on 22 March 2021, I examined whether the earlier refusal of access remains justified in the light of a change in the legal or factual situation which would have taken place in the meantime4, i.e. the time between your applications, PAD-2020-00250, PAD-2021-00042 and PAD-2021-00124. However, the events to which these documents relate took place in the past, as stated on 22 March 2021. Without reopening decision PAD-2021-00042, please note that Frontex had relied on one company for the organisation of events between 2016 and 2019. The future dimension of the pieces of information that were redacted was justified to protect the commercial interests of Frontex and other market actors. If released, these pieces of information would impede especially Frontex’s future ability to participate in the market. Therefore, no change of the legal or factual situation is ascertainable. Also, your arguments in this application PAD-2021-00124 However, I am now requesting unredacted access to these eight documents so that I can better understand the differences between all expenses related to the event held by Frontex in 2015 and the events that took place in the years 2016-2019. 2 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). 3 Reply of 22 March 2021 to confirmatory application PAD-20201-00042 4 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2010 in case C-362/08P, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, para 56. 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

This means I need access to possible working methods, know-how, internal organization, proposed and actual prices, budgetary considerations as well as negotiation positions, that these documents may contain. cannot lead to a different conclusion as they are based on our reasoning of 22 March 2021. Although your arguments are now more specific, you do not apply for new documents. The documents to which 5 you seek anew access already formed part of your application PAD-2020-00250 to which partial access was granted in the reply to your confirmatory decision PAD-2021-00042. As you thus do not bring forward any arguments demonstrating a change in the legal or factual situation which would have taken place since your application PAD-2020-00250, this application PAD-2021-00124 was already covered in our replies to your applications PAD-2020-00250 and PAD-2021-00042. I therefore refer to Frontex decisions concerning PAD-2020-00250 and PAD-2021-00042.                      6 Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20017, within 15 working days of the receipt of this letter, you may submit a confirmatory application to Frontex to reconsider its position. Based on Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Frontex will reply to you within 15 working days from the registration of such application. You can submit your confirmatory application by post or electronically.” 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 Ordonnance du 26 octobre 2016 Dans l’affaire T‑611/15, Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH c Commission européenne, point 32. 6 Cf. Order of the General Court of 12 March 2008 in case T-443/07, Nuova Agricast v Commission, para. 23. 7 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). 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