The “Frontex Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2018” states that “[f]rom 18 July 2018 until the end of the year, 635 irregular migrants were sighted by the MAS aircraft attempting to cross the EU external border from Bosnia and Herzegovina into Croatia. MAS reported 46 sightings, all of which were notified to relevant authorities. 1. For the period 18 July to 31 December 2018: Any Serious Incident Report (SRIs) relating to any of the above-mentioned sightings and/or detections and/or notifications to the Croatian authorities 2. Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) Special Report on Serious Incident Reports (SIRs) of 2018 3. Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) Report to Management Board of 2018 4. Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) Reports to Consultative Forum (CF) of 2018 5. Consultative Forum Documents 2018 5.1 Meetings with Management Board Minutes and Agendas 5.2 Minutes and Agendas of other meetings 5.3 Documents used during the course of the meetings or produced for the purpose of these meetings, including but not limited to preparatory notes, briefings, reports, or memos I note your arguments in your confirmatory application We kindly ask you to reconsider your position on the restrictions to the requested documents in general and to the following points in particular.In regards to the document titled “FRO General report on SIRs for 2018 and update 2107_redacted 1” 1. The redactions in this document are overly restrictive in light of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 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

2. The document provided appears to include a complete redaction of the first case under “Reported cases Year 2018” on page 2 and a complete redaction of section III titled “Year 2017 (list of still open SIRs),” which presumably starts on page 4 but as even the page numbers on pages 4-8 of the document appear to have been redacted it is impossible to state this with certainty. 3. Your response letter to our application indicates that parts of this document had to be expunged with detailed justifications in a separate legend provided. The text in the comment box attached to each block redaction reads “sikoram 1” and “sikoram 2” respectively. Without havingbeen able to determine, after extensive research, the meaningof “sikoram,” we assume that these numbers are to refer to the corresponding legend that you have provided. 4. The legend indicates that #1 refers to “Personal Data,” based on the exception found in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. It seems implausible that this exception could justify the complete redaction of the information regarding the case. We note that in other documents provided in response to our application where the same exception was cited, you only redacted what appears to be identifying personal features, such as a name, of the individual(s) involved. 5. Similarly, the legend indicates that #2 refers to “Number and profile of Human Resources,” and your justification provided is Article 4(1)(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. It seems implausible that almost five pages of redacted text related to the 2017 “list of still open SIRs” could pertain to the number and profiles of officers deployed in the operational area as your justification suggests. 6. As such, we submit that you have not fulfilled the requirements set out in article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which requires you to state the reasons for the partial refusal of access. 7. However, we also firmly submit that even if the other justifications mentioned in the legend were to apply to these redactions, such complete redactions of entire sections fall far short of compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 8. According to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, if only parts of the document are covered by any exceptions, the remaining parts shall be released. 9. The fact that even the page numbers of the document you provided were redacted as part of these complete redactions is indicative that you did not carry out the review of our application in compliance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 10. Without being able to see the redacted text, it is impossible for us to know with certainty what redacted information may or may not correspond to the justifications you have suggested. 11. However, using text from the cases listed in the document that were not redacted there is clearly information that would not legitimately pertain to any of the justifications mentioned in the legend. As for but some examples, the cases that were not redacted include information such as the status and general history of the case, dates, the country and location of the incidents, the source type of the Serious Incident Report, the listing of the rights allegedly breached, and general details of the incidents. Any information that does not jeopardize the interests in the exceptions you cite must be provided from the redacted text. 12. We therefore request that you review these redactions in light of the requirement in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to release any part of the document not legitimately covered by an exception. This should be performed in light of European Union case law, which has repeatedly said that the right of access to documents must be as wide as possible and exceptions to access must be interpreted and applied strictly (see for example Judgment of 1 February 2007, Sison v Council, C‑266/05 P, EUC200775, paras 61, 63). 13. In addition to the review of these redactions, please provide us with the names of the documents that exist related to the Serious Incident Reports in the redacted text so that we can request these documents. As per Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the institution shall assist the applicant in clarifying any application to ensure that it is 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

sufficiently precise. European Union case law has determined that this requirement includes indicating the documents held by the institution that are similar to those referred to in the application for access or which are likely to contain some or all of the information that is sought (see by analogy, Judgment of 26 October 2011 in Dufour v ECB, T‑436/09, ECR, EUT2011634, para 31). This requirement has also been underlined by the European Ombudsperson’s recommendation in case 1336/2017/JAS. In regards to the document titled “7. Operational presentation 18.10.2018 CF_redacted final” 14. The page numbers on the bottom of the slides go from #11 to #13 and we therefore presume that a slide #12 was removed. There was no explanation regarding this missing slide. Please provide us with the full document. 15. Furthermore, the justifications that you provide in your letter do not match the document. When referring to the slide numbers in the letter, it is unclear if you are referring to the numbers on the bottom of the slides or if this refers to the number of slides provided in the document. In either scenario, the numbers do not properly match the document so it not possible for us to determine which slides you are referring to in the letter. 16. For these reasons we submit that you have not fulfilled the requirements set out in article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which requires you to state the reasons for the partial refusal of access. 17. However, we also firmly submit that the redactions in this document are overly restrictive in light of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 18. For example, the set of redactions referred to as “slides 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21” appear to refer to complete redactions, sometimes consisting of entire slides. Even if the justification you have provided is legitimate, it seems implausible that such complete redactions refer to only information regarding this exception, and we reiterate your obligation under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to release any part of the document not legitimately covered by an exception. 19. Similarly, while we cannot determine with certainty which slide is meant when you refer to “slide 19,” we presume that this slide is completely or almost completely redacted. Again, we reiterate your obligation under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to release any part of the document not legitimately covered by an exception. 20. We therefore request that you review these redactions in light of the requirement in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to release any part of the document not legitimately covered by an exception. This should be performed in light of European Union case law, which has repeatedly said that the right of access to documents must be as wide as possible and exceptions to access must be interpreted and applied strictly (see for example Judgment of 1 February 2007, Sison v Council, C‑266/05 P, EUC200775, paras 61, 63). In light of your points 1 to 12, I have reconsidered the decision of 15 February 2020 regarding the document “FRO General report on SIRs for 2018 and update 2107_redacted 1-releasable”. The redaction necessary on page 2 pertains to numbers 1 to 4 of the legend attached to Frontex decision of 15 February 2020. In addition, this part of the document is currently subject to an ongoing investigation which is not yet concluded. The disclosure of this part at the present stage would jeopardise the ability of Frontex and Member States to evaluate any irregularities and to verify facts and information with a view to making a decision. Consequently, in addition to the exceptions enumerated under numbers 1 to 4, access to this part of the document must be refused based on Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as its disclosure would undermine the protection of the purpose of investigations. No overriding public interest that is objective and general in nature and not indistinguishable from 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

individual or private interests for the release of these documents is ascertainable in the present case. Due to these considerations, a further partial access is currently not possible. Your point 13 does not pertain to documents that formed part of your initial application and can thus not lead to a reconsideration within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Also, no case in relation to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has thus arisen. As a consequence, if further to the attached “FRO General report on SIRs for 2018 and update 2107_redacted 1-releasable” you intend to apply for the documents mentioned as part of your point 13, kindly inform the Transparency Office which of the items discussed under your application PAD-2020-00178 you would suggest to amend to include this point. With regard to your point 14 to 20, please find attached “7. Operational presentation 18.10.2018 CF_reviewed ORD_final_with Slide 12-releasable”. In case of complete redactions, as you referred to in your point 18, kindly note that they pertain either to an entire line of text or to images, respectively graphics, for which no lesser redactions could be applied in order to ensure compliance with the respective paragraph of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as explained regarding each part that had to be expunged. 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. 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