1. The minutes of the 21st, 22nd and 23rd Consultative Forum meetings. 2. All Fundamental Rights Officer reports to the Management Board issued from 01 October 2019 until 08 January 2021. 3. The operational plan for RBI Evros 2020. 4. The handbook to the operational plan for RBI Evros 2020. 5. Serious Incident Report no. 1719/2019. 6. All Serious Incident Reports related to JO FOA Land on Border Surveillance at the Greek- Turkish border submitted between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2021. 7. All Serious Incident Reports related to RBI Evros 2020 submitted between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2021. 8. Management Board meeting, 10 November, Agenda item: Rapid Border Intervention in Greece, Document Ref. BMD/GRP-2018-00017/899751/2020, dated 05/11/2020. I further note your arguments in your confirmatory application This is a confirmatory application under Regulation 1049/20012, Art 7, based on three aspects of your response to my request: a) Points 3 and 4 of the application, regarding RBI Evros 2020 operational plan and handbook to the operational plan b) The documents released in response to point 6 of the application, regarding all SIRs related to FOA Land on Border Surveillance at the Greek-Turkish border between 01 July and 31 December 2020. c) Point 7 of the application, regarding SIRs related to RBI Evros 2020 between 01 July and 31 December 2020. 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

Regarding point a) of this confirmatory application, I would like to request a review of your decision not to provide the RBI Evros 2020 operational plan and handbook to the operational plan on the following grounds: •There is no specific explanation on how the release of these documents would ‘jeopardize the European Union’s and Member states’ endeavours to counter and prevent cross border crime’ or would ‘would benefit criminal networks, enabling them to change their modus operandi and consequently result in hampering the course of ongoing and future similar operation, which would ultimately put the life of migrants in danger’. •The decision not to disclose the documents in part should be reconsidered in view of the principle of ‘widest possible access’ stipulated in Regulation 1049/2001. I would like to request that Frontex reconsiders if non-sensitive parts of the documents can be released in view of this principle. Regarding point b), given that only five SIRs were submitted in the period provided, I would like the process for identifying them to be reviewed and verified. This is in light of some publicly documented incidents with fundamental rights implications that took place within the time scope of the request, and of the fact that Frontex previously did not release at least one SIR (11095/2020) that fell within the time scope of an earlier request (PAD-2020-00125). Regarding point c) I would like a clarification on you reply that ‘Frontex does not hold any documents’. Does this mean that no Serious Incident Reports were submitted in the context of RBI Evros2020 between 1 July and 31 December 2020, or are there any other reasons? Concerning your point a) pertaining to Points 3 and 4 of your initial application, “regarding RBI Evros 2020 operational plan and handbook to the operational plan”, please note that when assessing documents and their suitability for disclosure, based on Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20011, Frontex takes a holistic approach and evaluates all factors present at the time of your application. Further to our explanations of 11 February 2021, Frontex, when considering whether it has to refuse access to a document whose disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security as laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, enjoys a wide discretion for the purpose of determining2 whether such disclosure to the public would undermine the interests protected by that provision. In our reply of 11 February 2021, we provided ample information to allow you “to understand the reasons why access to the information requested was refused”3 regarding this operation which was then evaluated and the results of which flow into the adjustment of ongoing and future operations. In doing so, Frontex needs to ensure that the interests, which the exceptions are specifically designed for to protect, are not undermined by de facto revealing the contents of the documents and thereby depriving the exception of its very purpose 4. As thus Frontex cannot trace the path of documents released, including the requested Operational Plan and handbook; it cannot be excluded that they may fall into the hands of criminal networks, contrary to your arguments. If the information contained in the documents were to reach criminal gangs involved in migrant smuggling and trafficking of human beings, they would be able to obtain an insight into patrolling areas and schedules of the human resources and assets deployed, their movement patterns, and tools and methods applied by law enforcement officials in ongoing and future operations in the area. This information by itself - but especially in combination with other sources - would allow such 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 the General Court of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para 65. 3 Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para. 110. 4 Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para. 113. 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

gangs to adapt their modus operandi accordingly in order to circumvent border surveillance in current and future operations. Consequently, they would be able to cross the external border and irregularly 5 access the territory of an EU Member              State ,  thus creating a situation affecting public security in a reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical manner6. As the test for Article 4(1)(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has thus been met, as already explained in our reply to your initial application, please allow me to refer briefly to the wording of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, according to which “[a]ccess to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an institution, which relates to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution, shall be refused”. As already explained in our reply to your initial application, information deriving from evaluations of operations and documents related to these operations constitute such specific forms of decision-making processes regarding current and future operations as they flow into the adjustment of these currently ongoing and planned for the near future. Consequently, Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is also applicable at this stage of the evaluations. Concerning your request to reconsider the possibility of a partial release, I would like to re-emphasize that our individual examination of the documents under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 resulted in the decision that a deviation from the principle laid down in said Article was necessary. The number of elements in the documents falling under exceptions under Article 4(1)(a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - as referred to in the decision of 11 February 2021, led us, while balancing all interests, to decide against a partial release of the documents. This was and is motivated by “the administrative burden of blanking out the parts that may not be [disclosed, which] proves to be particularly heavy, thereby exceeding the limits of what may reasonably be required” 7 combined with the fact that a “partial access would be meaningless because the parts of the documents that could be disclosed would be of no use”8. Therefore, and as already stated in our reply of 11 February 2021, no partial access within the meaning of Article 4(6) or Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is possible. As regards your point b) please note that, my reconsideration based on the variables provided in your initial application, led to the identification of two additional Serious Incident Reports that regrettably had not been disclosed to you in our reply of 11 February, which are herewith attached, partially expunged based on a number code with detailed justifications in the attached legend. Responding to your point c), I confirm that no Serious Incident Reports have been received in the context of RBI Evros 2020 between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020. 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 the General Court of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para. 109. 6 Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 in case T-31/18, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), para. 110, et seq. 7 Applicable also for Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001: Judgment of 7 February 2002 in case T-211/00, Kuijer v Council, para. 57. 8 Judgment of 5 December 2018 in case T-875/16, Falcon Technologies v Commission, para. 103, et seq. 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

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