the documents of the selection procedure n. RCT-2020-0008.I have recently participated in the selection procedure for the AD7 post as Fundamental Rights Monitor, n. RCT-2020-00081, undergoing a written test and an interview. On March 26th, I have been informed that I had not been selected and that I was not even included in the reserve list.I immediately required feedback from the HR Office. I received a grid reporting my evaluation points, which was full of errors in the calculations and acknowledged in a follow-up response. Therefore, I formally request to have access to all the documents related to the selection procedure to know the logical mechanism followed by the panel in the selection procedure. In particular, I kindly request to receive the following documents and information - the number of candidates that were invited to the final stage of the recruitment (written test and interview); - the number of candidates that were offered the position; - the number of candidates put in the reserve list; - the minutes approved by the selection committee regarding criteria followed to evaluate the candidates; - all the documents related to my selection procedure, including the evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the selection panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome. The evaluation/punctuation documents shall be the original files filled in by the panel members and shall include the motivation given to justify the outcome as well as formulas to make automatic calculations, if any. - All the documents related to at least three candidates who received an outcome above to 65%. The documents shall include the application form, the written test, the evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome. The evaluation/punctuation documents shall be the original files filled in by the members of the panel, and shall include formulas to make automatic calculations, if any. - All the documents related to at least three candidates who received an outcome between 50% and 65%. The documents shall include the application form, the written test, the evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome. The evaluation/punctuation documents shall be the original files filled in by the panel members, and shall include formulas to make automatic calculations, if any. - All the documents related to at least three candidates who received an outcome below the 50%. The documents shall include the application form, the written test, the 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

evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome. The evaluation/punctuation documents shall be the original files filled in by the members of the panel and shall include formulas to make automatic calculations, if any. Of course, the documents related to other candidates shall not contain any personal data; nonetheless, it is crucial that each batch of documents can be referred to a specific candidate. I suggest zipping the files and indicating the documents as referring to candidate 1, candidate 2, etc. Given the necessary transparency that these processes have to ensure it is in my right to understand better how the process was conducted and why I was not selected. I note your arguments in your confirmatory application I am sorry to highlight that your answer is not in line with art. 15 TFEU and art. 42 CFREU. I have requested documents related to an EU public competition to assess the procedures that led to the final result. My request is entirely in line with the respect of EU Law and privacy law. First of all, I am afraid I have to disagree with your following statement: Further to the information made available to you by the Human Resources and Security Unit on 31 March 2021, the document “Kick-off meeting minutes RCT-2020-00081” also covers this part of your application. Apart from sending documents that I already have, such as my application, the information made available by the Human Resources and Security Unit on 31 March 2021 is wholly unreliable and fruit of a wrong "copy and paste" which made me doubt the reliability of HR’s communication. Therefore, I ask to have full access to the prodromal documents, files, and evaluations made by every single panel member to assess the fairness that led to the decision regarding my final assessment. As should be clear to you, I am not satisfied with the outcome of the selection procedure, which I intend to complain about before all available fora. That is why it is crucial to understand the logical reasoning behind the panel choices. I have the right to know the argument behind the scores received. Concerning the other candidates, I requested a sample of the professional records and scores without any pretense of disclosing their sensitive/personal data. Again, I aim to know whether the panel selected the best candidates. The choice of the best candidates is entirely in line with the public interest, as the Agency should hire the best suitable candidates. I believe you will fully comply with your duty to be transparent, getting the opportunity to take a step against all the allegations of opacity that the Agency faces in the last months. Once again, I underline, I am not asking for, neither interested in, names or sensitive data of other candidates, I would like to know the reason behind my exclusion and the choice of the other candidates. In line with the EU law, the Agency should give full disclosure regarding the procedures that led to the final classification. In conclusion, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, according to the above-mentioned reasons, I submit a confirmatory application to Frontex to reconsider its position, reiterating entirely my previous request. In regard to your statement: 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

As should be clear to you, I am not satisfied with the outcome of the selection procedure, which I intend to complain about before all available fora. That is why it is crucial to understand the logical reasoning behind the panel choices. I have the right to know the argument behind the scores received. Concerning the other candidates, I requested a sample of the professional records and scores without any pretense of disclosing their sensitive/personal data. Again, I aim to know whether the panel selected the best candidates. The choice of the best candidates is entirely in line with the public interest, as the Agency should hire the best suitable candidates. I believe you will fully comply with your duty to be transparent, getting the opportunity to take a step against all the allegations of opacity that the Agency faces in the last months. please allow me to recall that the review foreseen in Articles 7(2) and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20011 only pertains to your initial application for public access to documents under that Regulation registered on 9 April 2021. This reconsideration only considers the arguments brought forward regarding our reply of 24 May 2021. Based on your statement [a]gain, I aim to know whether the panel selected the best candidates. The choice of the best candidates is entirely in line with the public interest, as the Agency should hire the best suitable candidates. I understand that you link the public interest to your intention to assess these two points. First, I would like to emphasize that in a recruitment procedure, Frontex does not act in a legislative context and that therefore a high threshold to prove the existence of a public interest exists2, which has to be proven by the applicant3. Your intention to assess “whether the panel selected the best candidates” does not however constitute such a public interest4. Nor do your general considerations that [t]he choice of the best candidates is entirely in line with the public interest, as the Agency should hire the best suitable candidates. I believe you will fully comply with your duty to be transparent, getting the opportunity to take a step against all the allegations of opacity that the Agency faces in the last months. satisfy that requirement. Therefore, the existence of a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been proven neither in your initial application nor in your confirmatory application. Turning now to your arguments concerning the final three indents of your initial application – “All the documents related to at least three candidates…” - for which you bring forward that “I requested a sample of the professional records and scores without any pretense (sic) of disclosing their sensitive/personal data.” Kindly note in this regard that based on Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 5 2018/1725 ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification 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 14 November 2013 in joint cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P, LPN and Finland v Commission, para. 93. 3 Judgment of 2 October 2014 in case C-127/13, Strack v Commission, para. 128. 4 Judgment of 11 July 2018 in case T-643/13, Rogesa v Commission, para. 107. 5 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). 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

number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person; The scope of the expression ‘any information’ in the definition of the concept of ‘personal data’ has to be understood widely and is not restricted to information that is sensitive or private, but potentially encompasses all kinds of information, not only objective but also subjective, in the form of opinions and assessments, provided that it ‘relates’ to the data subject6. The reply of 24 May 2021 was thus correct in considering that in addition to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the documents related to at least three candidates you apply for, which “shall include the application form, the written test, the evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome.”, do thus pertain to these persons’ personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 requires Frontex to reconcile the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - as stated also in Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. According to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, disclosing data to third parties 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, i.e. Frontex, has the obligation, if there is a reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be 7 prejudiced, to establish, if it would be unreasonable to obtain the data subjects’ consent , that 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 effect8. However, your personal interest in obtaining these documents does not constitute such public interest within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. As therefore you could not establish the perquisite of necessity under this Article, no analysis regarding the proportionality is required. Emphasizing the personal data contained in the documents, I conclude that releasing the personal data of the three applicants contained in these documents to you would prejudice their legitimate interests within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. In consequence, I uphold the decision of 24 May 2021 by virtue of which Frontex had to refuse the access to these documents in their entirety as required by Article 4(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Further to our reply of 24 May 2021, in which Frontex stated “In regard to your application for all the documents related to my selection procedure, including the evaluation/punctuation given by each member of the selection panel, as well as the motivation given to justify the outcome. The evaluation/punctuation documents shall be the original files filled in by the panel members and shall include the motivation given to justify the outcome as well as formulas to make automatic calculations, if any” Further to the information made available to you by the Human Resources and Security Unit on 31 March 2021, and after our second assessment on the existing documents, we have identified four more documents, as summarised below, which you can find attached herewith. Please note, however, that some limited parts of these documents contain personal data. Their disclosure would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with European 6 Judgment of 20 December 2017 in case C-434/16, Peter Novak v Data Protection Commissioner, para. 34. 7 Cf. Judgment of 21 October 2010 in case T-439/08, Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA, paras 115, et. seq. 8 Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) 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

Union legislation regarding the protection of personal data and therefore have to be precluded pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. a)    Overall Evaluation Report RCT-2020-00081_1 b)    Overall Evaluation Report RCT-2020-00081_2 c)    Overall Evaluation Report RCT-2020-00081_3 d)    RCT-2020-00081 Selection meeting minutes 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