1. Copies of any passages of text referring to fundamental rights found in the assessment of the situation in Morocco and Senegal, conducted by Spanish authorities and made available to Frontex on 25 April 2016, updated 16 August 2016, as referred to in the Annual report on the practical application of regulation EU No 656/2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by Frontex (11501/17, 25 July 2017). 2. Copies of drafts for a memorandum of understanding between the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and Senegalese Authorities. 3. Records pertaining to the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Border Coast Guard Agency and the Senegalese authorities on 2 June 2017 in Dakar. I note your arguments in your confirmatory application in which you seek to address and counter some of the reasons in the response that supported the refusal of documents related to points 1 and 3. I accept the decision pertaining to point 2 and, therefore, do not include it in this confirmatory application. … With reference to point 1, the Frontex Transparency Office identified “two documents”, access to which, they claimed: must be refused as they contain analyses and subjective assessments of the internal situation in third countries with explicit references to existing strengths and vulnerabilities. Effective cooperation with third countries is crucial for Frontex, and therefore a unilateral disclosure of these documents must be refused as establishing 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

and protecting a sphere of mutual trust in the context of international relations is a very delicate exercise. The release of the documents would end the mutual trust enjoyed between these countries and Frontex. Once the relationship between Frontex and these countries is impaired, there would be an ascertainable likelihood that these countries would no longer share sensitive data with Frontex This response and the subsequent denial of access to the two documents appear misguidedgiven that the assessment of the situation in Morocco and Senegal was conducted by Spanish authorities and not by Frontex. Indeed, as my request points out, these documents were “made available” to Frontex on 25 April 2016 by Spanish authorities. I, therefore, disagree with the assertion that “the release of the documents would end the mutual trust enjoyed between these countries and Frontex”. The appropriate response from Frontex, pursuant to Article 4(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, would have been to request permission from the Spanish authorities to release copies of these documents or parts of these documents. Without this consultation, it remains unclear whose mutual trust “in the context of international relations” Frontex would be putting at risk by releasing copies of the two documents. Further, the response claims: This would not only impede the improvement of pre-warning mechanisms necessary to analyse the migratory flows towards the European Union but would also hinder the development of adequate tools, at both European Union and national levels, that are necessary to conduct efficient border control and prevent cross-border crime, such as the facilitation of irregular immigration and trafficking in human beings. As this risk is reasonably foreseeable, disclosing this information would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations. Consequently, access to those documents has to be refused pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) first and third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The initial request specifically states that it seeks “copies of any passages of text referring to fundamental rights”. But the content of the request is not explicitly referenced at any point in the response. As such, it is not clear how and why it is “reasonably foreseeable” that access to these two documents would impede or hinder Frontex’s ability to conduct border control and to prevent cross-border crime, which (presumably) endeavours to enable access to fundamental rights at European borders. I, therefore, disagree with the assertion that “disclosing this information would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations”. Given that Morocco(1) and Senegal(2) have a recent history of human rights abuses, especially with regards to migrants and refugees, it could equally be argued that it is in the “public interest as regards public security and international relations” to release these copies. Notably, information that Frontex has attained (or has sought to attain) from Spanish authorities on fundamental rights in the latter’s assessments of the situations in Morocco and Senegal would benefit the public’s understanding of the relationship Frontex has established and further seeks to establish with these third countries. If refused access to these documents again, I would therefore ask that the Transparency Office provide me with an explanation as to why they consider harm to Frontex’s work to be substantial enough to override the public interest in accessing these two documents and how exactly they came to this conclusion. With reference to point 3, the Frontex Transparency Office claims that “Frontex does not hold documents in regards to [it]”. Practically, this is highly unlikely given that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between Frontex and the Senegalese authorities in Dakar according to the EU Commission’s ‘Fifth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration’.(3) If my initial request seemed to lack specificity, it is the role of the Transparency Office pursuant to Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to help the applicant (me) to determine what records would be appropriate to access. I would, therefore, ask that the Transparency Office make clear if they do have records pertaining to the conclusion or planned conclusion of the MoU between Frontex and the Senegalese authorities, and subsequently aid me in accessing what is available. 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, please find the documents attached. Parts not referring to “Copies of any passages of text referring to fundamental rights found in the assessment of the situation in Morocco and Senegal…” were expunged. With regard to your point 3, please note that while the ‘Fifth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration’, refers to a memorandum of understanding, the actual document meant was a working arrangement. However, no working arrangement was eventually signed, which is still the case as of today. Therefore, the existing documents would only fall under point 2 of your initial application, which you do not contest. In accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/20012, 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. 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). 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