all the active contracts of all the companies that provide sea-based and/or land- based surveillance services to Frontex on europe's sea borders, i.e. all boats, surveillance cars, radar, video etcIn case this needs clarification, "active" means that these contracts are in force today, 29th November 2020 I note your arguments in your confirmatory application This is a confirmatory application for request PAD-2020-00235 and PAD-2020-00234. Paragraph 1. I would like both responses to be entirely reviewed and the search carried again. Paragraph 2. For 00235, the documents that I've received are excessively redacted. I would like all the redaction removed. Paragraph 3. In particular, the name of the companies that have received the contracts, as well as the total amount of these contracts should be disclosed. This is clearly in the public interest to know where its money is going. With regard to paragraph 1 of your confirmatory application please be informed that no further documents were identified by Frontex. Further to your request in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your confirmatory application, please find the reconsidered documents herewith attached. 1 The Confirmatory application in regard to your application PAD-2021-00234 was found being inadmissible on 10 August 2021. 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

Concerning the non-disclosure of personal data contained in the documents, please note that this data refers to natural persons, which - as explained in reply to your initial application - would be identifiable if these documents were released. Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 requires Frontex to reconcile the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EU) 2018/17252 - 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 has the obligation, if there is a reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be prejudiced, to establish 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, an applicant would have to establish that the transfer of personal data is the most appropriate measure among other possible measures for obtaining his/her objective and that the transfer is proportionate for achieving this objective – i.e. he/she would have to provide express and legitimate reasons to that effect.3 At the same time a reference to an abstract and non-specific public interest with no evidence brought forward would not suffice in terms of the requirement to state a specific purpose in the public interest within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Therefore, as the prerequisite of necessity under this Article was not established, no analysis regarding the proportionality is required. Consequently, as releasing this data would prejudice the legitimate interests of natural persons within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, I uphold decision of 2 August 2021 based on which Frontex had to bar access to personal data contained in the documents as required by Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which constitutes one element of the exceptions Frontex had to consider. In addition, as part of my reconsideration, further passages of text containing personal data were identified. The decision of 2 August 2021 in regard to this is thus amended and the document has been redacted anew and is herewith attached. In regard to the remaining redactions and further to the explanations contained in our reply of 2 August 2021, please note that these pertain to information, whose disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of Frontex and other market actors, in particular information on working methods, technologies, know-how, internal organization, proposed and actual prices, and budgetary considerations. If released, these pieces of information would impede especially Frontex future ability to participate in the market, also impairing the market position of its contractors. As no overriding public interest that is objective and general in nature and not indistinguishable from individual or private interests for the release of these parts and for which you would have to bring forward concrete arguments is thus ascertainable in the present case, these parts cannot be released pursuant to Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. I therefore come to the same conclusion as already expressed in our reply of 2 August 2021. 2 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). 3 Judgment of 15 July 2015 in Case T-115113, 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

Concerning point 4 of your initial application in regard to the 29 documents, I found that 14 of these documents do indeed not fall within the scope of your initial application as these contracts had already expired prior to November 2020. Regarding to the possibility of a partial disclosure within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the remaining 15 of 29 documents, to which – as explained on 2 August 2021 - both of the above exceptions apply, please note that the Agency, in its service to the public, is equally obliged to adhere to principles of transparency and to the principle of sound administration. Owing to the special circumstances of the case and sensitivity of the requested materials, it was deemed that the release of short, fragmented parts of documents at issue would not be in line with the latter principle.4 More specifically, the administrative burden            necessary    5 to identify and redact the releasable materials would be disproportionate to the public interest in the disclosure exercise itself, while the released documents would not convey any informative value due to their significantly reduced form. What is more, amidst current concerns regarding commercial interest, even the release of very limited information on the subject matter you requested could jeopardise ongoing and future market operations and therefore, the very limited parts of the documents, which could be released would be non- informative. For this reason, partial access to those 15 documents cannot be granted. Please also be informed that specific information requested by you in Paragraph 3 of your confirmatory application, pertaining to “companies that received the contracts” and to “total value of these contracts”, is publicly available on: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:125034-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:175550-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:127371-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:611288-2019:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 which refer to publicly available information outside scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. In sum, I amend the decision of 2 August 2021 as explained above. 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. 4 Decision in Case C-353/99 P Council of the European Union v Heidi Hautala [2001] ECR I-9565, para 30. 5 Decision in Case T-211/00 Kuijer v Council, para 57 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