Dear European Border and Coast Guard Agency,

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I hereby submit a renewed application for access to documents concerning the Joint Operations Reporting Application (JORA), covering the period 1 September 2021 – 30 April 2025.

In your decision PAD-2025-00184 (16 May 2025), Frontex stated:
“At this point, please also note that the present decision does not determine the form of access within the legal framework of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to the JORA data pertaining to the timeframe post 23.01.2025 after the conclusion of the operational evaluation phase later this year. Frontex will consider such access should you decide to submit a new application for public access to documents in this regard pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.”

As the operational evaluation phase referred to in that decision has now concluded (as indicated by Frontex to be expected in late Q2 / early Q3 2025), I am submitting the new application explicitly anticipated by the Agency. In addition, confirmatory application of PAD-2025-00184 resulted in a partial release of JORA data that was so heavily redacted as to be largely devoid of informative value, despite the fact that certain variables had been previously disclosed in PAD-2024-00023 (16 February 2024) as well as similar requests for earlier periods.

This constitutes a new legal and factual situation warranting reassessment under Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation 1049/2001.

Accordingly, I respectfully request:

1. Access to all JORA variables covering the period 1 September 2021 – 30 April 2025, including data previously withheld on the basis of ongoing evaluations or operational sensitivity, now that the relevant evaluation phase has concluded.

2. Explicit access to the following JORA variables, which were redacted in PAD-2025-00184 but previously disclosed:
- Detection by Frontex financed/deployed asset
- Interception by Frontex financed/deployed asset
- Frontex deployed/financed asset involved
- Transport type

Given their prior disclosure without identifiable harm, the conditions for applying Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 to these variables are no longer met.

3. Any documents or internal communications confirming or determining the conclusion of the operational evaluation phase referred to in PAD-2025-00184, insofar as they relate to the reassessment of access to JORA data.

This application is based on:
- A new factual circumstance explicitly identified by Frontex itself (the conclusion of the evaluation phase);
- Inconsistent application of Article 4(1)(a) in relation to variables previously released;
- The obligation to interpret exceptions strictly and proportionately, and to grant partial access wherever possible.

Please provide all correspondence and documents via the AskTheEU.org portal, in line with the European Ombudsman’s decision in case 104/2020/EWM.

Yours faithfully,
Giovanna Reder

Dear European Border and Coast Guard Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I hereby submit a confirmatory application pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the refusal of access to JORA variables (1 September 2021 – 30 April 2025).

The refusal under Article 4(1)(a) (public security) is not sufficiently substantiated and should be reconsidered for the following reasons:

1. Failure to Demonstrate a Specific and Actual Risk
The decision relies on broad assertions about “modus operandi,” operational sensitivity, and criminal adaptation. However, it does not explain how the specific variables requested (e.g. detection/interception by Frontex-financed asset, Frontex asset involved, transport type) would concretely enable criminal adaptation. These are statistical classification variables, not tactical manuals or operational plans. The decision does not establish a sufficiently direct link between disclosure and a specific, actual threat to public security.
General and abstract reasoning is insufficient under Article 4(1)(a). The Agency must demonstrate a specific, actual and reasonably foreseeable risk. This has not been done.

2. Inconsistent Treatment of Previously Disclosed Variables
The Agency acknowledges that “certain categories of information relating to 2021 and 2022 operational activities were previously disclosed in a more comprehensive manner”. A mere reference to a “changing operational environment” does not justify reversing earlier disclosure practice without concrete evidence of materially changed circumstances. No such evidence is provided.

3. Improper Reliance on a Rolling “Evaluation Phase”
The refusal extends the “operational evaluation phase” now into 2026, despite the earlier indication that it would conclude in 2025.
Regulation 1049/2001 contains no blanket “evaluation phase” exception. Historical data dating back to 2021 cannot credibly be treated as perpetually shielded by an ongoing evaluation of current operations.

4. Failure to Grant Partial Access
The assertion that partial disclosure would be “disproportionate” is not substantiated. Article 4(6) imposes a positive obligation to grant partial access wherever possible.
No concrete explanation is provided as to why redaction of specific sensitive elements would be technically or administratively excessive, especially given that the data originate from a structured database and parts are already public.
Administrative inconvenience alone cannot justify refusal.

5. Blanket and Formulaic Reasoning
The reasoning appears categorical and generic rather than based on an individual assessment of the requested variables and time periods. Article 4 requires a document-by-document and element-by-element assessment.


6. Overriding Public Interest in Transparency
While Article 4(1)(a) does not formally provide for an overriding public interest in the same way as Article 4(2), the principles of proportionality and democratic accountability remain relevant.
The requested data concerns the use of EU-funded assets, Activities at the EU’s external borders, and Matters of significant public, parliamentary, and judicial scrutiny. Therefore, Transparency regarding statistical operational data is essential to Democratic oversight, Informed public debate, and Accountability of EU agencies exercising executive powers.

In light of the points mentioned above I respectfully request that Frontex:
1. Conduct a genuinely individualised reassessment of the requested variables;
2. Provide specific reasoning demonstrating a concrete and foreseeable risk for each refused element;
3. Grant partial access where full disclosure is not possible.

Failing a properly reasoned reconsideration, I reserve the right to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman and/or seek judicial review before the General Court of the European Union.


Yours faithfully,

Giovanna Reder