The complainant asked the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) for access to documents related to Joint Return Operations (JROs) and National Return Operations (NROs) it coordinated between 1 July 2024 and 31 December 2024.

Frontex identified a large number of documents falling within the scope of the request and granted partial access. In refusing to grant further access, it invoked exceptions under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations, as well as the commercial interests of legal persons, including intellectual property.

The complainant asked Frontex to review its decision (by making a ‘confirmatory application’). During the review, Frontex identified additional documents – grant agreements and final return operation reports. It provided partial access to the newly identified documents but maintained its position that no further access could be granted.

The Ombudsman inspected a sample of the documents at issue and held a meeting with representatives of Frontex. Based on the inspection and the clarifications obtained, she found that Frontex’s position was overall justified.

She noted however, that Frontex had only provided a partial list of the documents falling within the scope of the request (not including the grant agreements) and only did so following the complainant’s confirmatory application. In the absence of a comprehensive list of documents, the Ombudsman highlighted that it was difficult to determine with certainty how many documents Frontex identified as falling within the scope of the request. She stressed that, as a matter of good administration, Frontex should provide applicants a list of documents it identifies as falling within the scope of their requests for public access to documents.