# Decision on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) handled three requests for public access to documents related to human rights assessments relevant to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers rights in Türkiye (case 1517/2024/ACB)
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2025-11-13T10:00+01:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/215060)
---
> The case concerned three requests for public access to documents of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), related to human rights assessments relevant to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers rights in Türkiye.
> 
> Frontex initially did not identify any documents as falling within the scope of the requests. When the complainant asked Frontex to review its decision, Frontex identified one document to which it refused access in its entirety. In doing so, Frontex argued that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and public security.
> 
> The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked Frontex to carry out a renewed search. In the course of the inquiry, Frontex identified five additional documents, that is, three documents to which it had granted partial access previously and two documents to which it refused access, arguing that disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and public security.
> 
> The Ombudsman inquiry team conducted an inspection and met with representatives of Frontex. Following this meeting, Frontex granted partial access to the document it had identified in reply to the complainant's request for review.
> 
> The Ombudsman welcomed Frontex's renewed search and the public access now granted. Based on the inspection and information provided during the meeting, the Ombudsman found that Frontex did not commit a manifest error when refusing access.
> 
> In view of this, the Ombudsman closed the case considering that no further inquiries are justified regarding the extent of the access granted to the documents at issue. As regards the initial failure to identify documents falling within the scope of the access requests, the Ombudsman considered the matter settled. However, the Ombudsman noted that Frontex should have engaged more constructively with the complainant to clarify his request and, in reply to the request, at least provided a description of the document identified in reply to the complainant's request for review. This is especially important when it comes to documents of public interest such as human rights assessments.
> 
Background to the complaint
---------------------------

**1.** The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is the EU agency responsible for supporting EU Member States and Schengen-associated countries in the management of the EU's external borders and in the fight against cross-border crime. In particular, Frontex carries out tasks related to border management, migration management, rapid border interventions and return operations. For all its activities, Frontex must monitor compliance with and ensure full respect for fundamental rights.[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1}

**2.** In June 2024, the complainant, a journalist, made three requests[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2} to Frontex for public access to documents related to human rights assessments relevant to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers rights in Türkiye. More specifically, the requests covered:

(1) "*Any fundamental rights impact assessment or report (including all draft, preparatory notes, annexes) related to Turkey and Frontex cooperation or operational activities involving Turkey, such as JO Poseidon*" from 1 January 2022 to 31 May 2024 ('the first request');

(2) "*Any document produced by the Fundamental Rights Office of Frontex on the human rights situation in Türkiye in relation to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers rights*", from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2024 ('the second request');

(3) "*All correspondance (emails including any file attached, copy of letters) between the FRO and the Executive Director, and between FRO and the members of the Executive Management Bureau of Frontex, and between FRO and the Management Board Secretariat, related to the human rights situation and to the protection of migrants and asylum seekers rights in Türkiye*", from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2024 ('the third request').

**3.**In June 2024, Frontex replied that it did not hold documents falling within the scope of the requests. In July 2024, the complainant asked Frontex to review its decisions (by submitting three 'confirmatory applications').

**4.** In August 2024, Frontex confirmed that it did not hold any documents falling within the scope of the first and third requests. Frontex identified one document ('document A') in response to the second request. It refused access to document A in its entirety, invoking the protection of the public interest as regards international relations[\[3\]](#_ftn3){#_ftnref3} and public security[\[4\]](#_ftn4){#_ftnref4}.

**5.**Dissatisfied with Frontex's decisions, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in August 2024.

The inquiry
-----------

**6.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into:

* Frontex's refusal to grant public access to document A, and
* Frontex's decisions that it does not hold any other documents falling within the scope of the complainant's three access requests.

**7.**In the course of the inquiry, Frontex carried out a renewed search and, in October 2024, sent its additional views on the complaint in which it identified five additional documents as falling with the scope of the complainant's access requests:

* Three documents to which Frontex had granted partial access in reply to previous requests,[\[5\]](#_ftn5){#_ftnref5} described as "*Briefing Notes - General assessment of Türkiye for the JO Poseidon*" for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 ('documents B1, B2, and B3'); and,
* Two documents to which Frontex refused public access in their entirety, described as "*Assessment of the general situation in a Third country (Turkey)* " and "*Third countries assessment Template Final Greece*" ('documents C1 and C2').

**8.**The complainant provided comments on Frontex's reply in December 2024.

**9.**The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected documents A, C1 and C2, as well as the published redacted documents B1, B2 and B3, and the documentation on the consultation of the Greek authorities on the public access requests.

**10.** The Ombudsman inquiry team held a meeting with Frontex representatives in March 2025. Following this meeting, in July 2025 Frontex partially disclosed document A.[\[6\]](#_ftn6){#_ftnref6} The complainant provided comments on the meeting report and the partial access granted in July 2025.

### Arguments presented

#### On the identification of documents

**11.** In his confirmatory applications, the **complainant** contested Frontex's statement that it does not hold any documents falling within the scope of his three requests. In particular, the complainant referred to a document published in July 2023, in which the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) of Frontex had recommended that Frontex request it to conduct a "*full and detailed assessment of the human rights situation in Türkiye within the framework of a due diligence policy required when dealing with a third country* "[\[7\]](#_ftn7){#_ftnref7}.

**12.** In reply,**Frontex** identified one document,[\[8\]](#_ftn8){#_ftnref8} that is, document A. Frontex added that the "*full and detailed assessment of the human rights situation in Türkiye*" referred to by the complainant was neither conducted nor prepared by the FRO. Frontex stated that it does not hold any other documents falling within the scope of the complainant's requests and referred to the presumption of legality attached to such statements by institutions as to the existence of documents. Frontex also argued that the confirmatory applications extended the scope of the initial requests, which is not possible.

**13.** In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the **complainant** noted that Frontex published two documents, after he submitted his confirmatory applications, that referred to relevant assessments of fundamental rights:

* A report entitled "*Cooperation between Frontex and third countries in 2023* "[\[9\]](#_ftn9){#_ftnref9} states that the FRO assessed the fundamental rights situation in several countries, including Türkiye;
* The FRO 2023 annual report[\[10\]](#_ftn10){#_ftnref10} includes references to *"the human rights impact assessments delivered by the Fundamental Rights Office in 2023*" and listed two assessments regarding Türkiye.

**14.**According to the complainant, this showed that Frontex failed to identify all relevant documents. He also disagreed with Frontex's view that his confirmatory applications extended the scope of his initial requests.

**15.** In order to explain why document A[\[11\]](#_ftn11){#_ftnref11} was initially not identified, Frontex stated that the ownership of this document was attributed internally to a different entity than the FRO, which complicated its identification.

**16.** Following the opening of the Ombudsman's inquiry, **Frontex** carried out a renewed search and identified five additional documents as falling within the scope of the complainant's three requests (see paragraph 7 above).

**17.**Frontex explained that it had originally not identified documents C1 and C2, as it had understood the first request, based on its wording, to cover documents falling within the remit of the FRO only. In light of the additional information provided by the complainant in his complaint to the Ombudsman, Frontex carried out further internal consultations which resulted in the identification of these two documents.

**18.** Frontex also stated that the FRO's 2023 assessments of the fundamental rights situation in Türkiye, as referred to in Frontex's documents mentioned in the complaint, are contained in documents A and B3. Frontex clarified that these assessments were not produced in the context of formal negotiations of "*working arrangements* "[\[12\]](#_ftn12){#_ftnref12} or other structured cooperation with Türkiye. Therefore, Frontex does not consider these documents part of the fundamental rights due diligence procedure on Frontex's cooperation with third countries[\[13\]](#_ftn13){#_ftnref13}.

**19.** The **complainant** , in response, pointed to the fact that the FRO 2023 annual report mentioned *two* human rights assessments in 2023 and the identified documents cover one of them only. He also considered that Frontex had interpreted his requests too narrowly, given that he had asked for "*any fundamental rights impact assessment or report*" and had not limited his requests to assessments made under the due diligence procedure on Frontex's cooperation with third countries. Overall, the complainant contended that Frontex had failed to consider that a human rights impact assessment is defined by its content, objectives and methodologies, rather than by the title of the document.

**20.** During the **meeting** with the Ombudsman inquiry team, Frontex's representatives confirmed that the "*Human Rights Impact Assessments* " regarding Türkiye dated September 2023, mentioned in the FRO 2023 annual report[\[14\]](#_ftn14){#_ftnref14}, corresponded to document A, and the second assessment mentioned in this report, dated August 2023, corresponded to document B3.

**21.** Frontex representatives explained that each year, when planning a joint sea operation, and when considering the possibility of disembarkation in a third country, the host Member State has to conduct an "*assessment of the general situation in a third country* ", in line with Article 4 of Regulation 656/2014[\[15\]](#_ftn15){#_ftnref15}. According to this provision, the assessment is based on information derived from different sources, which may include Frontex. In this context, the Frontex representatives stated that:

* Documents B1, B2 and B3 correspond to ++the input provided by Frontex to Greece++, for Greece to take into account when carrying out its own assessment under Article 4 of Regulation 656/2024;
* Documents C1 and C2 contain the subsequent assessments ++carried out by Greece++ (one concerning Joint Operation Poseidon in 2024, and the other concerning Joint Operation Poseidon in 2023).

**22.**The Frontex representatives further clarified that document A was a briefing note prepared as background information for the Executive Director in view of his participation in an exchange of views at Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights in September 2023. They added that the FRO provides fundamental rights assessments in various formats and that the information contained in document A could also be regarded as an evaluation of the human rights situation in Turkey.

#### On the public access granted[\[16\]](#_ftn16){#_ftnref16}

##### Document A

**23.** **Frontex** denied access to document A in its entirety, invoking the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and public security. It considered that document A contains analyses and subjective assessments of the internal situation in third countries. Its disclosure would erode mutual trust between the third countries mentioned and Frontex. Effective cooperation with third countries is essential for Frontex, and establishing and protecting a sphere of mutual trust is a very delicate exercise.

**24.**Frontex added that the administrative burden involved in identifying and redacting the releasable elements of document A would be disproportionate to the interest in its disclosure. In any case, the released document would be largely unintelligible and would not convey any informative value due to its significantly reduced form.

**25.** In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the **complainant** considered that the disclosure of any information related to the fundamental rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees or the rule of law in Türkiye should be considered to be of an overriding public interest. He referred to reports from human rights groups and EU institutions regarding the human rights situation for people seeking asylum or who are in a refugee situation in Türkiye. He noted that the international relations of any EU body are subject to democratic scrutiny and have to align with human rights standards in line with the EU Treaties.[\[17\]](#_ftn17){#_ftnref17}

**26.**The complainant noted that Frontex cooperates with Türkiye at multiple levels. While the complainant understood the sensitivity of Frontex's relations with Türkiye, he noted that Frontex's cooperation with the Turkish authorities, and with the Greek authorities, can have serious human rights implications.

**27.** During the **meeting** with the Ombudsman inquiry team, **Frontex**'s representatives noted that document A does not contain speaking points for the Executive Director in the public exchange of views at Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights. Rather, document A is a briefing with background information. In addition, Frontex's representatives clarified that significant parts of document A concern human rights assessments of other third countries and might therefore fall outside the scope of the complainant's access request.

**28.** The Frontex's representatives added that when assessing the risk to the EU's international relations with Türkiye, the context at the time of the confirmatory decision needed to be taken into account. Further confidential information in this regard was shared during the meeting. However, in light of the passage of time, Frontex no longer considered it necessary to refuse access to document A in its entirety. Following the meeting, Frontex published in its public register a version of document A, with redactions to protect the EU's international relations with Türkiye[\[18\]](#_ftn18){#_ftnref18}.

**29.** In his comments on the meeting report, the **complainant** still considered that Frontex had failed to properly justify the remaining redactions in document A and, in particular, had failed to provide a detailed assessment of the consequences that such disclosure would entail.

##### Documents C1 and C2

**30.** In its additional views, **Frontex** stated that documents C1 and C2 originate from the Greek authorities, which objected to granting any public access. The Greek authorities argued that the documents contain information which, if disclosed, would seriously and foreseeably undermine matters related to public security and international relations. They noted that a number of sources referred to in the assessment were not publicly available. The documents included information provided by various stakeholders such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye. The Greek authorities also considered that disclosure would undermine the bilateral external relations between Greece and Türkiye, and hamper the implementation of cooperation on border and migration management and Frontex's operational activities in Greece, as well as future negotiations between Türkiye and EU stakeholders.

**31.** In view of this, Frontex concluded that the disclosure of both documents would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations[\[19\]](#_ftn19){#_ftnref19}.

**32.** The **complainant** considered that partial access should be possible. He argued that relations between the EU and its Member States do not fall under the concept of international relations. He also considered that Frontex failed to properly explain what concrete risks to international relations and public security would arise from disclosure. According to the complainant, Frontex also failed to consider the overriding public interest in disclosure of these documents, given that human rights standards and the principle to do no harm, are at the core of the EU legal framework.

**33.** During the **meeting** with the Ombudsman inquiry team, Frontex's representatives stated that documents C1 and C2 contain the Greek authorities' assessment of whether Türkiye can be considered a safe country as regards disembarkation. As such, Frontex considered that disclosing even parts of these documents could undermine the relations between Greece and Türkiye, as well as between the EU and Türkiye. The Frontex representatives provided further confidential information in that regard which is included in the confidential annex to the meeting report.

**34.** In terms of the possible negative impact on public security, Frontex's representatives explained that any deterioration in relations between Greece and Türkiye would foreseeably impede collaboration and operational activities necessary for Frontex to fulfil its mandate and thus undermine public security. According to Frontex, the two exceptions are interlinked and Greece's assessment in that regard are *prima facie* well founded.

**35.** The **complainant** considered that Frontex's explanations during the meeting still lacked the necessary clarity and detail. Furthermore, Frontex has to take into account the possible overriding public interest in disclosure. He referred in that regard to the Commission's annual report on Türkiye for 2024,[\[20\]](#_ftn20){#_ftnref20} which includes critical remarks on the fundamental rights situation in Türkiye.

**36.**The complainant also noted that a Member State's objection to disclosure does not imply an automatic refusal by the EU body that holds the document. He considered that a decision by Frontex must be based on a thorough assessment of the concrete risks associated with disclosing a document. The complainant also noted that it is unclear if documents C1 and C2 were produced by Greece or by Frontex.

The Ombudsman's assessment
--------------------------

#### On the identification of documents

**37.** According to EU case law, where an EU institution states in reply to a request for public access to documents that the requested documents do not exist, there is a legal presumption that such a statement is true and accurate.[\[21\]](#_ftn21){#_ftnref21} This presumption can be rebutted with relevant and consistent evidence that the requested documents exist and are held by the EU institution concerned. In such a case, it is for the institution to prove, with plausible explanations, that the document does not exist or is not in its possession[^\[22\]^](#_ftn22){#_ftnref22}.

**38.**When opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that the information provided by the complainant, in particular the reference to relevant documents in other documents published by Frontex, required Frontex to explain why it did not identify any additional documents to fall within the scope of the complainant's three access requests. In other words, the Ombudsman considered the legal presumption rebutted.

**39.** The Ombudsman welcomes that, in response to her request, Frontex carried out a renewed search for relevant documents, based on which it identified five additional documents to fall within the scope of the complainant's requests. Frontex also clarified which documents correspond to the two human rights assessments from 2023 mentioned in one of the published documents referred to by the complainant, namely the FRO's annual report for 2023.

**40.**This first aspect of the complaint is therefore settled.

**41.**That said, the Ombudsman considers that Frontex could have engaged more constructively with the complainant to clarify his request. For example, instead of arguing that his confirmatory applications go beyond the scope of the initial requests, Frontex could have reached out to the complainant to seek clarifications and avoid further misunderstandings. This is especially important when it comes to documents of public interest such as human rights assessments.

**42.** Furthermore, the Ombudsman reiterates her view[\[23\]](#_ftn23){#_ftnref23} that documents identified to fall within the scope of an access request should, at least, be listed to applicants with a title, a date and, when available, a record keeping reference number. In its confirmatory decision, Frontex did not describe document A, nor did it provide a title or a date. This created additional barriers for the complainant to understand why only one document was identified. Generally, such information is needed for applicants to be in a position to rebut the presumption of legality referred to above.

**43.** The Ombudsman notes Frontex's explanations as to why it did not identify document A initially, pointing to practical challenges in its current records management system. She encourages Frontex in its efforts to improve its documents management system which would facilitate the identification of documents requested for public access[\[24\]](#_ftn24){#_ftnref24}. She also expects that Frontex will in the future provide applicants with more information about the documents requested.

#### On the public access granted

**44.** Frontex enjoys a wide margin of discretion when determining whether disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards public security and international relations.[\[25\]](#_ftn25){#_ftnref25} As such, the Ombudsman's inquiry sought to assess if there was a manifest error in Frontex's assessment in that regard.

**45.** In view of the content of ++document A++ , the reasoning provided by Frontex in its confirmatory decision to justify the refusal to grant access to this document in its entirety was not sufficient for the Ombudsman to assess whether there was a manifest error in Frontex's assessment.[\[26\]](#_ftn26){#_ftnref26}

**46.**The Ombudsman welcomes the wide partial access that Frontex granted to document A in the course of the inquiry. She also appreciates Frontex's clarifications on the 'out of scope' redactions in the document. She regrets however that an inquiry was necessary for Frontex to give wider public access to this document.

**47.**As regards those parts of document A that Frontex continues to withhold in order to protect the public interest as regards international relations, the Ombudsman considers that Frontex did not commit a manifest error in its assessment, considering, in particular, the specific contextual information that Frontex shared during the meeting on a confidential basis.

**48.** In this context, the Ombudsman notes that the fact that documents drawn up by other EU bodies contain critical language on the human rights situation in Türkiye, such as the Commission's annual report on Türkiye[\[27\]](#_ftn27){#_ftnref27}, does not necessarily mean that disclosing document A would not put at risk the international relations between Frontex and this third country. Each document must be assessed individually, and the specific context, at a given time, be taken into account.

**49.** Regarding ++documents C1 and C2++ , Frontex confirmed during the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team that these documents were not drawn up by Frontex but by the Greek authorities. As a result, Frontex was obliged to consult the Greek authorities on the access request in relation to these documents. According to EU case-law[\[28\]](#_ftn28){#_ftnref28}, if a Member State objects to the disclosure of a document originating from it, it must base its objection on an exception set out in Regulation 1049/2001. Where this is the case, the EU institution concerned must verify that the Member State's objection is, *prima facie*, well-founded. As such, Member States do not have a right to veto the disclosure of documents emanating from them.

**50.** During the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team, Frontex's representatives clarified that Frontex carried out such a *prima facie* assessment of the Member State's objection. On the basis also of further confidential information shared by Frontex during the meeting, the Ombudsman finds that there was no manifest error in Frontex's assessment that disclosure of the two documents would undermine public security and international relations, taking into account the arguments put forward by the Greek authorities.

**51.** The public interests invoked by Frontex cannot be overridden by another public interest that is deemed more important. This means that, if an institution considers that the public interest as regards public security or international relations would be undermined, they must refuse to give access. Thus, while the complainant raised valid arguments as regards the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure, it was correct for Frontex to consider that they could not be taken into account in this case.[\[29\]](#_ftn29){#_ftnref29}

Conclusions
-----------

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusions:

**The issue related to the identification of documents falling within the scope of the access requests has been** **settled**.

**No further inquiries are justified regarding the extent of the access granted to the documents at issue, since, in the course of the inquiry, Frontex granted wider public access to one of the documents and the Ombudsman considers that the decision to refuse access to the remaining documents is reasonable.**

The complainant and Frontex will be informed of this decision**.**

Teresa Anjinho  
European Ombudsman

<br />

Strasbourg, 11/11/2025

[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} See Article 10 and Article 80(1) of Regulation 2019/1896 of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast

Guard (Frontex Regulation), available at: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1573722151667\&uri=CELEX:32019R1896](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1573722151667&uri=CELEX:32019R1896).

[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: <http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj>.

[\[3\]](#_ftnref3){#_ftn3} On the basis of Article 4(1)(a) third indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[\[4\]](#_ftnref4){#_ftn4} On the basis of Article 4(1)(a) first indent of Regulation 1049/2001.

[\[5\]](#_ftnref5){#_ftn5} <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/frontex-contribution-to-the-general-assessment-of-turkey-for-the-jo-poseidon-2021-2022-and-2023/>.

[\[6\]](#_ftnref6){#_ftn6} Available on Frontex Public Register <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/briefing-note-on-executive-directors-attendance-in-an-exchange-of-views-at-the-european-parliament-subcommittee-on-human-rights-droi-on-the-topic-of-human-rights-in-frontex-activities-in-third-co/>.

[\[7\]](#_ftnref7){#_ftn7} Entitled "*Annual report 2022 on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 656/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing rules for the surveillance of the external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by Frontex Observations of the Fundamental Rights Officer* ", Ref. FRO-O-17/2023, on Frontex's Public Register published on 24/07/2023: <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/sea-borders-surveillance-report-2022-and-observations-of-fundamental-rights-officer/>.

[\[8\]](#_ftnref8){#_ftn8} In relation to the second request, without providing a title or description of this document.

[\[9\]](#_ftnref9){#_ftn9} Published on 12 July 2024, available on Frontex Public Register: <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/cooperation-between-frontex-and-third-countries-in-2023/> , see page 10.

[\[10\]](#_ftnref10){#_ftn10} Published on 10 July 2024, available at: <https://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/FRO_Reports/The_Fundamental_Rights_Officer_Annual_Report_2023.pdf> ; <https://www.frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/fundamental-rights-2023-annual-report-I9Eodz>

[\[11\]](#_ftnref11){#_ftn11} Frontex described document A as "*Briefing Note - ED's attendance in an exchange of views at the European Parliament, Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI) on the topic of Human rights in Frontex activities in third countries (7 September 2023)*"

[\[12\]](#_ftnref12){#_ftn12} <https://www.frontex.europa.eu/what-we-do/beyond-eu-borders/working-arrangements/>.

[\[13\]](#_ftnref13){#_ftn13} As defined in the Frontex Regulation (referred to in footnote 1), and Frontex's Fundamental Rights Strategy available at: <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/fundamental-rights-strategy/>.

[\[14\]](#_ftnref14){#_ftn14} Available at: <https://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/FRO_Reports/The_Fundamental_Rights_Officer_Annual_Report_2023.pdf>.

[\[15\]](#_ftnref15){#_ftn15} Regulation 656/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing rules for the

surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency

for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union,

available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/656/oj/eng>.

[\[16\]](#_ftnref16){#_ftn16} The Ombudsman assessed the extent of the access granted to Document A, Documents C1 and C2. The extent of the access granted previously to Documents B1, B2, B3 fell outside the scope of the inquiry and was therefore not covered in the below assessment.

[\[17\]](#_ftnref17){#_ftn17} In particular Article 3 of the TEU, which states that in "*its relations with the wider world*", the EU contributes to

the "*eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the*

*child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including*

*respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter*".

[\[18\]](#_ftnref18){#_ftn18} Available on Frontex Public Register <https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/document/briefing-note-on-executive-directors-attendance-in-an-exchange-of-views-at-the-european-parliament-subcommittee-on-human-rights-droi-on-the-topic-of-human-rights-in-frontex-activities-in-third-co/>.

[\[19\]](#_ftnref19){#_ftn19} Under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001.

[\[20\]](#_ftnref20){#_ftn20} Available at: <https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8010c4db-6ef8-4c85-aa06-814408921c89_en?filename=T%C3%BCrkiye%20Report%202024.pdf>.

[\[21\]](#_ftnref21){#_ftn21} See judgment of 23 April 2018, *Verein Deutsche Sprache v European Commission* , case T-468/16, paragraphs 35-36, available at: [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=201394\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=FR\&mode=lst\&dir=\&occ=first\&part=1\&cid=6687181](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=201394&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6687181).

[\[22\]](#_ftnref22){#_ftn22} Judgment of 20 September 2019, *Dehousse v CJEU, T-433/17,* paragraph 49, available at: [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=217989\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=FR\&mode=lst\&dir=\&occ=first\&part=1\&cid=692664](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=217989&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=692664)

[\[23\]](#_ftnref23){#_ftn23} See Ombudsman decision of 15 February 2025, in case 1129/2023/OAM, available at: <https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/194082>.

[\[24\]](#_ftnref24){#_ftn24} See Ombudsman decision of 18 September 2024, in case 344/2023/PVV, available at: <https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/192720>.

[\[25\]](#_ftnref25){#_ftn25} Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019, *Izuzquiza and others v Frontex* , T-31/18, paragraphs 63-65, available at: [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=221083\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=en\&mode=lst\&dir=\&occ=first\&part=1\&cid=2890928](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=221083&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2890928).

[\[26\]](#_ftnref26){#_ftn26} Judgment of the Court of 3 July 2014, *Council v in't Veld*, C-350/12 P, paragraphs 64-69, available at:

++[https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=154535\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=EN\&mode=lst\&dir=\&](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=154535&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=241314)++

[occ=first\&part=1\&cid=241314](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=154535&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=241314).

[\[27\]](#_ftnref27){#_ftn27} Available at: <https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8010c4db-6ef8-4c85-aa06-814408921c89_en?filename=T%C3%BCrkiye%20Report%202024.pdf>

[\[28\]](#_ftnref28){#_ftn28} Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023, *Asesores Comunitarious v Commission* , T-77/22, paragraphs 36-39, and case-law cited, available at: [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=\&docid=270470\&pageIndex=0\&doclang=EN\&mode=lst\&dir=\&occ=first\&part=1\&cid=2382694#:\~:text=36%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0It%20follows,75%2C%20paragraph%C2%A058](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=270470&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2382694#:~:text=36%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0It%20follows,75%2C%20paragraph%C2%A058)).

[\[29\]](#_ftnref29){#_ftn29} See Article 4(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, in comparison to Article 4(2) or 4(3).