Background to the complaint

1. According to the applicable legislation (the Frontex Regulation)[1], the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) may launch joint operations based on the request of a Member State (the host Member State) that is facing challenges regarding external border control. Such challenges include illegal immigration, current or future threats at its external borders and cross-border crime. Prior to a joint operation a detailed operational plan[2] is drawn up in agreement with the host Member State and other Member States participating in the operation. Frontex organises and coordinates operational activities in cooperation with Member States, deploys its ‘Standing Corps’[3] and provides necessary technical equipment.

2. One of the main activities conducted in Frontex’s joint operations is ‘debriefing’, which aims to obtain intelligence from persons willing to cooperate. During debriefing interviews, Frontex collects personal data of suspects of cross-border crimes, such as those involved in people smuggling or terrorism.

3. The complainants are civil liberties researchers. On 28 March 2022, they sent an email to the Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) at Frontex, raising concerns about the Frontex-Spain Joint Operation Indalo at the Spanish-Morocco sea border[4], and the debriefing interviews conducted by Frontex staff. The complainants pointed out that the individuals concerned are held in temporary centres[5], and, in accordance with Spanish law, they should have the right to legal assistance.

4. The complainants raised questions about how ‘informed consent’ is obtained from the individuals before debriefing interviews start, and whether they are advised that this consent can be withdrawn at any moment. They asked whether the FRO has any monitoring role in this process and what its views are on the legal aid provided. They also asked how many referrals had been made to Spanish police by staff involved in the debriefing interviews, and about the possibility of launching Serious Incident Reports (SIR)[6] or ‘expressions of concern’[7] about debriefings, in line with the rules governing Frontex’s complaints mechanism[8]. 

5. The FRO replied that three fundamental rights monitors are monitoring the Joint Operation Indalo. The complainants had subsequent exchanges with the FRO on the matter, and, in April 2022, one of the complainants met with a team of fundamental rights monitors in Almeria (Spain).

6. The complainants were not satisfied with the replies they received from the FRO and from the monitors and turned to the Ombudsman in August 2022.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry[9] into how Frontex organises and conducts debriefing interviews, including regarding the availability of legal aid, informed consent, external oversight, and whether the interviews take into account the potential vulnerabilities of migrants or the difficult situations of their detention in the temporary centres. The Ombudsman also looked into how the FRO dealt with the concerns raised by the complainants.  

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of Frontex and, separately, a reply from the FRO [10]. Subsequently, the complainants made comments in response to Frontex’s reply[11]. Frontex and the FRO also sent the Ombudsman additional information to complete their initial replies.

9. The European Ombudsman also consulted the Spanish Ombudsman, who dealt with a complaint relating to the same matter concerning the Spanish authorities taking part in the Joint Operation Indalo.[12]  

How Frontex organises debriefing interviews and ensures compliance with fundamental rights

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

10. The complainants contended that the legal nature of debriefing interviews is ambiguous, not least as there is no definition in the Frontex Regulation 2019/1896 or in the Schengen Borders Code[13] to which the Frontex Regulation refers in relation to the border control and checks. While Spanish law determines the legal status of migrants who provide information during interviews (as victims or suspects) and of their statements (evidence or intelligence or both), Frontex’s internal rules do not define these practices or procedures. 

11. The status of migrants during their detention in the temporary centres where Frontex’s debriefings take place is governed by Spanish law. That law provides for legal aid for migrants during interviews. However, the complainants claim that individuals in debriefing interviews routinely do not have access to legal support. In addition, there is no record of consent given by individuals who undergo debriefing interviews.

12. The lack of legal aid and of clear consent risks undermining the rights of individuals subject to debriefing interviews. Without legal aid, individuals who are interviewed are at an elevated risk of incriminating themselves when providing information. Furthermore, the staff involved in conducting debriefing interviews refer information they receive to the Spanish police. In its reports, the Spanish police presents information gathered during debriefing interviews as information it has gathered itself. This information may be used as forensic evidence to be brought for the purpose of prosecution and to the court. The complainants contend that there is no written record of these referrals to the Spanish police.

13. The complaints also raised concerns about the lack of external oversight of debriefing interviews, notably where there is no lawyer or fundamental rights monitor present. They also mentioned the failure to take into account, when organising interviews, whether individuals are vulnerable or the difficult conditions of their detention in the temporary centres.

14. In its reply, Frontex said that its standing corps officers (which includes Frontex staff as well as staff from national bodies) deployed as members of the debriefing teams perform tasks and exercise powers under instructions from the border guards of the host Member State.[14] The description of their tasks and special instructions are part of the operational plans[15] which are binding on Frontex, the host Member State and other participating Member States. If the host Member State wishes to provide special instructions to the members of the teams on debriefing interviews (for instance that they should be conducted in the presence of a lawyer) such instructions are to be referred to in the respective operational plan.

15. Debriefings are an activity aimed at gathering information by interviewing migrants after they have crossed the EU external border irregularly. They are conducted with the agreement of the person interviewed on a voluntary, anonymous and confidential basis. The information collected is then processed and used for risk analysis and for identifying suspects of cross-border crime.[16] Debriefings are carried out by a joint debriefing team, which consists of Frontex ‘debriefing officers’, ‘cultural mediators’[17] or interpreters, and a team leader from the host Member State. The joint debriefing team acts under the instructions of the team leader. Debriefing officers are not allowed to establish contact with migrants who have crossed the EU border irregularly without the permission of the authorities of the host Member State. They must operate in coordination with those authorities.

16. Before the debriefing starts, the debriefing officer should ensure that the interview conditions are appropriate (for example, concerning privacy and equipment). The debriefing officer should be informed about any medical condition of the migrants. The joint debriefing team must ensure that the interviewee is fit to undertake the interview, understands its purpose and is willing to participate. If they are not willing to participate, the debriefing officer should not insist on the interview. Where this occurs, the same individual may decide to provide information at a later stage.

17. Once the debriefing starts, the members of the joint debriefing team must identify themselves to the interviewee and explain in a language that they understand the role of the debriefing officer, the reasons for the interview and the procedure. If the debriefing officer identifies at this stage that the migrant has health issues, the interview should stop and the interviewee be referred to the national authorities. If the interviewee expresses an interest in seeking international protection or has been a victim of a crime, the debriefing officer must refer them to the national authorities. If the interviewee claims a possible breach of their fundamental rights, the debriefing officer should refer them to the Frontex complaints mechanism.

18. Debriefing officers do not interview minors. If, during an interview, an interviewee claims that they are a minor or are identified as a vulnerable person, the debriefing officer must stop the interview and inform the national authorities. Debriefing officers take into consideration potential and real vulnerabilities and report them in accordance with the procedures available (which include Serious Incidents Reports regarding possible breaches of fundamental rights, referrals of vulnerable people to national authorities and periodic reports on the facilities where debriefings take place).

19. The anonymity of the interview is ensured. If an interviewee discloses personal data of persons suspected of cross border crime, the debriefing team informs them that the data may be shared and used by the relevant Member State law enforcement authorities.

20. Frontex stated that keeping a record of interviewees’ consent for debriefings would reveal their identity, which would defeat the purpose of anonymity, as the information provided could be connected to the interviewee. The anonymity requirement shows that there are no negative legal repercussions for the person interviewed.

21. Debriefing reports are confidential. They are separated from other reports from the joint operation. They are distributed strictly on a need- and right-to-know basis.

22. It is the Member States’ obligation to implement EU law providing for safeguards for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, including as regards access to a lawyer and legal aid.[18] Frontex considers that it is not itself obliged to provide legal aid.

23. An individual can claim a right to legal assistance within the context of the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty and security, as guaranteed by Article 47 and Article 6 of the Charter, and as resulting from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, neither Article 47 nor Article 6 of the Charter applies to Frontex’s debriefing interviews because (a) the interviews do not form part of criminal proceedings nor are they conducted in a context that may be associated with such proceedings, and (b) the ECtHR ruled that (i) legal aid should be provided primarily where a person is “charged with a criminal offence”[19], and (ii) a person is not considered to be under a “criminal charge”, where that person is questioned in the context of border control and where there is no reasonable suspicion that they committed an offence.[20] Consequently, the fact that a person is detained does not automatically imply that a criminal charge exists and therefore that legal aid should be provided. The debriefing interview is ”an anonymous source of information in the context of border management”, Frontex said.

24. In reply to the Ombudsman’s question on external oversight of debriefings, Frontex said that it cooperates with EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and may cooperate with international organisations. Moreover, Frontex established the Consultative Forum for independent advice on fundamental rights matters[21]. It invited the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as well as other relevant organisations to participate in the forum.

25. In their observations on Frontex’s reply, the complainants argued that debriefing interviews are conducted in a context directly associated with criminal proceedings relating to cross-border crime. A purpose of debriefings is to identify suspects of cross-border crime, to extract information related to such crimes, including personal data of suspects, to exchange such information with national authorities and through the Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis (PeDRA) programme with the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol).

26. Moreover, debriefings take place during the administrative detention of migrants following their irregular entry into Member State, in this case Spanish, territory.[22] As such, all rights pertaining to detainees and enshrined in national law should be guaranteed, including the right to legal assistance. This right derives solely from the migrants’ detainee status. Frontex should respect national law in the performance of its duties.

27. Confidentiality reasons cannot justify the lack of written consent for debriefings, given the various existing mechanisms that guarantee confidentiality (for example, for protected witnesses). The complainants claimed that Frontex fails to ensure external oversight of debriefings. Although Frontex described various monitoring actors, debriefing interviews can be conducted without their presence.

28. In an additional reply, Frontex informed the Ombudsman that, as of February 2023, fundamental rights monitors have access to and are able to monitor debriefing interviews upon request. In addition, upon request the FRO will have access to debriefing interview reports concerning respect for fundamental rights.

29. In March 2023, the FRO shared with the Ombudsman the draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)[23] on the roles and responsibilities of fundamental rights monitors in Frontex operational activities as well as the ‘Protocol for debriefings’/the guidelines. The monitors should have access to all documents relevant for the implementation of the operational activity to which the FRO has assigned them and, especially, those relevant for fundamental rights monitoring of the operational activities. The monitors should also have access to all areas in which the operational activity of Frontex takes place. The monitors monitor debriefings in close consultation with Frontex’s ‘coordinating officer’ and the debriefing team. The monitors must respect the debriefing guidelines: the informed consent of the interviewee concerning the presence of monitors must be provided; the monitors must not interfere during the interview; monitors should not record debriefing interviews and note taking should be reduced to a minimum; monitors should not comment during or interrupt the debriefing interview unless there is a clear violation of the interviewee’s fundamental rights; the monitors may provide feedback to the debriefing team after the completion of the interview and through the appropriate chain of communication. If migrants claim a possible breach of fundamental rights, the monitors should make a Serious Incident Report and/or inform them about the complaints mechanism.

The Ombudsman's assessment

30. In facilitating debriefing interviews, Frontex must seek to protect the rights of persons questioned while striving to assist the Member States to obtain the most accurate and reliable information. It must have in place the necessary legal and procedural safeguards against mistreatment of the individuals concerned.

31. Frontex argued that, since the debriefings are not part of or comparable to criminal justice investigations, the obligation to provide legal aid does not apply. However, it could be argued that the interviews share similar characteristics to procedural aspects of criminal investigations.

32. The interviewees are questioned as witnesses and/or victims of acts which may be the subject of criminal proceedings. Information gathered during debriefings can be crucial for subsequent decisions by national authorities such as whether to prosecute or not, and may be presented as important evidence in legal and other proceedings. According to Frontex’s rules on the supervision of its Standing Corps[24], debriefings are carried out “to identify possible suspects” involved in people smuggling or other cross-border crime including terrorism, and “to refer them to the second line or specialised police”. The 2021 Frontex Handbook to the operational plans for joint operations[25] does not exclude that interviewees may become suspects during debriefing interviews.  Regardless of whether or not debriefing interviews share characteristics with procedural aspects of criminal investigations, they certainly constitute a situation of vulnerability. While some interviewees may have additional needs due for instance to health issues and/or prior traumatic experiences, all irregular migrants being interviewed find themselves in a situation of vulnerability due to the inherently unequal balance of power characterising such interactions with authorities. The imbalance of power is particularly acute when an interviewee is detained and thus wholly dependent on the authorities for upholding their fundamental rights. This vulnerability is heightened where interviews are conducted just after arriving from a risky sea or land passage.[26]

33. Frontex has a duty to guarantee the fundamental rights of the persons concerned.[27]  The right to human dignity is a core fundamental right set out in the Charter[28], and clearly must be respected in the context of debriefing interviews. Taking into account the vulnerability of interviewees, this right includes providing them with basic safeguards such as information about their rights, access to interpretation, the possibility to review and sign the interview record, and access to an independent complaints mechanism (with proper oversight).

34. These safeguards could be more effectively guaranteed if interviewees who are not familiar with European laws and culture have access to legal aid, particularly if they are also subject to detention. According to Spanish national law, which Frontex must respect in its joint operations conducted on the territory of the relevant state[29], legal aid for migrants interviewed while in detention is compulsory.

35. Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that Frontex should do its utmost to ensure that migrants that participate in debriefing interviews have access to legal aid. Frontex could agree with the host Member States to include a provision to this effect in the operational plan. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to this end. The Ombudsman also notes that the Spanish Ombudsman recommended to the Spanish authorities to include in the operational plan the provision that legal aid should be provided to migrants who are subject to debriefing interviews while in detention, in accordance with Spanish law.

36. The right to human dignity also includes respecting the interviewees’ autonomy to choose not to take part in debriefing interviews. Frontex’s Management Board itself defines debriefings as voluntary. [30] However, the findings of the Spanish Ombudsman[31] suggest that this can hardly be the case.  

37. Keeping records of consent to participate in debriefings would help eliminate any doubt about their voluntary nature. While it is clearly important to guarantee the anonymity of interviewees[32], this does not mean that it is not possible to record their explicit consent to the interview. On the contrary, the Ombudsman considers that it is important to record the consent of interviewees, while ensuring confidentiality of the reports. Similarly, interviewees should be able to sign the record of the interview, if necessary with the assistance of a lawyer. 

38. Frontex’s rules on the profiles of the Standing Corps (Decision 17/2021) [33] explicitly state that there should be reports of debriefings and that these reports should be confidential. The rules also mention an ”informal” aspect of debriefings. This could be perceived as implying that there is communication between debriefing officers and migrants outside an official interview, and thereby not recorded in reports. Any informal exchanges could however risk circumventing the applicable safeguards. Frontex should draw the attention of its Management Board to the need to modify the description of debriefing interviews as ‘informal’ in its Decision 17/2021.

39. The Ombudsman will make three suggestions for improvement to address the issues identified above.

40. Finally, the Ombudsman emphasises the importance of ensuring access for debriefing interviewees to Frontex’s complaints mechanism and that there is an oversight of debriefings. The Ombudsman therefore welcomes Frontex’s recent decision on fundamental rights monitors, who are now authorised to monitor debriefings and submit reports to the FRO. Since monitors cannot be present at all debriefings however, ensuring the presence of legal representatives for interviewees may help address any oversight gap.

How the Fundamental Rights Officer dealt with the concerns raised by the complainants

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

41. The complainants argued that the FRO’s replies were vague. They also took issue with the statements of the fundamental rights monitor with whom one of the complainants met. They found the statements contradictory.

42. The FRO expressed the view that the complainants received a prompt and appropriate response to their emails, including all the information that could be shared at that time with third parties. The FRO noted that the complainants (i) were acting in their private interest with the purpose of enriching their research, (ii) had not referred to any particular incident or submitted any evidence or concrete information that could have triggered an immediate investigation into a specific case, and (iii) had not been adversely affected by Frontex’s activities or acted to represent someone who was.

43. The monitors engaged with the complainants and, as mentioned above, one monitor met one of the complainants in person in Almeria shortly after the first contact, where they answered the questions raised and gathered further information from the complainant’s insights into the topic.

44. In Spain, the monitors encountered certain difficulties effectively monitoring debriefing activities. On some occasions, no debriefings took place during the time in which the monitors were present in the operational areas. On others, the monitors were refused access by Frontex to be present and monitor debriefings. The monitors were able to participate in some debriefing interviews, and held meetings with actors participating in debriefings as well as with external stakeholders Unimpeded access to Frontex’s operational activities is paramount to appropriately monitor compliance with fundamental rights.

45. In their observations on Frontex’s reply the complainants acknowledged the efforts undertaken by the Fundamental Rights Office, the FRO and the monitors.

The Ombudsman's assessment

46. The Ombudsman finds that how the FRO dealt with the complainants’ concerns is reasonable. It is clearly of concern that certain monitors were refused access by Frontex to be present and monitor debriefings in Spain, as set out in paragraph 44. Since Frontex has in the meantime changed its rules on monitoring debriefings, as set out in paragraphs 28 and 29, the Ombudsman considers that further inquiries into this matter are not justified.

Conclusion

As regards how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) ensures compliance with fundamental rights during debriefing interviews, the Ombudsman closes the matter with suggestions for improvement below. Since the FRO dealt with the complainants’ concerns in a reasonable way, the Ombudsman does not find maladministration by Frontex as regards this aspect of the complaint.

Suggestions for improvement

1. Frontex should ensure that, during debriefing interviews, interviewees are treated in compliance with their right to dignity. This includes providing interviewees with information about their rights, access to interpretation, the possibility to review and sign the interview record, and access to an independent complaints mechanism (with proper oversight). These safeguards could be more effectively implemented if migrants have access to legal aid. Frontex should insist with the host Member State that this is included in the operational plan.

2. Frontex should guarantee the right of migrants to choose whether or not to take part in debriefing interviews. To this end, Frontex should consider adequate measures to ensure (i) that the consent of migrants to debriefings is recorded, (ii) interviewees or their legal representatives sign the record of the interview, and (iii) the confidential treatment of these records.

For this purpose Frontex should insist with the host Member State that provisions to this end are included in the operational plan.

3. Frontex should draw the attention of the Management Board to the need to modify the description of debriefing interviews as ‘informal’ in its Decision 17/2021.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 03/07/2023

 

[1] Regulation 2019/1896 on the European Border and Coast Guard: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R1896

[2] Article 38 of Regulation 2019/1896. Operational plans should include the description of participants’ responsibilities, including with regard to the respect of fundamental rights, as well as instructions on how to ensure fundamental rights are safeguarded.

[3] The standing corps includes Frontex staff as well as staff from national bodies of EU Member States and Schengen Associated States (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).

[4] https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/frontex-continues-its-support-for-spain-nOvbKi

[5] Centros de Atencion Temporal de Extranjeros

[6] Serious incidents are defined as an event or occurrence that may affect or be relevant to Frontex’s mission, Frontex’s image and/or the safety and security of participants in operations, including violations of fundamental rights or EU or international law. https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Key_Documents/SIR_SOP.pdf

[7] See footnote 8 for further information about what may constitute an “expression of concern”.

[8] https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/mb-decision-19_2022-on-the-complaints-mechanism.pdf, Rules on Complaints Mechanism, Art 13: Correspondence received by the FRO which is not a complaint, but which nevertheless raises relevant issues for fundamental rights compliance in the Agency’s activities, may be treated by the FRO as an expression of concern. 2. An inadmissible complaint may be treated by the FRO as an expression of concern when it raises issues relevant for the Agency’s fundamental rights compliance. 3. The FRO may address an expression of concern to the Executive Director or the Management Board with a recommendation for appropriate follow-up. Where relevant, the FRO may also address expressions of concern to competent national authorities .... 4. Correspondence received by the FRO which is not a complaint, and which raises no issues relevant for fundamental rights compliance in the Agency’s activities is treated as correspondence outside the mandate of the FRO.

[9] The Ombudsman’s letter to Frontex is available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/opening-summary/en/160908

[10] Frontex’s reply is available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/171747

[11] The complainants’ observations are available at:https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/171748

[12] On 11 November 2022,  the Spanish Ombudsman made recommendations to the Spanish Directorate General of Police: https://www.defensordelpueblo.es/resoluciones/planes-operativos-de-las-actuaciones-de-frontex-en-espana/

[13] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), Article 2 points 10-13 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0399)

[14] Article 82(4) of Regulation 2019/1896

[15] Article 38(3)(d) of Regulation 2019/1896

[16] Article 90 of Regulation 2019/1896

[17] Cultural mediators or experts may also provide interpretation. They are sensitive to the linguistic and cultural factors which may impact the direction of questioning.

[18] Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third person and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0048 -, and Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant  proceedings

[19] Ibrahim and Others v. the UK, no 50541/08 and 3 others, judgement of 13 September 2016, paragraph 249 (A criminal charge exists ”from the moment that an individual is officially notified by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence, or from the point at which his situation has been substantially affected by actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him”.) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-166680%22]}

[20] Beghal v the UK no 4755/16, judgement of 28 February 2019, paragraph 121. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-191276%22]}

[21] Article 108 of Regulation 2019/1896

[22] The Spanish Ombudsman found that debriefing interviews are conducted either directly at the ports of disembarkation or at the temporary centres, immediately after the disembarkation takes place

http://www.defensordelpueblo.es/resoluciones/planes-operativos-de-las-actuaciones-de-frontex-en-espana/

[23] The SOP has in the meantime been adopted. The SOP is not published on Frontex’s website.

[24] Point 4.2.1 of Frontex Management Board Decision 17/2021  establishing a supervisory mechanism to monitor the
application of the provisions on the use of force by statutory staff of the
European Border and Coast Guard Standing Corps: https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Key_Documents/MB_Decision/2021/MB_Decision_7_2021_on_supervisory_mechanism.pdf

[25] Consulted in the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry OI/4/2021/MHZ: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/58639. Frontex considered this document confidential.

[26] The Spanish Ombudsman has documented such instances: http://www.defensordelpueblo.es/resoluciones/planes-operativos-de-las-actuaciones-de-frontex-en-espana/.

[27] Article 80 of Regulation 2019/1896.

[28] Article 1 of the Charter

[29] Article 82(3) and recital 22 of Preamble of Regulation  2019/1896

[30] Point 4.2.1 Annex I of Frontex Management Decision 17/2021 adopting the profiles to be made available to the European Border and Coast Guard Standing Corps and their annual planning for 2022 and indicative multiannual planning. This Decision was amended on 7 July 2022 but not its Annex I. Decision 17/2021 can be found at Frontex Public Register: https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/

[31] Point 8 of the Spanish Ombudsman’s recommendation: https://www.defensordelpueblo.es/resoluciones/planes-operativos-de-las-actuaciones-de-frontex-en-espana/

[32] The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) previously found that information contained in some debriefing reports would allow for identification of the interviewee. The EDPS made recommendations, including that Frontex take steps to ensure debriefing reports are subject to the standards and safeguards laid down in Regulation 2018/1725 and in Regulation 2019/1896: https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/edps_-_23-05-24_audit_report_frontex_executive_summary_en.pdf.
The Spanish Ombudsman also found that the confidentiality of debriefings is not ensured.

[33] Point 4.2.1 Annex I of the Management Board Decision 17/2021.