Follow-up to the answer from the Commission and Frontex about the Frontex legal case against transparency campaigners

Question for written answer  E-001502/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Clare Daly (The Left)

In Commissioner Johansson’s answer to Written Question E-006591/2020[1], she stated that pursuant to applicable financial regulations, union bodies are ‘under an obligation’ to request payment of recoverable costs. However in his written answer to the same question, Executive Director Leggieri stated that Frontex had ‘reduced’ costs in an effort to settle with applicants Semsrott and Izuzquiza.

Mr Leggieri also stated that ‘the applicants repeatedly publicly criticised this judgment and the General Court, sometimes in very harsh terms’.

In his response to the question on whether Frontex and the Commission had considered the potential chilling effect that taking this case would have on civil society, Mr Leggieri stated that ‘Frontex can offer no observation on the assessments possible litigants make in deciding whether or not to pursue legal actions against EU institutions’.

• 1.How much discretion does Frontex have when it comes to reducing or amending costs it is ‘under an obligation’ to request?
• 2.What role, if any, did public criticism by the applicants play in Frontex’s decision to bring the case to court?
• 3.Can Frontex answer whether it took the potential chilling effect of taking this case into consideration when it made this decision?

• [1] Frontex legal case against transparency campaigners (europa.eu).