### 17. calls for the systematic integration of issues related to anti-racism , discrimination and intersectionality into its annual reports on fundamental rights and the rule of law; calls for this dimension to be fully integrated and reflected in the final report of the panel of independent experts to be set up through the public procurement procedure requested by parliament’s bureau as part of the rule of law report; ### 17. calls for the systematic integration of issues related to anti-racism , discrimination and intersectionality into its annual reports on fundamental rights;


### 17. calls for the systematic integration of issues related to anti-racism , discrimination and intersectionality into its annual reports on fundamental rights and the rule of law; calls for this dimension to be fully integrated and reflected in the final report of the panel of independent experts to be set up through the public procurement procedure requested by parliament’s bureau as part of the rule of law report; ### 17. calls for the systematic integration of issues related to anti-racism and anti-discrimination into its annual reports on fundamental rights and the rule of law; calls for this dimension to be fully integrated and reflected in the final report of the panel of independent experts to be set up through the public procurement procedure requested by parliament’s bureau as part of the rule of law report;


### 2. welcomes the eppo 2021 annual report; notes that the eppo has started its operations on 1 june 2021 and has been financially autonomous since 24 june 2021; ### 2. welcomes the eppo 2021 annual report; notes that the eppo has started its operations on 1 june 2021 and has been financially autonomous since 24 june 2021; notes that , in the first seven months of operations , the eppo processed 2382 crime reports and opened 576 investigations , 515 of which were active by the end of 2021 , and that the seizure of 147 million eur was granted upon the eppo's request; highlights the added value brought to the fight against economic and financial crime , as shown by those operational results;


### 4. welcomes the eppo’s agreement with the commission , and working arrangements with olaf , eurojust , europol and non-participating countries; ### 4. welcomes the eppo’s agreement with the commission , and working arrangements with olaf , eurojust , europol and non-participating countries; encourages eppo to further engage in a closer relationship with union bodies involved in the protection of the financial interests of the union , in particular olaf , based on mutual cooperation within their respective mandates;


### 4. welcomes the eppo’s agreement with the commission , and working arrangements with olaf , eurojust , europol and non-participating countries; ### 4. welcomes the eppo’s agreement with the commission , and working arrangements with olaf , eurojust , europol; highlights that effective cooperation between the eppo and those other union bodies and agencies is pivotal; welcomes as well the working arrangements with non-participating countries;


### 5. notes that from the non-participating member states , the eppo cooperates with denmark , hungary and sweden , but regrets that the work of the eppo , in particular the evidence gathering , is affected by a lack of cooperation from ireland and poland; ### 5. notes that from the non-participating member states , the eppo cooperates with denmark , hungary and sweden , but regrets that the work of the eppo , in particular the evidence gathering , is affected by a lack of cooperation from ireland and poland; welcomes the commitment by the irish authorities to review their working arrangement with the eppo in 2023;


### 6. regrets that the eppo’s full independence has been put into question by some member states governments’ interferences with their european delegated prosecutors appointment procedure; ### 6. notes that the appointment of european delegated prosecutors is a shared responsibility of eppo and member states; stresses that the appointment procedure must always be in compliance with article 17 of the council regulation (eu) 2017/1939 and relevant national rules; encourages member states to contribute to the full independence of eppo in their exercise of the appointment procedure;


### 7. notes that the eppo’s caseload has been significantly underestimated; stresses the importance to adapt human and financial resources to the growing workload and to increase the eppo's budget accordingly. ### 7. notes that the eppo’s caseload has been significantly underestimated; stresses the importance to adapt human and financial resources to the growing workload and to reflect them accordingly in the future budget planning.


### (3) the union aquis provides for two legal frameworks to set up jits with the participation of at least two member states: council framework decision 2002/465/jha19 and article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union20 . third countries can be involved in jits as parties where there is a legal basis for such involvement , such as article 20 of the second additional protocol of the 1959 council of europe convention21 and article 5 of the agreement on mutual legal assistance between the european union and the united states of america22 . ### (3) the union aquis provides for two legal frameworks to set up jits with the participation of at least two member states: council framework decision 2002/465/jha19 and article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union20 . the convention drawn up on the basis of article k.3 of the treaty on european union , on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations20a (naples ii convention) also provides for the setup of joint special investigation teams with the goal of preventing , detecting and prosecuting infringements of union and national customs provisions. jits set up under the naples ii convention should also be covered by this regulation , provided that these jits concern criminal investigations carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority. third countries can be involved in jits as parties where there is a legal basis for such involvement , such as article 20 of the second additional protocol of the 1959 council of europe convention21 and article 5 of the agreement on mutual legal assistance between the european union and the united states of america22 .


### (4) the existing legal frameworks at union level do not set out how the entities participating in jits exchange information and communicate. those entities reach an agreement on such exchange and communication on the basis of the needs and available means. however , there is a lack of dedicated secure and effective channel to which all participants could have recourse and through which they could promptly exchange large volumes of information and evidence or allow for secure and effective communication. furthermore , there is no system that would support daily management of jits , including the traceability of evidence exchanged among the participants. ### (4) the existing legal frameworks at union level do not set out how the entities participating in jits exchange information and communicate. those entities reach an agreement on such exchange and communication on the basis of the needs and available means. however , there is a lack of dedicated secure and effective channel to which all participants could have recourse and through which they could promptly exchange large volumes of information and evidence or allow for secure and effective communication. furthermore , there is no system that would support daily management of jits , including the traceability of evidence exchanged among the participants as well as planning and coordination of jit operations.


### (13) from a technical perspective , the jits collaboration platform should be accessible via a secure connection over the internet and should be composed of a centralised information system , accessible through a web portal , communication software for mobile and desktop devices , and a connection between the centralised information system and relevant it tools , supporting the functioning of jits and managed by the jit secretariat. ### (13) from a technical perspective , the jits collaboration platform should be accessible via a secure connection over the internet and should be composed of a centralised information system , accessible through a web portal , communication software for mobile and desktop devices , and a connection between the centralised information system and relevant it tools , supporting the functioning of jits and managed by the jits network secretariat.


### (19) when designing the jits collaboration platform , eu-lisa should ensure technical interoperability with siena. ### (19) when designing the jits collaboration platform , eu-lisa should ensure technical interoperability with siena so that data could be easily exchanged between law enforcement authorities and jits.


### (20) since the establishment of the network of national experts on joint investigation teams (the ‘jits network’) in accordance with council document 11037/0524 , the jit secretariat supports the work of the jits network by organising annual meetings , trainings , collecting and analysing the jit evaluation reports and managing the eurojust’s jit funding programme. since 2011 , the jit secretariat is hosted by eurojust as a separate unit. to allow the jit secretariat to support users in the practical application of the jits collaboration platform , as well as to provide technical and administrative support to jit space administrators , eurojust should be provided with appropriate staff allocated to the jit secretariat. ### (20) since the establishment of the network of national experts on joint investigation teams (the ‘jits network’) in accordance with council document 11037/0524 , the jits network secretariat supports the work of the jits network by organising annual meetings , trainings , collecting and analysing the jit evaluation reports and managing the eurojust’s jit funding programme. since 2011 , the jits network secretariat is hosted by eurojust as a separate unit. to allow the jits network secretariat to support users in the practical application of the jits collaboration platform , as well as to provide technical and administrative support to jit space administrators , eurojust should be provided additional budget and staff commensurate with the new tasks of the jits network secretariat.


### (21) given the currently existing it tools supporting operations of jits , which are hosted at eurojust and managed by the jit secretariat , it is necessary to connect the jits collaboration platform with those it tools , in order to facilitate the management of jits. to that end , eurojust should ensure the necessary technical adaptation of its systems in order to establish such connection. eurojust should be provided with the appropriate funding and staffing to meet its responsibilities in that regard. ### (21) given the currently existing it tools supporting operations of jits , which are hosted at eurojust and managed by the jit secretariat , it is necessary to connect the jits collaboration platform with those it tools , in order to facilitate the management of jits. to that end , eurojust should ensure the necessary technical adaptation of its systems in order to establish such connection. eurojust should be provided with the appropriate funding and staffing to meet its responsibilities in that regard as well.


### (29) where appropriate , it should be possible for jit space administrators to grant access to a jit collaboration space to third countries which are parties to a jit agreement. any transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations in the context of a jit agreement is subject to compliance with the provisions set out in chapter v of directive (eu) 2016/680. exchanges of operational data with third countries should be limited to those required to fulfil the purposes of the jit agreement. ### (29) in accordance with the jit agreement , it should be possible for jit space administrators to grant access to a jit collaboration space to third countries which are parties to a jit agreement or to international judicial authorities participating in a jit. any transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations in the context of a jit agreement is subject to compliance with the provisions set out in chapter v of directive (eu) 2016/680. exchanges of operational data with third countries should be limited to those required to fulfil the purposes of the jit agreement.


### (31) where a jit has multiple jit space administrators , those jit space administrators should agree among themselves , as soon as the jit collaboration space including third countries is established , about one of them to be controller of the data uploaded by those third countries. ### (31) where a jit has multiple jit space administrators , those jit space administrators should agree among themselves , as soon as the jit collaboration space including third countries is established and at the latest within two weeks , about one of them to be controller of the data uploaded by those third countries.


### (36) the commission should determine the date of the start of operations of the jits collaboration platform once the relevant implementing acts necessary for the technical development of the jits collaboration platform have been adopted and eu-lisa has carried out a comprehensive test of the jits collaboration platform , in cooperation with the member states. ### (36) the commission should determine the date of the start of operations of the jits collaboration platform once the relevant implementing acts necessary for the technical development of the jits collaboration platform have been adopted and eu-lisa has carried out a comprehensive test of the jits collaboration platform , in cooperation with the member states. upon the adoption of this regulation and of the implementing acts necessary for the technical development of the jits collaboration platform , eu- lisa should immediately start its activities regarding the design and implementation of the platform with a view to render the project operational as soon as possible , but not later than 1 january 2025. the commission should ensure that eu-lisa is granted the necessary budget and staff to carry out its duties set out in this regulation , including through creation of a separate budget line for this project.


### establishes an it platform (the ‘jits collaboration platform’) , to be used on a voluntary basis , to facilitate the cooperation of competent authorities participating in joint investigation teams (‘jits’) set up on the basis of article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union , on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union or on framework decision 2002/465/jha; ### establishes an it platform (the ‘jits collaboration platform’) , to be used on a voluntary basis , to facilitate the cooperation of competent authorities participating in joint investigation teams (‘jits’) set up on the basis of article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union , on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union or on framework decision 2002/465/jha and in cases where specialised customs jits are created for the purposes of criminal proceedings carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority on the basis of article 24 of the naples ii convention;


### 1. this regulation applies to the processing of information , including personal data , within the context of a jit. that includes the exchange and storage of operational information and evidence as well as non-operational information. this regulation applies to the operational and post-operational phases of a jit , starting from the moment the relevant jit agreement is signed by its members. ### 1. this regulation applies to the processing of information , including personal data , within the context of a jit. that includes the exchange and storage of operational information and evidence as well as non-operational information.


### (3) ‘competent authorities’ means the authorities competent to set up a jit as referred to in article 1 of framework decision 2002/465/jha and article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union , the european public prosecutor’s office when acting pursuant to its competences as provided for by articles 22 , 23 and 25 of council regulation (eu) 2017/1939 , as well as the competent authorities of a third country where they are party of a jit agreement on the basis of an additional legal basis; ### (3) ‘competent authorities’ means the authorities competent to set up a jit as referred to in article 1 of framework decision 2002/465/jha and article 13 of the convention established by the council in accordance with article 34 of the treaty on european union on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the european union or article 24 of the naples ii convention in cases where criminal proceedings are carried out by or under the direction of a judicial authority , the european public prosecutor’s office when acting pursuant to its competences as provided for by articles 22 , 23 and 25 of council regulation (eu) 2017/1939 , as well as the competent authorities of a third country where they are party of a jit agreement on the basis of an additional legal basis;


### a communication software , which allows for local storage of communication data; ### a communication software , which allows for secure local storage of communication data;


### 7. eu-lisa shall ensure the provision of training on the practical use of the jits collaboration platform. ### 7. eu-lisa shall ensure the provision of training on the technical use of the jits collaboration platform to the jits network secretariat.


### 5. the programme management board shall meet at least once every three months , and more often as necessary. it shall ensure the adequate management of the design and development phase of the jits collaboration platform. the programme management board shall submit written reports regularly to the management board of eu-lisa , and where possible every month , on the progress of the project. the programme management board shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the members of the eu-lisa management board. ### 5. the programme management board shall meet at least once every three months , and more often as necessary. it shall ensure the adequate management of the design and development phase of the jits collaboration platform. the programme management board shall submit written reports regularly to the management board of eu-lisa , and where possible every month , on the progress of the project. the programme management board shall have no decision-making power nor any mandate to represent the members of the eu-lisa management board , which will remain responsible for the implementation of the project within the required deadline and within the limits of the allocated budget.


### 1. where an evaluation of the jit is envisaged , non-operational data pertaining to each jit collaboration space shall be stored in the centralised information system until the jit evaluation has been completed. the retention period shall not exceed five years. ### 1. where an evaluation of the jit is envisaged , non-operational data pertaining to each jit collaboration space shall be stored in the centralised information system until the jit evaluation has been completed. the retention period shall not exceed twelve months.


### 3. in the event of substantial delays in the development process , eu-lisa shall inform the european parliament and the council as soon as possible of the reasons for the delays and of their impact in terms of timeframes and finances. ### 3. in the event of substantial delays in the development process , eu-lisa shall inform the european parliament and the council as soon as possible of the reasons for the delays , their impact in terms of timeframes and finances and the steps it intends to take to remedy the situation.


### 7. four years after the start of operations of the jits collaboration platform and every four years thereafter , the commission shall conduct an overall evaluation of the jits collaboration platform. the commission shall transmit the overall evaluation report to the european parliament and the council. ### 7. two years after the start of operations of the jits collaboration platform and every four years thereafter , the commission shall conduct an overall evaluation of the jits collaboration platform. the commission shall transmit the overall evaluation report to the european parliament and the council.


### 8. the member states’ competent authorities , eurojust , europol , the european public prosecutor’s office , olaf and other competent union bodies , offices and agencies shall provide eu-lisa and the commission with the information necessary to draft the reports referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7. that information shall not jeopardise working methods or include information that reveals sources , names of staff members or investigations. ### 8. the member states’ competent authorities , eurojust , europol , the european public prosecutor’s office , olaf and other competent union bodies , offices and agencies shall provide eu-lisa and the commission with the information on their use of the jits collaboration platform necessary to draft the reports referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7. that information shall not jeopardise working methods or include information that reveals sources , names of staff members or investigations.


### the relevant implementing acts referred to in article 6 have been adopted; ### the implementing acts referred to in article 6 have been adopted;


### tasks relating to training on the technical use of the jits collaboration platform , including provision of online training materials. ### tasks relating to training on the technical use of the jits collaboration platform provided to the jits network secretariat.


### (1) the union's common visa policy has been an integral part of the establishment of an area without internal borders. visa policy should remain an essential element in helping counter security risks and the risk of irregular migration to the union , while facilitating tourism and business. the common visa policy should contribute to generating growth and be consistent with other union policies , such as those concerning external relations , trade , education , culture and tourism. in march 2018 commission communication on visa policy addressed the concept of “e-visas” and announced a feasibility study on digital visa procedures and the intention to assess options and promote pilot projects to prepare the ground for future proposals. when revising the eu visa code in 2019 , the european parliament and the council explicitly stated the aim of developing a common solution in the future to allow schengen visa applications to be lodged online , thereby making full use of recent legal and technological developments43. ### (1) the union's common visa policy has been an integral part of the establishment of an area without internal borders. visa policy should remain an essential element in helping counter security risks and the risk of irregular migration to the union , while facilitating tourism and business. the common visa policy should contribute to generating growth and be consistent with other union policies , such as those concerning external relations , trade , education , culture and tourism. in march 2018 , the commission communication on visa policy addressed the concept of “e-visas” and announced a feasibility study on digital visa procedures and the intention to assess options and promote pilot projects to prepare the ground for future proposals. when revising the eu visa code in 2019 , the european parliament and the council explicitly stated the aim of developing a common solution in the future to allow schengen visa applications to be lodged online , thereby making full use of recent legal and technological developments43 and at the same time guaranteeing a higher level of security.


### (3) the covid-19 pandemic , which led to the slowing down of schengen visa operations worldwide partly due to the difficulty of receiving visa applicants in consulates and visa application centres , prompted member states to call upon the commission to speed up work on digitalisation of visa procedures. ### (3) the covid-19 pandemic , which led to the slowing down of schengen visa operations worldwide partly due to the difficulty of receiving visa applicants in consulates and visa application centres , prompted member states to call upon the commission to speed up work on the digitalisation of a range of administrative services , including visa procedures.


### (7) the eu online application platform should provide the applicant with up-to-date information on schengen short-stay visas and a guidance tool with which the applicant can find all the necessary information regarding the requirements and procedures , such as , but not limited to , whether a visa is required and what type of visa; the amount of the visa fee; the member state competent for handling the application; the supporting documents required; the need for an appointment to collect biometrics or the possibility to apply online without an appointment. the eu application platform should also allow to establish a secure electronic communication between the applicant and the competent consulate or the central authorities of the competent member state by electronic means , should additional documents or an interview be required. ### (7) the eu online application platform should provide the applicant with up-to-date and easily accessible information on schengen short-stay visas and a guidance tool with which the applicant can find all the necessary information , in all the official eu languages , regarding the requirements and procedures , such as , but not limited to , whether a visa is required and what type of visa; the amount of the visa fee; the member state competent for handling the application; the supporting documents required; the need for an appointment to collect biometrics or the possibility to apply online without an appointment. the eu application platform should also allow to establish a secure electronic communication between the applicant and the competent consulate or the central authorities of the competent member state by electronic means , should additional documents or an interview be required.


### (8) visa applicants should be able to submit their application , provide data required in the application form , provide a scanned copy of the travel document , and provide supporting documents and travel medical insurance in digital format through the eu application platform. in order to enable applicants to save information relating to their application , the online application platform should be able to store data temporarily. once the applicant has submitted the online application and the member states perform the appropriate checks , the application file will be transferred to the national system of the competent member state and stored there. consulates would consult the information stored at a national level and push only the required data to the central vis. ### (8) visa applicants should be able to submit their application , provide data required in the application form , provide an electronic copy of the travel document , and provide supporting documents and travel medical insurance in digital format through the eu application platform. in order to enable applicants to save information relating to their application , the online application platform should be able to store data temporarily. once the applicant has submitted the online application and the member states perform the appropriate checks , the application file will be transferred to the national system of the competent member state and stored there. consulates would consult the information stored at a national level and push only the required data to the central vis.


### (9) appearing in person at the consulate or external service provider should , in principle , be mandatory only for first time applicants and applicants who have acquired a new travel document , which needs to be verified , and for the collection of biometric identifiers. ### (9) appearing in person at the consulate or external service provider should be mandatory only for first time applicants and applicants who have acquired a new travel document , which needs to be verified , and for the collection of biometric data.


### 1. points out the role of the european union agency of law enforcement training (‘cepol’ or ‘the agency’) in providing national law enforcement experts with information on latest developments in the field of law enforcement and in facilitating the sharing of best practices; ### 1. points out the role of the european union agency of law enforcement training (‘cepol’ or ‘the agency’) in providing national law enforcement experts with information on latest developments in the fields of security , law enforcement and information exchange , and in facilitating the sharing of best practices;


### 5. notes that the agency continues to closely cooperate with the justice and home affairs agencies’ network , and agencies which comprise it , including in particular the european union agency for law enforcement cooperation (europol) and the european border and coast guard agency; notes that they share trainings and organise courses together; notes that the agency actively cooperates with the european institute of innovation and technology (eit) sharing facilities and support for recruitment and procurement procedures; acknowledges the fact that the agency has outsourced accounting services to the commission since 2014; ### 5. welcomes the fact that the agency continues to closely cooperate with the justice and home affairs agencies’ network , and agencies which comprise it , including in particular the european union agency for law enforcement cooperation (europol) and the european border and coast guard agency; notes that they share trainings and organise courses together; notes that the agency actively cooperates with the european institute of innovation and technology (eit) sharing facilities and support for recruitment and procurement procedures; acknowledges the fact that the agency has outsourced accounting services to the commission since 2014; encourages the agency to actively seek further and broader cooperation with other union bodies , offices and agencies;


### 9. recalls the suggestion of the european court of auditors in 2018 to publish vacancy notices on the website of the european personnel selection office in order to increase publicity and to avoid incurring high translation costs; notes that the agency publishes all its vacancies on the interagency job board developed by the eu agencies network; calls for the agency to take appropriate measures and report an update to the discharge authority with steps taken to publish vacancy notices on the website of the european personnel selection office; ### 9. recalls the suggestion of the european court of auditors in 2018 to publish vacancy notices on the website of the european personnel selection office in order to increase publicity and to avoid incurring high translation costs; notes that the agency publishes all its vacancies on its own website , social media and on the interagency job board developed by the eu agencies network; calls for the agency to take appropriate measures and report an update to the discharge authority with steps taken to publish vacancy notices on the website of the european personnel selection office;


### 10. recalls from the court’s report 2018 that the agency had not yet introduced all the tools launched by the commission aiming to introduce a single solution for the electronic exchange of information with third parties participating in public procurement procedures (e-procurement); notes that the agency introduced e-invoicing and e-tendering in 2018 and introduced e-submission in 2019 , thus fully implementing e-procurement; ### 10. recalls from the court’s report 2018 that the agency had not yet introduced all the tools launched by the commission aiming to introduce a single solution for the electronic exchange of information with third parties participating in public procurement procedures (e-procurement); welcomes the fact that the agency introduced e-invoicing and e-tendering in 2018 and introduced e-submission in 2019 , thus fully implementing e-procurement;


### (31a) in order to increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements , there should be no procedural gaps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. a return decision should immediately be issued to applicants whose applications are rejected. without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy , the return decision should either be part of the negative decision on an application for international protection or , if it is a separate act , be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision.’ ### (31a) in order to increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements , there should be no procedural gaps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. a return decision should immediately be issued to applicants whose applications are rejected. without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy , the return decision should either be part of the negative decision on an application for international protection or , if it is a separate act , be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision in order to fulfil the time limits provided for in this regulation.’ the competent authorities shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the applicant is personally available to receive the decisions.


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower.


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless applicants are unaccompanied minors , families with children , and other vulnerable applicants including those with special procedural or reception needs or a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower per member state , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 50% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 50% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower.


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower per member state , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’


### ‘the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 20% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 20% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’ ### the applicant is of a nationality or , in the case of stateless persons , a former habitual residence of a third country for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection by the determining authority is , according to the latest available yearly union-wide average eurostat data , 50% or lower , unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 50% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’


### 1. following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with regulation (eu) no xxx/xxx [screening regulation] , and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter member states’ territory , a member state may examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third-country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a member state as set out in article 6 of regulation (eu) 2016/399. the border procedure may take place: ### 1. following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with regulation (eu) no xxx/xxx [screening regulation] , and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter member states’ territory , a member state shall examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third-country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a member state as set out in article 6 of regulation (eu) 2016/399. the border procedure shall take place in all cases.


### following an application made at an external border crossing point or in a transit zone; ### deleted


### following apprehension in connection with an unauthorised crossing of the external border; ### deleted


### following apprehension in connection with an unauthorised crossing of the external border; ### following apprehension in a member states territory after unauthorised crossing of the external border;


### following disembarkation in the territory of a member state after a search and rescue operation; ### deleted


### following relocation in accordance with article [x] of regulation (eu) no xxx/xxx [ex dublin regulation]. ### deleted


### 2. where a border procedure is applied , decisions may be taken on the following: ### 2. in a border procedure , decisions may be taken on the following:


### the merits of an application in an accelerated examination procedure in the cases referred to in article 40(1) ### the merits of an application.


### 3. member state shall examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where the circumstances referred to in article 40(1) , point (c) , (f) or (i) , apply. ### deleted


### 3. member state shall examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where the circumstances referred to in article 40(1) , point (c) , (f) or (i) , apply. ### 3. member state shall examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 (a) where the circumstances referred to in article 40(1) apply; (b) where a decision is taken on the inadmissibility of an application in accordance with article 36; (c) following disembarkation in the territory of a member state after a search and rescue operation.


### 3. member state shall examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where the circumstances referred to in article 40(1) , point (c) , (f) or (i) , apply. ### 3. member state may examine an application in a border procedure in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where the circumstances referred to in article 40(1) , point (c) , (f) or (i) , apply.


### 4. a member state may decide not to apply paragraph 3 to nationals or stateless persons who are habitual residents of third countries for which that member state has submitted a notification to the commission in accordance with article 25a(3) of regulation (ec) no 810/2009. ### deleted


### 5. the border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in article 40(5) (b). ### deleted


### 5. the border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in article 40(5) (b). ### 5. the border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors in the cases referred to in article 40(5) (b). where the outcome of the age assessment referred to in article 24 or the medical examination referred to article 23 is not sufficiently conclusive , this exception shall not apply.


### 5. the border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in article 40(5) (b). ### 5. the border procedure shall not be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors and their family members


### 5. the border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in article 40(5) (b). ### 5. the border procedure according to paragraph 2 , point (a) may only be applied to unaccompanied minors in cases of article 40 (5).


### 6. applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the member state , without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11. ### 6. applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be allowed to move freely within the territory of the member state , without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11. in accordance with directive xxx/xxx/eu [reception conditions directive recast] , a member state shall take proportionate measures to ensure that applicants in the border procedure shall not be allowed to move freely within their territory and shall not decide to hold an applicant in detention until it has individually assessed that applicant’s case and effectively considered alternatives to detention or less coercive measures. validation of detention shall be applied according to the member state legislation.


### 1. highlights the important role of the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (the 'centre’) in providing policy-makers and practitioners with analyses and information concerning drugs and drug addiction as well as emerging trends with a view to effectively countering illicit drug use and trafficking and in contributing to a healthier europe by addressing important drug-related public health concerns; ### 1. highlights the important role of the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (the 'centre’) in providing policy-makers and practitioners with analyses and information concerning drugs and drug addiction as well as emerging trends with a view to effectively countering illicit drug use and trafficking and in contributing to a healthier europe by addressing important drug-related public health concerns; recalls that drug trafficking has been identified as a main source of profit and a channel of recruitment for organised crime and terrorism , and therefore highlights the contribution of the centre also to a more secure europe;


### 1. notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant , including customs fraud; notes that the eca recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application , which result in insufficient harmonisation , risk assessment and information exchange across the union and between member states; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the union and its member states of income; ### 1. notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant , including customs fraud; notes that the eca recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application , which result in insufficient harmonisation , risk assessment and information exchange across the union and between member states; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the union and its member states of income; notes that customs fraud is also frequently committed by under-declaring the value of goods imported into the eu , by which fraudsters can avoid paying higher rates of import duties; notes that the undervaluation schemes investigated by olaf in recent years mainly concern goods imported from china; welcomes that olaf's work in investigating these cases has reduced the estimated amounts lost to the eu budget from over eur 1 billion in 2017 to eur 180 million 20201a; underlines that despite these positive developments , efforts to fight undervaluation fraud have to continue , as fraud schemes are evolving to new patterns , particularly e-commerce;


### 1. notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant , including customs fraud; notes that the eca recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application , which result in insufficient harmonisation , risk assessment and information exchange across the union and between member states; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the union and its member states of income; ### 1. notes that revenue fraud is an area in which the harm done by organised crime is particularly significant , including customs fraud; fraud is a substantial component of revenue fraud; notes that this type of fraud is often committed by falsifying import declarations , using fraudulent documents for goods declaration , and falsely declaring the origin of goods to circumvent eu anti-dumping duties; notes that the eca recently highlighted shortcomings in customs controls legislation and its application , which result in insufficient harmonisation , risk assessment and information exchange across the union and between member states; is concerned that this creates opportunities for organised crime to exploit weaknesses in the current system and defraud the union and its member states of income;


### 1. highlights that the common agricultural policy (cap) is the largest item in the eu budget , representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses the key role of a properly functioning cap in protecting the financial interests of the eu and its citizens against any misuse of eu funds that can be detrimental to the public image of such a strategic policy; ### 1. highlights that the common agricultural policy (cap) is the largest item in the eu budget , representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses the key role of a properly functioning cap in protecting the financial interests of the eu and its citizens against any misuse of eu funds that can be detrimental to the public image of such a strategic policy; regrets that for the new cap , capping remains voluntary; calls on the member states to use the capping of direct payments , as a measure against the misuse and for the fairer distribution of the agricultural funds;


### 1. highlights that the common agricultural policy (cap) is the largest item in the eu budget , representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses the key role of a properly functioning cap in protecting the financial interests of the eu and its citizens against any misuse of eu funds that can be detrimental to the public image of such a strategic policy; ### 1. highlights that the common agricultural policy (cap) is the largest item in the eu budget , representing 31 % of the total budgetary expenditure for the 2021-2027 period; stresses that it is vital for the cap’s control systems at eu and national level to work properly to ensure that the financial interests of the eu and its citizens are effectively protected against any misuse of eu funds that can be detrimental to farmers and to the public image of such a strategic policy;


### 2. notes that value-added tax (vat) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge , information and intelligence in the area of vat fraud; ### 2. notes that value-added tax (vat) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; notes that vat fraud is defined as avoiding the payment of vat or fraudulently claiming repayments of vat from national authorities following an illicit chain of transactions; notes that the most common forms of vat fraud are missing trader intra community fraud , e-commerce fraud , and fraud to customs procedure 42; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge , information and intelligence in the area of vat fraud;


### 2. notes that value-added tax (vat) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge , information and intelligence in the area of vat fraud; ### 2. notes that value-added tax (vat) fraud is another major component of revenue fraud; regrets the systemic weaknesses of the current intra-community vat system and the insufficient exchange of information between member states; is concerned by the fact that criminal groups have been proven to exchange knowledge , information and intelligence in the area of vat fraud;


### 2. points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at member state level; ### 2. points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at member state level; stresses the need for the fastest possible external convergence between the eu member states;


### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; considers the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce member states’ and the commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; ### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; considers the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce member states’ and the commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; however the controls should not bring unnecessary or additional administrative burden for small and medium farmers , who may have a problem with a new administration system; emphasises that it is necessary to differentiate between the small mistakes of small and medium-sized farmers caused by the complicated new system and deliberately committed fraud;


### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; considers the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce member states’ and the commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; ### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; considers that the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans should make it possible to introduce an appropriate level of monitoring of beneficiaries by member states and by the commission of the governance models introduced by member states pertaining to the distribution , management and performance of funds; emphasises that the principle of the single audit should help relieve the pressure on farmers;


### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; considers the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce member states’ and the commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds; ### 3. highlights that the member states are responsible for the eu agricultural funds under shared management with the commission; stresses the need for a reasonable period of learning and implementation for the introduction of the new eco-schemes; considers the new delivery model and the new national strategic plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce member states’ and the commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds;


### 4. takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (cap) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of cap subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent eu funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; ### 4. takes note of the special impact of organised crime in the misuse of common agricultural policy (cap) funds; reiterates its concern that the current structure of cap subsidies incentivises land grabbing by criminal and oligarchical structures; stresses that limited transparency in combination with corruption enables criminal organisations to keep their actions out of sight and prevent eu funding from reaching its intended beneficiaries; reiterates that the development of proper union-level legal instruments against land grabbing and the enabling effective information sharing are crucial in this regard; stresses that the establishment of a centralised database displaying the ultimate beneficiaries of cap subsidies is crucial for identifying fraudsters , criminal networks and oligarch structures and to prevent them from misusing eu funds; calls on the commission and the member states to cooperate in creating such a centralised database in line with the rulings of the european court of justice;


### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents; ### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents; the commission shall establish a comprehensive real-time information and monitoring system , including but not limited to existing tools , such as arachne , to allow a precise overview of the distribution and fair allocation of the eu funds and to have the possibility to track and aggregate the distributed financial means; this system should include information on the interconnections between companies and beneficial owners;


### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents; ### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents , including in order , where necessary , to bring states that break the rules into line; takes the view that a distinction should be drawn between established fraud and clear or genuine errors; in that connection , welcomes the voluntary introduction of a right for genuine errors to be recognised and corrected , and of new transparency and anti-fraud tools in the context of the cap;


### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents; ### 4. stresses the need for a specifically tailored fraud prevention system to prevent any misuse of eu agricultural funds; takes the view that anti-fraud measures should retain their high priority for the eu and the member states; notes that transparency and the control of agricultural funding are essential for the construction of a functional agricultural system; underlines that eu funds must be recovered in a timely manner and that proportionate sanctions be put in place as effective deterrents;


### 5. notes with concern that the commission and olaf have identified fraud in public tenders and procurement as a major trend among fraudsters; points out that fraud schemes often take place on a transnational level and can span several (eu and non-eu) countries , making them difficult to identify and dissolve; ### 5. notes with concern that the commission and olaf have identified fraud in public tenders and procurement as a major trend among fraudsters; notes that collusion between individuals and organisations , the use of fake invoices , creating fake companies and credentials and redirecting funds from their original purpose are common ways to undermine public procurement procedures; points out that fraud schemes often take place on a transnational level and can span several (eu and non-eu) countries , making them difficult to identify and dissolve;


### 5. underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud , conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of eu-wide database interoperability , common rules and data exchange , cross-border cooperation and better use of it tools; ### 5. underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud , conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of eu-wide database interoperability , common rules and data exchange , cross-border cooperation and better use of it tools; highlights the importance of adherence to the financial regulation of the eu , and in particular the implementation of article 61 on conflict of interests by all the eu member states and its application on all eu funds’ payments;


### 5. underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud , conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of eu-wide database interoperability , common rules and data exchange , cross-border cooperation and better use of it tools; ### 5. underlines the importance of transparency for the early detection of fraud , conflicts of interest or other irregularities; stresses the importance of eu-wide database interoperability , common rules and data exchange between government stakeholders , cross-border cooperation and better use of it tools and technology; stresses the need for information and prevention activities among recipients of cap funding;


### 10. is concerned that the task of estimating the extent and severity of the impact of organised crime on the eu budget has repeatedly been judged to be extremely difficult or even impossible; regrets that the commission lacks insight into the scale , nature and causes of fraud , and has to date not carried out a consistent assessment of undetected fraud; ### 10. is concerned that the task of estimating the extent and severity of the impact of organised crime on the eu budget has repeatedly been judged to be extremely difficult or even impossible , due , among the other reasons , to the different definitions of organized crime among all the member states; regrets that the commission lacks insight into the scale , nature and causes of fraud , and has to date not carried out a consistent assessment of undetected fraud; stresses that the lack of reliable estimates prevents an accurate assessment of the situation , which hampers the fight against organized crime;


### 15. regards the pif directive as an important step towards protecting the eu budget , as it provides a common definition of criminal offences and the misuse of funds , and the harmonisation of sanctions for crimes against the eu’s financial interests; appreciates that the directive sets out clear reporting and investigation procedures , defines the monitoring of the fraud risk management framework and promotes the use of information , databases and data analytics by member states; ### 15. regards the pif directive as an important step towards protecting the eu budget , as it provides a common definition of criminal offences and the misuse of funds , and the harmonisation of sanctions for crimes against the eu’s financial interests; appreciates that the directive sets out clear reporting and investigation procedures , defines the monitoring of the fraud risk management framework and promotes the use of information , databases and data analytics by member states; welcomes that all member states have notified complete transposition of the pif directive1a but is concerned that the commission identified conformity issues in several member states; notes that these issues concern , among others , the definition of criminal offences ('fraud affecting the union's financial interests' , 'money laundering' , 'corruption' , 'misappropriation') , the liability of and sanctions for legal and natural persons , and member states' obligation to annually report statistical data to the commission; urges the member states to fully align their national legislation with the requirements of the pif directive and the commission to closely monitor member states' compliance;urges the commission to take all necessary steps to ensure a correct and comprehensive transposition , including the possibility of infringement procedures;


### 16. welcomes the establishment of the european public prosecutor’s office (eppo) , with its mandate to investigate , prosecute and bring to judgment crimes against the eu budget , as an important asset in the fight against fraud and organised crime in the eu; calls for effective funding for the eppo; regrets that five member states have not yet joined the eppo; regrets the lack of nominations of european delegated prosecutors , in particular by slovenia , and considerable delays in many other member states; highlights that this may represent a substantial hindrance in the eppo’s effective fight against cross-border crime; ### 16. welcomes the establishment of the european public prosecutor’s office (eppo) , with its mandate to investigate , prosecute and bring to judgment crimes against the eu budget , as an important asset in the fight against fraud and organised crime in the eu; calls for effective funding for the eppo; regards the eppo’s role as especially promising in the fight against cross-border crime related to the union budget , as national authorities are limited by their borders in their prosecution and other eu-bodies (such as eurojust , europol and olaf) to not hold the required investigative and prosecuting powers; notes that the focus of the eppo’s mandate is defined in the pif directive and includes the fight against fraud to eu expenditures and revenues , vat fraud , money laundering , corruption and participating in criminal organisations; highlights that these focus points are crucial in the fight against organised crime , and trusts that the eppo will therefore be an effective tool for fighting criminal organisations that impact the eu budget; regrets that five member states have not yet joined the eppo; regrets the lack of nominations of european delegated prosecutors , in particular by slovenia , and considerable delays in many other member states; highlights that this may represent a substantial hindrance in the eppo’s effective fight against cross-border crime;


### 17. welcomes the commission communication on the eu strategy to tackle organised crime 2021-2025 and its focus on boosting an effective and timely information exchange across eu bodies and member states , for instance through better interoperability between eu information systems and ensuring connection to relevant databases across member states; welcomes the commission’s aim to improve information exchange and cooperation between europol , eurojust and non-eu countries; ### 17. welcomes the commission communication on the eu strategy to tackle organised crime 2021-2025 and its focus on boosting an effective and timely information exchange across eu bodies and member states , for instance through better interoperability between eu information systems and ensuring connection to relevant databases across member states; appreciates the commission’s commitment to streamline law enforcement cooperation and to fully realise the potential of existing tools , such as the european multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats (empact); welcomes the commission’s aim to improve information exchange and cooperation between europol , eurojust and non-eu countries;


### 19. regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across member states in terms of legislation , strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of eu legislation; ### 19. regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across member states in terms of legislation , strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of eu legislation; highlights in particular the varying role and capabilities of anti-fraud coordination services (afcos) in member states , which complicate coordination at the national and eu level;


### 19. regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across member states in terms of legislation , strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of eu legislation; ### 19. regrets that the national approaches to tackle organised crime vary significantly across member states in terms of legislation , strategies and operational capacity; notes that this is partly due to varying levels of adoption and implementation of eu legislation; welcomes that all member states have implemented the pif directive but is worried by the remaining uncertainty about the degree to which the directive has been transposed into national law;


### 20. notes that although the commission has encouraged member states to develop national anti-fraud strategies (nafs) , only 13 member states have done so and none of them used the template provided by the commission; notes with concern that these differences across member states pose obstacles for efficient cooperation; ### 20. regrets that a recent research indicates that some member states do not prioritize fraud involving eu funds to the same extent as fraud affecting domestic spending; notes that although the commission has encouraged member states to develop national anti-fraud strategies (nafs) , only 13 member states have done so and none of them used the template provided by the commission; notes with concern that these differences across member states pose obstacles for efficient cooperation;


### 21. calls on the commission to develop a common approach for assessing the impact of organised crime and measures taken to tackle the problem across member states; regards as crucial a timely , complete and effective exchange of comparable data and information across eu bodies and member states to estimate the impact of the activities of organised crime on eu finances and swift action to combat it; ### 21. calls on the commission to develop a common approach for assessing the impact of organised crime on ue funds and evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken to tackle the problem across member states; regards as crucial a timely , complete and effective exchange of information , and therefore reiterates the importance of harmonizing definitions in order to achieve comparable data across eu bodies and member states to estimate the impact of the activities of organised crime on eu finances and swift action to combat it;


### 23. calls on the member states and the commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud , in particular the arachne it platform and edes; emphasises that the interoperability of arachne , edes , institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the eu budget; calls on the commission to consider the extension of the application of edes to funds under shared management; ### 23. calls on the member states and the commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud , in particular the arachne it platform and edes; emphasises that the interoperability of arachne , edes , institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the eu budget; and reiterates its call on the commission , and in particular on the member states in the council , to move closer to parliament's position in favour of making the use of arachne compulsory; calls on the commission to consider the extension of the application of edes to funds under shared management;


### 23. calls on the member states and the commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud , in particular the arachne it platform and edes; emphasises that the interoperability of arachne , edes , institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the eu budget; calls on the commission to consider the extension of the application of edes to funds under shared management; ### 23. calls on the member states and the commission to consider a more coherent use of all the available tools to detect and tackle fraud , in particular the arachne it platform and edes; emphasises that the interoperability of arachne , edes , institutional and national databases is crucial for ensuring an effective information exchange aimed at preventing and identifying fraud against the eu budget; calls on the commission to extend the application of edes to funds under shared management;


### 24. calls on the member states , with the support of the commission , to provide training to national authorities to equip them with adequate knowledge for using tools such as edes and arachne effectively and in accordance with eu reporting standards; ### 24. calls on the commission to support member states by providing training to national authorities to equip them with adequate knowledge for using tools such as edes and arachne most effectively and in accordance with eu reporting standards; calls on the commission , in cooperation with the member states , to analyse difficulties that national authorities encounter when using edes and arachne and to address specific recommendations and improve the existing general guidelines and the user-friendliness of these tools; regrets that some member states oppose using these tools in fear of increased bureaucratic burden; highlights that when properly integrated , these tools can in fact reduce bureaucracy; calls on the member states to reconsider their position on this matter and on the commission to further engage in promoting the advantages of edes and arachne to the member states;


### 25. highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of olaf , whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by olaf to member states is low and follows a downward trend , as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016-2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years , and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on olaf and the commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the member states to cooperate closely with the union bodies , to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; ### 25. highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of olaf , whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by olaf to member states is low and follows a downward trend , as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016-2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years , and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on olaf and the commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the member states to cooperate closely with the union bodies , to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; calls on olaf to collect information on the rate of recovery following its financial recommendations and to publish this information in its annual reports;


### 25. highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of olaf , whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by olaf to member states is low and follows a downward trend , as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016-2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years , and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on olaf and the commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the member states to cooperate closely with the union bodies , to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered; ### 25. highlights that an important step in fighting organised crime is making it less profitable; recalls in this regard the work of olaf , whose investigations are a crucial tool in the fight against fraud; regrets that the indictment rate following recommendations by olaf to member states is low and follows a downward trend , as it decreased from 53 % in the 2007-2014 period to 37 % in the 2016-2020 period; further notes that the extent to which financial amounts recommended for recovery are actually recovered has not been assessed in recent years , and that the most recent assessment covering the years 2002 to 2016 indicates a recovery rate of 30 %; calls on olaf and the commission to investigate the underlying reasons and on the member states to fulfil their legal obligation to recover the funds and to cooperate closely with the union bodies , to ensure that funds misused by organised crime are effectively recovered;


### 1. member states shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them , including at the border or in the transit zones. the application shall be examined by a single member state , which shall be the one which the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii indicate is responsible. ### 1. member states shall examine any application for international protection registered on the territory of any of them , including at the border or in the transit zones. in accordance with article 7 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx , the application for international protection shall be registered in the member state of first entry of in the member state where the applicant is legally present.


### 2. where no member state responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this regulation , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered shall be responsible for examining it. ### 2. where no member state responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this regulation , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered or where the applicant is legally present , shall be responsible for examining it.


### 2. where no member state responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this regulation , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered shall be responsible for examining it. ### 2. where no member state responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this regulation , the member state responsible for examining the application for international protection shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 45.


### 3. where it is impossible for a member state to transfer an applicant to the member state primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that member state , resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , the determining member state shall continue to examine the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii in order to establish whether another member state can be designated as responsible. ### deleted


### 3. where it is impossible for a member state to transfer an applicant to the member state primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that member state , resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , the determining member state shall continue to examine the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii in order to establish whether another member state can be designated as responsible. ### 3. where it is impossible for a member state to transfer an applicant or a beneficiary of international protection to the member state primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that member state , resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union or the risk of a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the applicant or beneficiary , the determining member state shall continue to examine the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii in order to establish whether another member state can be designated as responsible.


### 3. where it is impossible for a member state to transfer an applicant to the member state primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that member state , resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , the determining member state shall continue to examine the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii in order to establish whether another member state can be designated as responsible. ### 3. where it is impossible for a member state to transfer an applicant or a beneficiary of international protection to the member state primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of serious violation of fundamental rights for the applicants or the beneficiary of international protection in that member state , the determining member state shall continue to examine the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii in order to establish whether another member state can be designated as responsible.


### where a member state cannot carry out the transfer pursuant to the first subparagraph to any member state designated on the basis of the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii or to the first member state with which the application was registered , that member state shall become the member state responsible. ### where a member state cannot carry out the transfer pursuant to the first subparagraph to any member state designated on the basis of the criteria set out in chapter ii of part iii or of the procedure laid down in chapter i of part iv , or to the first member state with which the application was registered , that member state shall become the member state responsible.


### 4. if a security check provided for in article 11 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation] has not been carried out , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that member state as soon as possible after the registration of the application , before applying the criteria for determining the member state responsible pursuant to chapter ii or the clauses set out in chapter iii of part iii. ### deleted


### 4. if a security check provided for in article 11 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation] has not been carried out , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that member state as soon as possible after the registration of the application , before applying the criteria for determining the member state responsible pursuant to chapter ii or the clauses set out in chapter iii of part iii. ### 4. if a security check provided for in article 11 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation] has not been carried out , the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered shall examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that member state or the internal security of the eu as a whole as soon as possible after the registration of the application , before applying the criteria for determining the member state responsible pursuant to chapter ii or the clauses set out in chapter iii of part iii.


### if a security check provided for in article 11 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation] has been carried out , but the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered has justified reasons to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that member state , that member state shall carry out the examination as soon as possible after the registration of the application , before applying the criteria for determining the member state responsible pursuant to chapter ii or the clauses set out in chapter iii of part iii. ### if a security check provided for in article 11 of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation] has been carried out , but the first member state in which the application for international protection was registered has justified reasons to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order of that member state or to the internal security of the eu as a whole , that member state shall carry out the examination as soon as possible after the registration of the application , before applying the criteria for determining the member state responsible pursuant to chapter ii or the clauses set out in chapter iii of part iii.


### 5. each member state shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country , subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [asylum procedure regulation]. ### deleted


### article 9 ### deleted


### 2. by derogation from paragraph 1 , where a third-country national or stateless person is in possession of a valid residence permit or a valid visa , the application shall be made and registered in the member state that issued the residence permit or visa. ### 2. by derogation from paragraph 1 , where a third-country national or stateless person is in possession of a valid residence permit or a valid visa , or is otherwise legally present , the application shall be made and registered in the member state that issued the residence permit or visa or in which they are legally present.


### where a third-country national or stateless person who intends to make an application for international protection is in possession of a residence permit or visa which has expired , the application shall be made and registered in the member state where he or she is present. ### where a third-country national who intends to make an application for international protection is in possession of a residence permit or visa which has expired within the last two years and 6 months respectively , the application shall be made and registered in the member state that issued the residence permit or visa.


### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in article 12 , all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the member state responsible. where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided , the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. ### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in article 12 , all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the member state responsible. where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided , the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. the applicant shall fully cooperate in the recording of his or her biometric data.


### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in article 12 , all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the member state responsible. where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided , the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. ### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in article 12 , all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the member state responsible. where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided , the competent authority may set a reasonable and justifiable time limit within the period referred to in article 29(1) for submitting such evidence.


### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting as soon as possible and at the latest during the interview referred to in article 12 , all the elements and information available to him or her relevant for determining the member state responsible. where the applicant is not in a position at the time of the interview to submit evidence to substantiate the elements and information provided , the competent authority may set a time limit within the period referred to in article 29(1) for submitting such evidence. ### 3. the applicant shall fully cooperate with the competent authorities of the member states in matters covered by this regulation , in particular by submitting information in order to determine the member state responsible as soon as possible and , except for the application of the criteria on unaccompanied minors and family members , at the latest before the competent authority has taken a decision on the responsible member state in accordance with this regulation.


### article 10 ### deleted


### 1. the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in articles 15 to 17 of directive xxx/xxx/eu [reception conditions directive] pursuant to article 17a of that directive in any member state other than the one in which he or she is required to be present pursuant to article 9(4) of this regulation from the moment he or she has been notified of a decision to transfer him or her to the member state responsible , provided that the applicant has been informed of that consequence pursuant to article 8(2) , point (b) of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation]. this shall be without prejudice to the need to ensure a standard of living in accordance with union law , including the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , and international obligations. ### 1. the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in articles 15 to 17 of directive xxx/xxx/eu [reception conditions directive] pursuant to article 17a of that directive in any member state other than the one in which he or she is required to be present pursuant to article 9(4) of this regulation from the moment he or she has been notified of a decision to transfer him or her to the member state responsible , provided that the applicant has been informed of that consequence pursuant to article 8(2) , point (b) of regulation (eu) xxx/xxx [screening regulation]. this shall be without prejudice to the need to ensure a standard of living in accordance with union law , including the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , and international obligations. an applicant shall not be sanctioned for entering a member state other than the member state in which he or she is obliged to be present if they are there for reasons beyond their control.


### 2. elements and information relevant for determining the member state responsible submitted after expiry of the time limit referred to in article 9(3) shall not be taken into account by the competent authorities. ### 2. elements and information relevant for determining the member state responsible submitted after expiry of the time limit referred to in article 9(3) must not be taken into account by the competent authorities , except for the application of the criteria on unaccompanied minors and family members.