### 5. is concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between europol and frontex; reminds the reports about frontex’s pedra program ‘processing of personal data for risk analysis' , which allows frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers to process and share it with europol and security agencies of member states , and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among jha agency is fully transparent and accountability ensured; calls on the agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with eu transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights and data protection standards; ### 5. is concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between europol and frontex; reminds the reports about frontex’s pedra program ‘processing of personal data for risk analysis' , which allows frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers , including genetic data and information on religious beliefs and sexual orientation , to process and share it with europol and security agencies of member states , and to scan social media profiles; expresses deep concern that this expanded surveillance programme not only targets non-suspects , but also loosens restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between frontex and europol as personal sensitive data are transferred in bulk to europol , in contrast with the principles of necessity , proportionality , and purpose limitation; requests that cooperation among europol and other jha agencies take place in accordance with applicable data protection law , is fully transparent and subject to an adequate framework of oversight and accountability; calls on the agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with eu transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights , and with data protection standards in particular; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between the agency and third parties is required to ensure enhanced transparency.


### 7. notes the collaboration between the agency and the edps in 2021 , with an increase of activities regarding prior consultation as required in article 39 of regulation 2016/794 on europol; further notes that all actions (except one pending technical implementation) contained in the action plan prepared by the agency as follow-up to the edps decision of 18 september 2020 regarding the processing of large and complex datasets were fully implemented and evaluated; further notes that25 staff members , representing 3% of the agency’s workforce are estimated to be committed for efforts in responding to data protection supervision and assurance related actions; notes nevertheless that in september 2022 , the edps requested that the court of justice of the european union annul two provisions of the amended europol regulation; notes that in light of the edps request with appreciation the action taken by member states , operational cooperation partners and europol , as no request was made to these articles and all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended europol regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a data subject category (dsc); ### 7. notes the collaboration between the agency and the edps in 2021 , with an increase of activities regarding prior consultation as required in article 39 of regulation 2016/794 on europol; further notes that all actions (except one pending technical implementation) contained in the action plan prepared by the agency as follow-up to the edps decision of 18 september 2020 regarding the processing of large and complex datasets were fully implemented and evaluated; further notes that 25 staff members , representing 3% of the agency’s workforce are estimated to be committed for efforts in responding to data protection supervision and assurance related actions; notes nevertheless that in september 2022 , the edps requested that the court of justice of the european union annul two provisions of the amended europol regulation , as these would seriously underminde legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the edps; notes , simultaneously , that the responsibility concerning the legality of articles in the regulation detailing the agency’s mandate and prerogatives fall to the co-legislators and the court; notes that in light of the edps request with appreciation the action taken by member states , operational cooperation partners and europol , as no request was made to these articles and all contributions from before the entry into force of the amended europol regulation have meanwhile been assigned with a data subject category (dsc); stresses the importance , in this regard , of a full implementation of the edps decision , which requires the deletion of this data and not just the blocking of access to it; stresses its concern that the deletion of this data would take place without allowing the data subject access , in spite of the edps decision; reiterates its utmost concern regarding the impact on individuals’ fundamental rights of the facts revealed by the edps in the “big data challenge” inquiry , admonishment decision , and order; emphasises , in this regard , the importacne of mechanisms to ensure europol’s powers are used in a proportionate way , the right for suspects to obtain details about the gathering and processing of their data and robust oversight mechanisms;


### 2. regrets the fact that the court issued a qualified audit opinion with respect to the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts of eu-lisa both for 2020 and for 2021; notes the court’s explanation that the qualified opinion was issued in relation to six payments that were considered not compliant to the provisions of framework contracts , and other payments identified outside the initial sample affected by the same non-compliance , amounting in total to eur 18.11 million in 2021 , representing 6 ,2 % of the total payment appropriations available in 2021; ### 2. regrets the fact that the court issued a qualified audit opinion with respect to the legality and regularity of the payments underlying the accounts of eu-lisa both for 2020 and for 2021; notes the court’s explanation that the qualified opinion was issued in relation to six payments that were considered not compliant to the provisions of framework contracts , and other payments identified outside the initial sample affected by the same non-compliance , amounting in total to eur 18.11 million in 2021 , representing 6 ,2 % of the total payment appropriations available in 2021; takes note that the new tasks of eu-lisa contains short deadlines and that the commission adopted a more flexible approach to the budget assigned to the eu-lisa for new tasks; reminds , however , the importance of compliance with framework contracts to avoid reputational risks and considers that any suggestion to reduce the overall operational costs of eu-lisa should be planned in advance;


### 3. notes that the eu-lisa signed a specific contract of €40 million to implement a framework contract related to large-scale it systems , without specifying the details of the services acquired and with an extended duration; highlights the repeated concerns by the court about the risk associated with the practice of giving resources to eu-lisa before the adoption of legislation; ### 3. notes that the eu-lisa signed a specific contract of €40 million to implement a framework contract related to large-scale it systems , without specifying the details of the services acquired and with an extended duration; highlights the repeated concerns by the court about the risk associated with the practice of giving resources to eu-lisa before the adoption of legislation , including delegated and implementing regulations , defining the requirements for the it systems to be developed; calls on the commission to take into account the concerns by the court and ensure that the situation is addressed;


### 4. is concerned that eu-lisa amended the value of three contracts , two in 2021 and one 2019 , which increased the maximum amount of the contracts by 50 % (€70.4 million , €20 million and €40 million respectively); shares the opinion by the court that eu-lisa should improve the contracts management to ensure that specific contracts are always aligned with the framework contracts; ### 4. is concerned that eu-lisa amended the value of three contracts , two in 2021 and one 2019 , which increased the maximum amount of the contracts by 50 % (€70.4 million , €20 million and €40 million respectively); stresses that the three contracts correspond to the implementation and maintenance of the entry exit system (ees) , the provision of the common shared infrastructure (csi) and the maintenance of the schengen information system (mwo sis ii); shares the opinion by the court that eu-lisa should improve the contracts management to ensure that specific contracts are always aligned with the framework contracts;


### 5. notes the court’ ongoing observations from 2018 , 2019 and 2020 on the budgetary management; regrets that the rate of carry-overs remain substantial compared to the total budget; ### 5. notes the court’ ongoing observations from 2018 , 2019 and 2020 on the budgetary management; regrets that the rate of carry-overs remain substantial compared to the total budget (€11.41 million of 2021 commitment appropriations have been carried over to 2022); stresses that recurrent high rates of carry-overs contradict the budgetary principle of annuality and are indicative of structural issues in the implementation of the budget;


### 6. welcomes the addition of country-specific recommendations , as a follow up to the reiterated calls from parliament to this end; recalls that the annual reports serve as a basis for informed discussions on the rule of law situation in member states; acknowledges that these country-specific recommendations help to target specific issues with a view to achieving real improvements in member states; deplores , however , the fact that the recommendations are not binding; calls on the commission to develop the annual rule of law cycle further by assessing the implementation of the country-specific recommendations in the next annual report , with specific benchmarks and a clear timeline for implementation; ### 6. welcomes the addition of country-specific recommendations , as a follow up to the reiterated calls from parliament to this end; recalls that the annual reports serve as a basis for informed discussions on the rule of law situation in member states; acknowledges that these country-specific recommendations help to target specific issues with a view to achieving real improvements in member states; deplores , however , the fact that the recommendations are not binding; calls on the commission to develop the annual rule of law cycle further by assessing the implementation of the country-specific recommendations in the next annual report , with specific benchmarks and a clear timeline for implementation , clearly indicating progress and regression;


### 3. deplores that fra’s establishment plan has not been increased since 2017; further deplores that the increase in workload and requests , particularly after the entry into force of the new mandate which introduced new activities in the areas of justice and police cooperation , was not accompanied with additional resources; ### 3. deplores that fra’s establishment plan has not been increased since 2017 and that the budget increase mainly reflected the indexation with the inflation rate , not being commensurate with the increased number of requests fra has received within this period and despite the entry into force of the new amended founding regulation; further deplores that the increase in workload and requests , particularly after the entry into force of the new mandate which introduced new activities in the areas of justice and police cooperation , was not accompanied with additional resources;


### 5. welcomes the cooperation with other eu agencies , bodies and civil society in order to ensure there is compliance with fundamental rights; notes that fra contributed to a total of around 60 activities in the jha area. ### 5. welcomes the cooperation with other eu agencies , bodies and civil society in order to ensure there is compliance with fundamental rights; notes that fra contributed to a total of around 60 activities in the jha area , including 24 in the area of migration , asylum and border management , and 16 in the area of internal security and serious and organised crime; stresses the support from a fundamental rights perspective provided by fra to projects related to ai and biometrics , led by europol and frontex , and expects that fra’s recommendations will be taken into account;


### 2. stresses that frontex is by large the agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021 , and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period; ### 2. stresses that frontex is by large the agency that received more significant budget increases in the last years; recalls that the agency budget has skyrocketed from €118 million in 2011 to €741 million in 2021 , and to an annual average of €900 million for the 2021-2027 period; considers that such increase is not justified by substantive evidence clearly demonstrating its necessity from an effectiveness and efficiency perspective;


### 5. takes the position that the management board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of , or suspend or terminate , or not launch frontex activities in cases where such risks arise; ### 5. takes the position that the management board should play a proactive role in identifying and preventing serious risk of fundamental rights violations; reiterates the importance to implement the standard operating procedures to withdraw the financing of , or suspend or terminate , or not launch frontex activities in cases where such risks arise; urges the management board to strengthen internal oversight structures as well as cooperation and communication with competent administrative and judicial authorities and independent civil society actors in host member states;


### 7. reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the olaf report of 15 february 2022 on investigations into frontex , and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings and the lack of accountability; considers that the findings of the olaf report are a matter of public interest and should be made public without further delay; ### 7. reiterates its profound concerns about the findings of the olaf report of 15 february 2022 on investigations into frontex and expresses its utter dismay in the behaviour and actions described in the findings presented and the lack of accountability; considers that the findings of such report are a matter of public interest and requests olaf to promptly make any related finding in its upcoming reports on frontex publicly available; underlines that the decision not to make the olaf report on frontex' activities promptly available to all member of parliament contradicted the need for democratic scrutiny over the agency’s misbehaviours and responsibilities for human rights violations;


### 9. notes that frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants , transparency , data protection , and alleged sexual harassment within the agency led the european parliament to refuse discharge of the agency’s 2020 budget; ### 9. notes that frontex’ structural problems regarding fundamental rights protection of asylum seekers and migrants , transparency , data protection , and alleged sexual harassment within the agency led the european parliament to refuse discharge of the agency’s 2020 budget; reiterates its call upon the agency to present a detailed roadmap on how it intends to fulfil the outstanding concerns , together with a clear and detailed timeframe for those actions; recalls the repeated criticism from parliament concerning the agency’s failure , under the former executive leadership , to protect the fundamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers , particularly among numerous reports and journalistic investigations of its complicity in illegal pushbacks , which led to the resignation of the former executive director; reaffirms that this situation should not happen again;


### 11. notes that the agency successfully deployed to the host member states and to four union airports the first officers of the european border and coast guard standing; acknowledges that the latter’s main activities focused on supporting cooperation in the area of identification and issuance of travel documents , return counselling and booking flights in the far; notes further that in 2021 the agency implemented 19 joint operations (jo) with 9 host member states (ms) , 23 participating ms , 32 authorities and 4 third countries involved therein; welcomes the agency’s rapid border intervention (rbi) to respond to migratory pressure at the external land border between lithuania and belarus and to control illegal immigration flows towards lithuania and the union; acknowledges the agency’s flexibility in its operational outreach in connection with rbi lithuania , jo opal coast at the english channel and the launch of the new jo in a third country , namely serbia; notes the launch of the pilot phase for first deployments of liaison officers from member states; calls on the agency to inform the discharge authority on the assessment of the results of this pilot phase once finalised; ### 11. notes that the agency successfully deployed to the host member states and to four union airports the first officers of the european border and coast guard standing; acknowledges that the latter’s main activities focused on supporting cooperation in the area of identification and issuance of travel documents , return counselling and booking flights in the far; notes further that in 2021 the agency implemented 19 joint operations (jo) with 9 host member states (ms) , 23 participating ms , 32 authorities and 4 third countries involved therein; notes the agency’s rapid border intervention (rbi) to respond to migratory pressure at the external land border between lithuania and belarus and to control irregular immigration flows towards lithuania and the union , but emphasises simultaneously the fundamental rights concerns , including as identified by the fro , that has come with these operations; notes the agency’s operational outreach in connection with rbi lithuania , jo opal coast at the english channel and the launch of the new jo in a third country , namely serbia; notes the launch of the pilot phase for first deployments of liaison officers from member states; calls on the agency to inform the discharge authority on the assessment of the results of this pilot phase once finalised;


### d. whereas since december 2019 the agency has been implementing a new mandate with an essential scale-up that is significant in terms of missions and staff , that requires an adequate budget; ### d. whereas since december 2019 the agency has been implementing a new mandate with a scale-up that is significant in terms of missions and staff , that requires an adequate budget;


### 12. notes that operational activities conducted on land borders in 2021 resulted in 3 546 incidents reported , involving 16 304 apprehended irregular migrants , 6 461 irregular migrants and 368 arrested smugglers; notes with appreciation the agency’s efforts that led to the return by air of 18 ,301 non-eu national , of which 10 ,193 persons on 337 operations by charter flights to 33 countries of return and 8 ,108 persons by scheduled flights to 107 countries of return; acknowledges that in 2021 return in a voluntary manner constituted 57% of all returns by scheduled flights and that the agency chartered 22 aircrafts for return operations; commends the successful preparation and organisation of the first fully fledged frontex-led return operation , whereby the agency takes over the role of the organising member state; ### 12. notes that operational activities conducted on land borders in 2021 resulted in 3 546 incidents reported , involving 16 304 cases of confirmed irregular border crossings , 6 461 irregular border crossings and 368 arrested smugglers; notes with appreciation the agency’s efforts that led to the return by air of 18 ,301 non-eu nationals , of which 10 ,193 persons on 337 operations by charter flights to 33 countries of return and 8 ,108 persons by scheduled flights to 107 countries of return; acknowledges that in 2021 return in a voluntary manner constituted 57% of all returns by scheduled flights and that the agency chartered 22 aircrafts for return operations; notes with concern that fundamental rights monitors are frequently not aboard forced return operations , which makes it impossible to monitor the fundamental rights situation in such operations; calls upon the agency to follow up on the recommendations of the fro regarding forced return operations and keep the discharge authority informed; notes the preparation and organisation of the first fully fledged frontex-led return operation , whereby the agency takes over the role of the organising member state;


### 13. notes that in april 2021 , an amended standard operating procedure (sop) on the serious incident report (sir) mechanism was signed and served to define the role and competences of the fundamental rights officer; notes further that the necessary additional revision of the sop on the sir mechanism has been delayed to the third quarter of 2022; recalls that this had been one of seven conditions addressed to the agency with respect to granting discharge in previous years; ### 13. notes that in april 2021 , an amended standard operating procedure (sop) on the serious incident report (sir) mechanism was signed and served to define the role and competences of the fundamental rights officer; regrets , however , that the necessary additional revision of the sop on the sir mechanism has been delayed to the third quarter of 2022; recalls that this had been one of seven conditions addressed to the agency with respect to granting discharge in previous years; calls upon the agency to inform the discharge authority about whether the additional revision of the sop on the sir mechanism has been finalised;


### 15. notes a dramatic increase in the number of the sirs from only 10 sirs in 2020 to 62 sirs in 2021 , of which 53 were covered by the newly amended sop; regrets that the highest numbers reported were from lithuania and greece; welcomes that a new procedure has been put in place whereby all incidents involving use of force are shared with the fro on a monthly basis who committed to issue an annual assessment of this procedure; calls on the agency to report to the discharge authority on the results of this assessment; commends that fundamental rights monitors (froms) started their integration into the operational framework and completed over 200 deployment days visiting 10 countries and taking part in 15 return missions; ### 15. notes with deep concern the dramatic increase in the number of the sirs from only 10 sirs in 2020 to 62 sirs in 2021 , of which 53 were covered by the newly amended sop; regrets that the highest numbers reported were from lithuania and greece; welcomes that a new procedure has been put in place whereby all incidents involving use of force are shared with the fro on a monthly basis who committed to issue an annual assessment of this procedure; calls on the agency to report to the discharge authority on the results of this assessment; commends that fundamental rights monitors (froms) started their integration into the operational framework and completed over 200 deployment days visiting 10 countries and taking part in 15 return missions;


### 16. notes that in 2021 , under the frontex complaints mechanism , 27 complaints were received and reviewed by the fro who deemed admissible 6 of them; expresses its concern over the alleged violations of fundamental rights in connection with the admissible complaints; ### 16. notes that in 2021 , under the frontex complaints mechanism , 27 complaints were received and reviewed by the fro who deemed admissible 6 of them; expresses its deep concern over the alleged violations of fundamental rights in connection with the admissible complaints;


### 20. notes with appreciation the appointment of the fundamental rights officer (fro) in june 2021; notes further that the agency has come closer to the full implementation of its extended mandate by having in office , in 2022 , a total of 46 fundamental rights monitors (frms) , compared to only 20 frms in 2021; notes that most of the frms have been appointed at ad level; regrets nevertheless that a differentiation exists between frms , as 15 are still recruited on ast positions , compared to the other 31 recruited at ad level; urges the commission and the agency to modify the establishment plan of the agency in order to recruit all frms at ad level; calls on the agency to conduct further recruitments of frms exclusively at ad level; further regrets , , that the fulfilment of the requirement of article 110(6) of regulation (eu) 2019/1896 , which provided for the recruitment of at least 40 frms by december 2020 , has been delayed by almost two years; recalls the negative role played by the former executive director in the repeated delays of this process and welcomes the efforts of the new ad-interim management towards fulfilling this requirement; ### 20. notes with appreciation the appointment of the fundamental rights officer (fro) in june 2021; regrets , however , the olaf finding that the fro was not assigned a case-handler for reports on serious incidents with alleged violations of fundamental rights; notes further that the agency has come closer to the full implementation of its extended mandate by having in office , in 2022 , a total of 46 fundamental rights monitors (frms) , compared to only 20 frms in 2021; notes that most of the frms have been appointed at ad level; regrets nevertheless that a differentiation exists between frms , as 15 are still recruited on ast positions , compared to the other 31 recruited at ad level; urges the commission and the agency to modify the establishment plan of the agency in order to recruit all frms at ad level; calls on the agency to conduct further recruitments of frms exclusively at ad level and not approach that as a mere option , as currently there are still not yet 40 frms operational at ad level; highlights that regulation (eu) 2019/1896 provides the framework for further increases in the number of frms as the agency continues to expand , with the initial 40 frms being the threshold and not the ceiling; further regrets , , that the fulfilment of the requirement of article 110(6) of regulation (eu) 2019/1896 , which provided for the recruitment of at least 40 frms by december 2020 , has been delayed by almost two years; recalls the negative role played by the former executive director in the repeated delays of this process and welcomes the efforts of the new ad-interim management towards fulfilling this requirement;


### 21. welcomes the agency’s extensive anti-harassment measures and policies put in place; notes with appreciation the adoption in 2021 of the manual of procedures for frontex’ confidential counsellors (ccs) which outlines the practical application of the agency’s anti-harassment policy; acknowledges the key role that the ccs play in protecting the dignity of the agency’s staff and preventing psychological and sexual harassment; ### 21. welcomes the agency’s extensive anti-harassment measures and policies put in place; notes with appreciation the adoption in 2021 of the manual of procedures for frontex’ confidential counsellors (ccs) which outlines the practical application of the agency’s anti-harassment policy; acknowledges the key role that the ccs play in protecting the dignity of the agency’s staff and preventing psychological and sexual harassment; emphasises , at the same time , the importance of an organisational culture that puts such policies into practice , as at the time the manual of procedures was adopted , serious misconduct , including related to harassment , continued to persist among key individuals within the agency; acknowledges that these have been addressed in the follow-up to the findings of the olaf-investigation; welcomes in that regard the agency’s commitment to structural transformation in this regard and the enlargement of the network of ccs specifically; reiterates its call on the agency’s leadership to conduct a thorough investigation into the implementation of existing procedures against sexual harassment , to fully cooperate with all relevant authorities and report back to the discharge authority about the findings , and present a detailed action plan with measures ensuring zero tolerance towards sexual harassment in all of the agency’s activities;


### 31. acknowledges the agency’s briefing note of 27 june 2022 on actions taken by frontex management during the transition period , in particular its efforts to strengthen the procedures needed for good governance and accountability in the organisation , through enhancing transparency , proactive communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; welcomes the agency’s initiative for an operational brief informing the public about its operational activities in a comprehensive way; welcomes further the agency’s commitment to publish on its website the recommendations presented by the fundamental rights officer and the consultative forum to the management board; commends the publication on the frontex website of follow-up reports providing information on companies participating in the industry days and their presentations; ### 31. acknowledges the agency’s briefing note of 27 june 2022 on actions taken by frontex management during the transition period , in particular its efforts to strengthen the procedures needed for good governance and accountability in the organisation , through enhancing transparency , proactive communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; welcomes the agency’s initiative for an operational brief informing the public about its operational activities in a comprehensive way; welcomes further the agency’s commitment to publish on its website the recommendations presented by the fundamental rights officer and the consultative forum to the management board; welcomes the fact that the agency has finally increased its transparency on its industry days , through the publication on the frontex website of follow-up reports providing information on companies participating in the industry days and their presentations;


### 32. notes that the application of the agency’s measures and guidelines on whistleblowing has brought results; acknowledges that in 2021 staff has reported one case of fraudulent activity and two cases of alleged harassment; notes further that of the three cases , one has been closed , while the remaining two cases are ongoing at the level of fact-finding mission; calls on the agency to inform the discharge authority on the outcome and further steps taken with regard to these three cases; ### 32. notes that the application of the agency’s measures and guidelines on whistleblowing has brought results; acknowledges that in 2021 staff has reported one case of fraudulent activity and two cases of alleged harassment; notes further that of the three cases , one has been closed , while the remaining two cases are ongoing at the level of fact-finding mission; calls on the agency to ensure those responsible are held accountable , and to inform the discharge authority on the outcome and further steps taken with regard to these three cases;


### 33. reiterates that the enhanced competences and resources allocated to the agency must be accompanied by increased transparency and accountability , as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; welcomes in this regard the use by the agency of a transparency register and notes the prioritisation of efforts by both the management board and the executive management to further enhance integrity and accountability arrangements at the cross-agency level; notes with satisfaction in this regard the adoption of an internal audit capacity in september 2022; reiterates its dismay for the actions of the previous executive director with regards to accountability , transparency and respect for fundamental rights and welcomes the expressed commitment of the ad-interim executive management to fully address these issues; stresses that such accountability and transparency , and fundamental rights compliance are essential in the evaluation towards granting discharge to the agency for the respective financial year; ### 33. reiterates that the enhanced competences and resources allocated to the agency must be accompanied by increased transparency and accountability , as well as full respect for and protection of fundamental rights; welcomes in this regard the use by the agency of a transparency register and notes the prioritisation of efforts by both the management board and the executive management to further enhance integrity and accountability arrangements at the cross-agency level; notes with satisfaction in this regard the adoption of an internal audit capacity in september 2022; reiterates its dismay for the track record of the agency under the leadership of the previous executive director with regards to accountability , transparency and respect for fundamental rights and welcomes the expressed commitment of the ad-interim executive management to fully address these issues; stresses that such accountability and transparency , and fundamental rights compliance are essential in the evaluation towards granting discharge to the agency for the respective financial year;


### 36. regrets that there are delays in the implementation of 12 recommendations from the ias on contract management , it governance and project management , hr management and planning and allocation; calls on the agency to correct these deficiencies as soon as possible and , if necessary , with assistance from the commission; ### 36. regrets that there are delays in the implementation of 12 recommendations from the ias on contract management , it governance and project management , hr management and planning and allocation; calls on the agency to correct these deficiencies as soon as possible , if necessary with assistance from the commission , and keep the discharge authority informed about the progress on this matter;


### 45. commends the agency’s efforts and progress in the area of return-related digitalisation , in particular updates to the recamas reference model , new releases of the far and far charter flights systems and the continued statistical data collection through the irma system; ### 45. notes the agency’s efforts and progress in the area of return-related digitalisation , in particular updates to the recamas reference model , new releases of the far and far charter flights systems and the continued statistical data collection through the irma system;


### 49. welcomes the agency’s commitment to define and operationalize the compliance of fundamental rights on its activities through the adoption in 2021 of the fundamental rights strategy and the fap; welcomes the agency’s commitment to monitor the implementation of the fap; calls on the agency to provide the discharge authority with update on the progress with regard to fap implementation; commends that the fundamental rights officer (fro) is involved and consulted on all pertinent files and has regular meetings with the executive management and the consultative forum; notes the creation of a network of fundamental rights focal points in all the agency’s entities to develop fundamental rights expertise in all areas of activity; acknowledges the important role that the frms have , including their access to the operational areas and close cooperation with the agency’s operational staff; notes nevertheless that the fro office disposes of less than 20 staff members , in spite of the growing numbers in the agency’s recruitment plan; calls on the agency to step up its efforts towards equipping the fro office with the appropriate resources for conducting its respective activities; acknowledges further the agency’s decision setting rules for the executive director and the management board to inform the consultative forum of the follow-up to its recommendations and to ensure that action is taken with regard to recommendations of the fro; expects the agency to implement the recommendations of the fro as set out in his 2021 annual report; calls on the agency’s to ensure that the recommendations of the fro and the consultative forum presented to the management board are shared with the discharge authority; ### 49. welcomes the agency’s commitment to define and operationalize the compliance of fundamental rights on its activities through the adoption in 2021 of the fundamental rights strategy and the fap; welcomes the agency’s commitment to monitor the implementation of the fap; calls on the agency to provide the discharge authority with update on the progress with regard to fap implementation; stressess that the success of the fundamental rights strategy depends on the implementation , and that the findings of the olaf report , which also pertain to the 2021 financial year , indicate on this matter that (i) the fro was prevented from accessing operational information , which is contrary to the provisions of the agency’s regulation , and (ii) that staff doing their job and reporting on fundamental rights incidents were blatantly ignored by senior frontex individuals; welcomes in this regard that since then , the fundamental rights officer (fro) is involved and consulted on all pertinent files and has regular meetings with the executive management and the consultative forum; notes the creation of a network of fundamental rights focal points in all the agency’s entities to develop fundamental rights expertise in all areas of activity; acknowledges the important role that the frms have , including their access to the operational areas and close cooperation with the agency’s operational staff; notes nevertheless that the fro office disposes of less than 20 staff members , in spite of the growing numbers in the agency’s recruitment plan; calls on the agency to step up its efforts towards equipping the fro office with the appropriate resources for conducting its respective activities; acknowledges further the agency’s decision setting rules for the executive director and the management board to inform the consultative forum of the follow-up to its recommendations and to ensure that action is taken with regard to recommendations of the fro; expects the agency to implement the recommendations of the fro as set out in his 2021 annual report; calls on the agency’s to ensure that the recommendations of the fro and the consultative forum presented to the management board are shared with the discharge authority;


### 51. recalls the conclusion of the court of justice of the european union , that return decisions issued by the hungarian authorities are incompatible with directive 2008/115/ec and the charter of fundamental rights of the european union; calls on the agency to refrain from participating in any operations that are incompatible with eu law; notes from the agency's reply that it performed verifications and concluded that it had never been involved in returns related to the hungarian legislation deemed incompatible with eu law by the cjeu (hu national act lxxxix of 2007 and act lviii of 2020 which); takes note that the agency requires hungary to confirm special disclaimers concerning procedural aspects when requesting the agency’s support , ensuring that all the agency does its utmost to ensure that all return procedures supported by it in hungary are fully compliant with the relevant eu legal framework on return and asylum; further notes that the agency increased monitoring activities in hungarian returns and strengthened consultation and cooperation with the fundamental rights officer on hungary; ### 51. recalls the conclusion of the court of justice of the european union , that return decisions issued by the hungarian authorities are incompatible with directive 2008/115/ec and the charter of fundamental rights of the european union; calls on the agency to refrain from participating in any operations that are incompatible with eu law; notes from the agency's reply that it performed verifications and concluded that it had never been involved in returns related to the hungarian legislation deemed incompatible with eu law by the cjeu (hu national act lxxxix of 2007 and act lviii of 2020 which); notes that despite this claim the fro has recommended to the agency to reconsider “the support to return operations from hungary” in its 2021 annual report; stresses that if the agency wants to make a new start including a renewed commitment to transparency , it should provide more clarity and transparency in such cases; takes note that the agency says it requires hungary to confirm special disclaimers concerning procedural aspects when requesting the agency’s support , ensuring that all the agency does its utmost to ensure that all return procedures supported by it in hungary are fully compliant with the relevant eu legal framework on return and asylum; further notes that the agency increased monitoring activities in hungarian returns and strengthened consultation and cooperation with the fundamental rights officer on hungary; stresses that procedures are only as effective as their implementation , and that this is of particular concern given the general rule of law situation in hungary; reiterates , in this context , its call upon the agency to suspend all other activities in hungary;


### 53. notes with concern the media reports about alleged misconduct in expansion of the processing of personal data for risk analysis programme (pedra); notes from the agency's reply that the project had been implemented between 2015 and 2017 , allowing the agency to develop capabilities required for processing personal data in accordance with article 11c of regulation 1168/2011; further takes note of the agency's position that it had been processing only operational personal data of suspects of cross- border crime and terrorism , having not started the processing of personal data of victims and witnesses; takes note of the management board decisions 56/2021 , 68/2021 and 69/2021 , upon the receipt of the edps opinions on the agency's data protection rules , leading to the agency's data protection officer to prepare an action plan for the implementation of the edps recommendations; calls on the agency to address this situation and ensure full compliance with eu data protection rules , regularly consulting the edps over and keeping the discharge authority informed about the status and progress of the reform; ### 53. notes with concern the media reports about alleged misconduct in expansion of the processing of personal data for risk analysis programme (pedra); notes from the agency's reply that the project had been implemented between 2015 and 2017 , allowing the agency to develop capabilities required for processing personal data in accordance with article 11c of regulation 1168/2011; further takes note of the agency's position that it had been processing only operational personal data of suspects of cross-border crime and terrorism , having not started the processing of personal data of victims and witnesses; reiterates its deep concern about reports that the data protection officer repeatedly warned that this data expansion would breach union law , but that the agency initially chose to ignore this advice; takes note of the management board decisions 56/2021 , 68/2021 and 69/2021 , upon the receipt of the edps opinions on the agency's data protection rules , leading to the agency's data protection officer to prepare an action plan for the implementation of the edps recommendations; calls on the agency to address this situation and ensure full compliance with eu data protection rules , regularly consulting the edps over and keeping the discharge authority informed about the status and progress of the reform;


### 54. notes that the problems identified through media reports , fswg conclusions as well as the findings of the olaf report , led to the refusal of discharge within the previous cycle; highlights that the agency is currently undergoing a transition process , following the resignation of its former executive director , in light of the olaf investigation into the mismanagement of the agency; further welcomes in this sense the various actions taken by the ad-interim management to improve its activities and standards; notes with satisfaction that these activities tackled budgetary and financial management issues such as the clarification of delegations and sub-delegations for payments authorising offices , greater respect for fundamental rights through the enhanced institutional cooperation between the ad-interim executive management and the fundamental rights officer , as well as the changes in the management culture through a visible shift towards decentralisation , delegation and improved dialogue in the decision-making process; welcomes in particular the ad-interim management’s commitment to changing the management culture , working towards breaking the culture of silence , encouraging collective engagement in solving issues; calls on the agency to continue its commitment towards fully implementing these necessary reforms , also after the appointment of a non-interim executive director , and to report to the discharge authority about the progress achieved; ### 54. notes that the problems identified through media reports , fswg conclusions as well as the findings of the olaf report , led to the refusal of discharge within the previous cycle; highlights that the agency is currently undergoing a transition process , following the resignation of its former executive director , in light of the olaf investigation into the mismanagement of the agency; further welcomes in this sense the various actions taken by the ad-interim management to improve its activities and standards; notes with satisfaction that these activities tackled budgetary and financial management issues such as the clarification of delegations and sub-delegations for payments authorising offices , greater respect for fundamental rights through the enhanced institutional cooperation between the ad-interim executive management and the fundamental rights officer , as well as the changes in the management culture through a visible shift towards decentralisation , delegation and improved dialogue in the decision-making process; welcomes in particular the ad-interim management’s commitment to changing the management culture , working towards breaking the culture of silence , encouraging collective engagement in solving issues; emphasises that these are issues of a structural nature , that require time to be fully addressed , and that only through a continuous commitment the agency will be able to fully address these; calls on the agency to continue its commitment towards fully implementing these necessary reforms , also after the appointment of a non-interim executive director , and to report to the discharge authority about the progress achieved;


### 6. stresses that there is necessity to facilitate the exercise of individual rights provided by the gdpr , such as data portability or rights in the context of automated processing , including profiling; calls on the edpb to issue further guidance on automated decision-making; ### 6. stresses that there is necessity to facilitate the exercise of individual rights provided by the gdpr , such as data portability or rights in the context of automated processing , including profiling; welcomes the edpb guidelines on automated decision-making1a and on data portability1b;


### a. whereas the union’s security policy must be grounded in the values upon which the eu was founded and which are enshrined in article 2 of the teu , including the principles of democracy and the rule of law , and the charter of fundamental rights; ### a. whereas the union security policy must remain grounded in the values upon which the eu was founded and which are enshrined in article 2 of the teu , including the principles of democracy , individual freedoms and rule of law , and the charter of fundamental rights , including the right to a fair trial; whereas any restrictions of these rights have to comply with the principles of necessity (recognising that a securitised response to a social problem is not necessarily the adequate response) , proportionality and legality; whereas the court of justice has ruled several times that blanket data retention and mass surveillance of electronic communications or of travel data is not compliant with the charter of fundamental rights;


### b. whereas the new eu security union strategy should react to the rapidly changing landscape of threats to european security; whereas the commission has identified cybercrime , including identity theft , cybersecurity , hybrid attacks , terrorist attacks and organised crime as the main challenges; ### b. whereas the new eu security union strategy should provide the appropriate responses to the rapidly changing challenges to european security;


### — having regard to articles 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 18 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union , ### — having regard to articles 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 18 , 19 and 47 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union ,


### — having regard to articles 2 , 3 , 5 and 8 of the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (echr) , ### — having regard to articles 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 and 13 of the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (echr) ,


### — having regard to the judgements of the european court of human rights related to regulation (eu) no 604/2013 , and in particular sharifi v. austria of 5 december 2013 (chamber judgment) , mohammadi v. austria of 3 july 2014 (chamber judgment) , sharifi and others v. italy and greece of 21 october 2014 (chamber judgment) , and tarakhel v. switzerland of 4 november 2014 (grand chamber judgment) , ### — having regard to the judgements of the european court of human rights related to regulation (eu) no 604/2013 , and in particular sharifi v. austria of 5 december 2013 (chamber judgment) , mohammadi v. austria of 3 july 2014 (chamber judgment) , sharifi and others v. italy and greece of 21 october 2014 (chamber judgment) , and tarakhel v. switzerland of 4 november 2014 (grand chamber judgment) , and ecthr - m.s.s. v belgium and greece [gc]; application no. 30696/09 , judgement of 21 november 2011 , related to regulation (ec) no 343/2003 of 18 february 2003 (dublin ii)


### a. whereas 2.5 million people applied for asylum in the european union in the period 2015-2016 , a fourfold increase compared to 2012-2013; ### a. whereas 676 300 people or 0.13% of the total population of the eu applied for asylum in the european union in 2019 , an increase of 1.2% compared to 2018 and a decrease of 420% compared to 2015;


### a. whereas 2.5 million people applied for asylum in the european union in the period 2015-2016 , a fourfold increase compared to 2012-2013; ### a. whereas 714 ,200 asylum applications were lodged in the eu in 2019;


### b. whereas one-third of the member states currently play host to 90% of asylum seekers; ### b. whereas , as a consequence of implementation of article 13 , according to which it is the responsibility of the member state of first entry to examine an asylum application , responsibilities are not distributed fairly among the member states; whereas one-third of the member states currently play host to 90% of asylum seekers; whereas some member states have transferred roughly the same number of asylum seekers as they have received from other member states , in practice thereby largely negating the redistributive effect of dublin transfers;


### c. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the deadlines laid down as part of dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out; ### c. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the provisions on the hierarchy of criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of the dublin procedures are not properly implemented and transfers are not carried out; whereas in situations involving children and families , these shortcomings are particularly harmful to the best interests of the child and the right of asylum seekers to family reunification;


### c. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the deadlines laid down as part of dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out; ### c. whereas in the case of most asylum applications , the set of hierarchical criteria and the deadlines laid down as part of dublin procedures are not met and transfers are not carried out;


### incorporating the principle of solidarity into the management of asylum seekers ### incorporating the principle of solidarity in the dublin regulation


### 1. considers that the dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of member states , in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the eu therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among member states , including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum; ### deleted


### 1. considers that the dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of member states , in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the eu therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among member states , including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum; ### 1. considers that the dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of member states , in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the eu therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among member states , including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum in full respect of the fundamental right to safety and protection of asylum seekers;


### 1. considers that the dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of member states , in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the eu therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among member states , including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum; ### 1. considers that the current dublin regulation imposes a disproportionate responsibility on a minority of member states; takes the view that the eu therefore needs a sustainable solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among member states , including through a fair distribution of asylum seekers;


### 2. stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at eu level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the dublin iii regulation have been blocked in the council; ### 2. stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at eu level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the dublin iii regulation have been blocked in the council , in spite of the well-documented failings of the regulation; takes the view that the blocking might be interpreted as a violation of the principle of mutual sincere cooperation between the eu institutions as set out in article 13(2) teu , also in view of the fact that the council has always sought unanimous agreement even though a qualified majority would suffice; draws attention to the adoption by the european parliament on 6 november 2017 of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) and calls on the commission and the council to take up parliament's call , as a matter of urgency , for a sustainable , human and solidarity-based policy for the distribution of responsibilities at eu level , in line with the aforementioned report;


### 2. stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at eu level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the dublin iii regulation have been blocked in the council; ### 2. stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable common european and asylum system; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the dublin iii regulation have been blocked in the council;


### 3. notes that the crisis management tool provided for in article 33 did not provide effective support to the member states , nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the covid-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism , endowed with a financial instrument managed by the commission , should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the eu under the best possible conditions; ### deleted


### 3. notes that the crisis management tool provided for in article 33 did not provide effective support to the member states , nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the covid-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism , endowed with a financial instrument managed by the commission , should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the eu under the best possible conditions; ### 3. notes that the mechanism for early warning , preparedness and crisis management as set out in article 33 has not been applied to date , considers that a solidarity-based mechanism in the eu should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the eu and not to hinder arrivals and deflect responsibility; emphasizes that the protection of fundamental rights of asylum applicants should always remain at the centre of this mechanism; also notes that the provisions set out in the temporary protection directive has yet to be invoked;


### 4. calls on the member states to make use of the discretionary clause in article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant , for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions; ### 4. calls on the member states to expand the use of the discretionary clause in article 17 , to address challenging situations and humanitarian circumstances , as for example to relocate and provide decent reception conditions to asylum seekers currently living in hotspots in inhumane , degrading , unsanitary and unsafe conditions;


### 4. calls on the member states to make use of the discretionary clause in article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant , for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions; ### 4. notes the very infrequent application of article 17(2) and calls on the member states to make better use of the discretionary clause in article 17 , for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide dignified reception conditions;


### 5. urges the introduction , in accordance with international law , of fast-track dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the eu , in european reception centres , in order to process asylum applications swiftly , assess their merits , determine the member state responsible and , where appropriate , return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period; ### deleted


### 5. urges the introduction , in accordance with international law , of fast-track dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the eu , in european reception centres , in order to process asylum applications swiftly , assess their merits , determine the member state responsible and , where appropriate , return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period; ### 5. urges the introduction , in accordance with international law , of fast-track dublin procedures at the main points of irregular arrival in the eu , in european reception centres , in order to process asylum applications swiftly , assess their merits , determine the member state responsible and , where appropriate , return asylum seekers without an unnecessarily prolonged detention period; stresses that children shall not be detained for immigration purposes in line with the new york declaration for refugees and migrant of 19 september 2016 and calls on the eu member states to work out alternatives to detention , such as community-based placements for children;


### 6. highlights the significant operational backing for dublin procedures provided by the european asylum support office (easo) in the hotspots; calls on the commission and the member states to facilitate the work of easo staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources; ### 6. highlights the many challenges involved with implementing the dublin regulation and notes that the european asylum support office (easo) provides crucial support to member states' authorities in implementing the dublin procedures; calls on the commission and the member states to ensure that interviews take place in a language which asylum seekers understand; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources;


### 6. highlights the significant operational backing for dublin procedures provided by the european asylum support office (easo) in the hotspots; calls on the commission and the member states to facilitate the work of easo staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources; ### 6. highlights the significant operational and technical support provided by the european asylum support office (easo) to member states; calls on the commission and the member states to facilitate the work of easo staff and the commission to increase assistance to member states , especially those at the border of the eu; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources , supporting member states with dublin procedures;


### 6. highlights the significant operational backing for dublin procedures provided by the european asylum support office (easo) in the hotspots; calls on the commission and the member states to facilitate the work of easo staff by allowing interviews in a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources; ### 6. highlights the significant operational backing for dublin procedures provided by the european asylum support office (easo) in the hotspots; calls on the commission and the member states to facilitate the work of easo staff by allowing interviews in a language that the applicant understands; calls for the establishment of a european asylum agency , with sufficient financial and human resources;


### 7. points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of children , victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable; ### 7. deplores that the rights of asylum seekers , including that to legal assistance , are often neglected when implementing the dublin iii regulation , points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of eu asylum policies and of the implementation process of the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of minors , victims of trafficking , victims of torture , and the most vulnerable;


### 7. points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of children , victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable; ### 7. points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of children , victims of trafficking and all other vulnerable people;


### 7. points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of children , victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable; ### 7. points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the dublin iii regulation , including the protection of children , victims of trafficking and the most vulnerable , such as lgbti persons;


### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detention; ### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children by ensuring they are not subjected to detention; calls on the members states and the commission to clarify a ‘significant risk of absconding’ in the context of dublin iii and application of detention towards vulnerable groups; calls on the member states to take into consideration the specific needs of lgbti persons in detention and to ensure they benefit from protection from inhuman or degrading treatment arising from facility staff and/or other detainees; recalls that transgender persons’ right to health , namely in accessing hormonal replacement therapy , must be upheld in detention as a means to prevent their further exposure to discrimination and/or violence arising from staff and/or other detainees;


### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detention; ### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to give priority , as set out in article 7 , to the application of articles 8 , 9 and 10 as the main criteria for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application , in order to ensure the effectiveness of the right to family unity and reunification and to harmonise and increase the flexibility of the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to always prioritise and protect the best interests of children and notes that , in accordance with the united nations convention on the rights of the child and the recommendations of the un committee on the rights of the child , detaining children in the context of migration management is never in their best interests;


### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detention; ### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to enable a better use of the family provisions , including by harmonising the standards of proof across member states in the direction of less stringent and more achievable standards; calls the commission and the member states to speed up family reunification procedures including through an immediate transfer to a country in which the applicant has family;


### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to protect the best interests of children and to clarify the criteria for keeping children in detention; ### 8. calls on the commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion and to harmonise the standard of proof required; calls on the member states and the commission to use the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all decisions concerning children;


### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; deplores , however , the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out , a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised; ### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; deplores , however , the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out , a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; regards efforts to provide access to information in a language that the applicant understands and efforts to create safe environments to disclose personal information necessary to prove the validity of the claim as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests;


### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; deplores , however , the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out , a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised; ### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; points out , however , that transfers are carried out in only 11% of cases , which clearly demonstrates the inefficiency of the dublin regulation; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; regards efforts to guarantee access to information and swift procedures for family reunification and the transfer of asylum seekers as essential;


### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; deplores , however , the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out , a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised; ### 9. stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly , generating considerable human , material and financial costs; deplores , however , the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out , a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between member states; encourages member states to apply the discretionary clause more swiftly in cases where it becomes evident that transfers cannot be carried out , or where the individual situation of the applicant requires so;


### 10. considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under dublin iii undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the commission to revise the rules , in order to give member states sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker absconds; ### 10. considers that in some cases , incorrect application of the rules on the hierarchy of criteria , particularly regarding family reunification and the situation of unaccompanied children , puts the efficiency of asylum procedures at risk and helps increase the danger of absconding; stresses that requests for transfers are rarely successful , which leaves asylum seekers in an unnecessarily uncertain situation and runs counter to the objective of the dublin regulation , which aims to ensure efficient , effective access to asylum procedures; calls on the commission to tackle the main failing of the dublin regulation , namely the automatic assigning of the responsibility for examining asylum applications to the country of first entry , and to propose a system whereby asylum seekers' existing connections to some member states are duly taken into consideration;


### 10. considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under dublin iii undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the commission to revise the rules , in order to give member states sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker absconds; ### 10. considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under dublin iii undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system;


### 10. considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under dublin iii undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the commission to revise the rules , in order to give member states sufficient time to carry out transfers and do away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker absconds; ### 10. considers , according to the evidence , that in many cases asylum seekers remain outside of the system due to disproportionate use of the criterion of the first country of irregular entry and the insufficient consideration of the meaningful links and the particular needs of the applicants; calls the commission to revise the rules in order to increase trust between member states and between them and the asylum seekers;


### 11. considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with dublin procedures , in particular in the hotspots , would simplify the process of obtaining asylum and improve decision-making; calls on the member states to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex dublin procedures , to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone; ### 11. urges the member states , with the support of the commission and the european asylum support office , to provide asylum applicants with clear and accessible information on the dublin procedures , with particular regard to family reunification , in accordance with articles 4 and 26 of the regulation , and access to an effective remedy and legal assistance , in accordance with article 27; considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with dublin procedures would facilitate the proper functioning of the dublin regulation;


### 11. considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with dublin procedures , in particular in the hotspots , would simplify the process of obtaining asylum and improve decision-making; calls on the member states to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex dublin procedures , to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone; ### 11. considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with dublin procedures would enhance rights-compliant procedures , simplify dublin procedures and improve decision-making; calls on the member states to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex dublin procedures , to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;


### a single asylum application in europe ### ensuring efficient implementation at eu level


### a single asylum application in the eu ### a rights-centred asylum application in the eu


### 12. stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the eu is consistently flouted , a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the dublin iii regulation; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a european database such as eurodac , in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications , while protecting personal data; ### 12. is particularly preoccupied by incorrect application of the dublin regulation , especially in terms of the hierarchy of criteria and the use of humanitarian and discretionary clauses , which partly explains the irregular movements of asylum applicants , as the system takes no account of the family and social links of applicants with some member states or of preoccupations linked to protection or health when responsibility for examining an asylum application is designated to a particular member state; considers that , in accordance with recital 30 , the eurodac system , set up by regulation (eu) no 603/2013 , should facilitate the proper application of the dublin regulation and regrets that , on the contrary , the facts show that the member states often pay no heed to the hierarchy of criteria set out in article 7 of the regulation , preferring the more automatic application of the 'positive results' of eurodac to determine a responsible member state , without conducting a prior assessment of the applicability of criteria which should normally take priority , such as family unity; stresses that this gap aggravates failings in the proper application of the dublin regulation as a whole;


### 12. stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the eu is consistently flouted , a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the dublin iii regulation; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a european database such as eurodac , in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications , while protecting personal data; ### 12. stresses that the principle of a single asylum application in the eu is consistently flouted , a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the dublin iii regulation; notes that there are multiple reasons for submission of additional asylum applications;


### 13. notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between member states for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and a shared country-risk analysis , or at least greater convergence , would reduce these disparities , and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the dublin iii regulation; ### deleted


### 13. notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between member states for certain nationalities; considers that a common list of safe countries and a shared country-risk analysis , or at least greater convergence , would reduce these disparities , and thus also the number of secondary movements; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the dublin iii regulation; ### 13. notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between member states for certain nationalities and this can contribute to onward movement; considers that accounting for individual needs of the applicant in the dublin procedures would reduce secondary movements; calls for the inclusion of a relocation criteria considering the "genuine links" with a particular member state as an efficient approach to reduce secondary movements;


### 14. takes the view that closer cooperation between national asylum authorities is needed , in order to share information and streamline transfers; proposes that easo be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the dublin iii regulation , including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities , and a platform for the exchange and sharing of information and best practices; ### 14. urges closer cooperation between national asylum authorities in order to share information and harmonise best practices; proposes that easo be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the dublin iii regulation , including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities;


### 15. notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safe countries who have arrived in the eu on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these manifestly unfounded applications contribute to the overloading of asylum systems; calls on the commission and the member states to make asylum and visa policies more consistent; ### deleted


### 16. proposes that easo be given an expanded role in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers , in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systems; ### deleted


### 16. proposes that easo be given an expanded role in analysing the flows of and pathways taken by asylum seekers , in order to better anticipate and understand pressures on asylum systems; ### 16. proposes that easo be given an expanded role in supporting member states in the implementation of the dublin iii regulation;


### 17. urges the commission and the council to work towards convergence in the bilateral agreements concluded between member states and with third countries , in order to optimise implementation of the dublin iii regulation; ### 17. urges the commission and the council to work towards convergence in the implementation of the dublin iii regulation by taking stock of the elements contributing to greater efficiency , and compliance with human rights legislation;


### 17. urges the commission and the council to work towards convergence in the bilateral agreements concluded between member states and with third countries , in order to optimise implementation of the dublin iii regulation; ### 17. urges the commission and the member states to take measures to optimise effective implementation of the dublin iii regulation and the related guarantees;


### 1. reaffirms that the right to migrate is a human right; calls on the commission to promote development and humanitarian policies that protect the human and social rights of all migrants , wherever eu action is deployed and irrespective of their legal status; ### 1. reaffirms that the right to migrate is a human right; regrets that the current external dimension of eu migration policies , through measures aiming primarily at strengthening securitisation and border controls at eu external borders and in partner countries , contributes to human rights violations of partner country citizens and transit migrants; calls on the commission to promote development and humanitarian policies and related legal instruments , to address the challenge of protecting the human and social rights of all migrants , with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of our development cooperation wherever eu action is deployed and irrespective of their legal status;


### 2. recalls that eu development cooperation must have as its main objective the reduction and eradication of poverty and that it must be based on partner countries’ development agendas , following a needs and rights-based approach , and not on eu domestic interests; ### 2. recalls that eu development cooperation must have as its main objective the reduction and eradication of poverty , tackling inequality and exclusion , promoting democratic governance and human rights , and enhancing sustainable and inclusive development , as fixed in the eu treaty (articles 21 and 208) , and that it must be based on partner countries’ development agendas , following a needs and rights-based long-term approach towards migration , and not eu domestic interests;


### 3. takes note of the eu’s new pact on migration and asylum; expresses its regret that the proposed measures are insufficient to ensure respect for migrants’ human rights and is especially worried about the externalisation of eu border management and migration control; ### 3. takes note of the eu’s new pact on migration and asylum; expresses its regret that the proposed measures for the internal and external dimension of migration policies are insufficient to ensure respect for migrants and displaced persons’ human rights , and is especially worried about the externalisation of eu border management and migration control;


### c. whereas in its 2016 communication the commission outlined three main objectives for cooperation with third countries , namely: saving lives in the mediterranean sea , increasing the rate of returns to countries of origin and transit , and enabling migrants and refugees to stay close to home and to avoid taking dangerous journeys; ### c. whereas in its 2016 communication the commission outlined three main objectives for cooperation with third countries , namely: saving lives in the mediterranean sea , increasing the rate of returns to countries of origin and transit , and enabling migrants and refugees to stay close to home and to avoid taking dangerous journeys; whereas the 2016 communication mentions the combat of irregular migration as a priority for the union and introduces the “less for less approach” , whereby the commission expresses its readiness to apply all eu tools and instruments with the exception of humanitarian aid , as negative incentives to achieve cooperation from third countries on readmission and border control;


### 4. insists on the need for humanitarian corridors and safe and legal migration pathways from neighbouring and developing countries into the eu; ### 4. insists on the need to establish humanitarian corridors and further develop safe and legal migration pathways from neighbouring and developing countries into the eu in accordance with international commitments on human rights , to avoid human rights abuses and exploitation during the dangerous journey migrants have to undertake , and related trauma; underlines that women and children should benefit from specific protection and care throughout their journey and upon arrival in europe; recalls that prioritisation and intensification of securitisation measures , such as integrated border management often result in the deviation of usual migration routes and thus favour trafficking of human beings and smuggling of migrants;


### 5. reiterates that neither development assistance nor bilateral or multilateral partnerships with developing countries must be conditional on cooperation on migration policies; ### 5. reiterates that neither the allocation of development assistance nor bilateral or multilateral partnerships with developing countries must be conditional on assistance and cooperation on migration policies ,; insists that a more coordinated , structured and holistic approach to migration must still be defined and implemented in full respect of human rights , including the right of every individual to leave his or her country of origin;


### 6. expresses its deep concern about the possible misuse of development funds for border control purposes , including those of the eu emergency trust fund for africa (eutf) , and the suspected human rights violations linked to the eutf in libya , ethiopia and niger; ### 6. expresses its deep concern about the possibility to misuse development funds for mobility restriction and border control purposes , including those of the eu emergency trust fund for africa (eutf) , and the reported human rights violations linked to the eutf in libya , ethiopia , eritrea and niger; calls on the creation of strong mechanisms to monitor the human rights impacts of the eutf as well as an accountability system to prevent and deal with breaches of international law; deplores that the report of the commission on the extension of the eutf does not envisage any improvement in this field;


### 7. deplores the lack of transparency of the eutf and the fact that parliament is not involved in its scrutiny; calls on the commission to comprehensively review the implementation of the eutf to ensure that it falls in line with development and humanitarian objectives; ### 7. deplores the lack of transparency of the eutf , the fact that parliament is not involved in its scrutiny and that partner countries are not formally involved in its management; urges the commission to present its final comprehensive review on the implementation of the eutf to ensure that it falls in line with development , human right and humanitarian objectives; stresses that no extension of the eutf should be envisaged in the absence of such review and if these objectives are not properly assessed and achieved;


### 8. calls on the commission to establish an independent , transparent and effective monitoring mechanism , which entails periodic reports on the implementation of formal , informal and financial agreements that can potentially impact the rights of migrants and refugees in third countries , such as migration partnerships , readmission agreements , and international cooperation on migration management and governance , including direct targeting of challenges connected to migration and forced displacement; stresses that such a monitoring mechanism has to be transparent , participatory for civil society and field workers , and publicly available; insists on the need to ensure means for civil society and other interested stakeholders to be able to contribute to the work of the mechanism; ### 8. calls on the commission to establish an independent , transparent and effective monitoring mechanism , which entails periodic reports on the implementation of formal , informal and financial agreements that can potentially impact the rights of migrants and refugees in third countries , such as migration partnerships , readmission agreements , and international cooperation on migration management and governance , including direct targeting of challenges connected to migration and forced displacement; stresses that such a monitoring mechanism has to be transparent , participatory for civil society and field workers , and publicly available; insists on the need to ensure means for civil society and other interested stakeholders to be able to contribute to the work of the mechanism; calls on the commission to establish a follow-up mechanism which is overseen by the european parliament in pursuance of its monitoring competence , whereby evaluation results and expert recommendations are duly incorporated in the relevant agreement , arrangement or action;


### 8. reiterates that the ndici budget dedicated to migration should be used to address the root causes of migration and not to control migratory flows or fund external border management. ### 8. reiterates that the ndici budget dedicated to migration should be programmed and used exclusively to address the root causes of migration and forced displacement and not to control migratory flows , support return and readmission policies or fund external border management; calls on the commission and member states to commit to a maximum of 10% of the ndici’s financial envelope to addressing the root causes of migration and forced displacement and to supporting strengthened engagement to facilitate safe , orderly , regular and responsible migration and the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies and governance , including the protection of refugees and migrants’ rights based on international and union law;


### 11. highlights the practical human rights implications stemming from the increasing number , and hence the extrajudicial nature , of informal arrangements on return and readmission , which are concluded in the absence of due democratic scrutiny and parliamentary oversight and are not subject to judicial scrutiny; calls on the commission to prioritise the conclusion of formal readmission agreements , thus ensuring full respect for article 218(6) teu , and to ensure that formal eu readmission agreements (euras) exclude the application of informal agreements; believes that parliament must assess the legality of informal agreements which include commitments on issues that fall within its competencies , such as readmission , and must be ready to undertake further action if these informal agreements appear to be incompatible with the treaties; ### 11. highlights the practical human rights implications stemming from the increasing number , and hence the extrajudicial nature , of informal arrangements on return and readmission , which are concluded in the absence of due democratic scrutiny and parliamentary oversight and are not subject to judicial scrutiny; notes that the rights of asylum seekers are inherently dependent on the possibility to have human rights violations assessed by a court , and that without any formal agreements in place , it becomes very difficult to establish at the outset whether a state or organisation was engaged in extraterritorial jurisdiction and whether it actually agreed with a third state to delegate certain functions or acts; calls on the commission to prioritise the conclusion of formal readmission agreements , thus ensuring full respect for article 218(6) teu , and to ensure that formal eu readmission agreements (euras) exclude the application of informal agreements; believes that parliament must assess the legality of informal agreements which include commitments on issues that fall within its competencies , such as readmission , and must be ready to undertake further action if these informal agreements appear to be incompatible with the treaties;


### 22. recalls the commitment of the eu and its member states under the global compact on refugees to share responsibility for the protection of refugees and ease the pressure on host countries; stresses in this regard that the eu and its member states should contribute to a more structural and substantial funding of the regions hosting most refugees , and should not use financial means to shift responsibility for the protection of refugees to third countries; reiterates the importance of fully implementing the 23 objectives of the global compact for safe , orderly and regular migration; believes that parliament must ensure the proper scrutiny of the implementation of both compacts by the eu; ### 22. recalls the commitment of the eu and its member states under the global compact on refugees to share responsibility for the protection of refugees and ease the pressure on host countries; stresses in this regard that the eu and its member states should contribute to a more structural and substantial funding of the regions hosting most refugees , and should not use financial means to shift responsibility for the protection of refugees to third countries; reiterates the importance of fully implementing the 23 objectives of the global compact for safe , orderly and regular migration; believes that parliament must ensure the proper scrutiny of the implementation of both compacts by the eu; calls on member states to step up resettlement pledges , more specifically for the most vulnerable refugees currently hosted in fragile countries , and to ensure that resettlement is not made conditional upon the cooperation of the transit country on readmission or border control;


### a. whereas all persons , local communities or populations have the right to the full enjoyment of their human rights , as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights; ### a. whereas all human beings are entitled to the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination , as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights of the european union;


### b. whereas the eu is fighting climate change through ambitious policies at home and close cooperation with international partners; ### b. whereas combating climate change and protecting the environment are legal obligations stemming from the treaties and the charter of fundamental rights of the european union; whereas , in line with the objectives of the paris agreement , the eu and the member states must implement ambitious policies , at national level and in close cooperation with international partners , aimed at strengthening the global response to climate change;