92.Notes that this permanent headquarters could engage in permanent contingency planning and play a major coordinating role in future applications of Article 42(7) TEU; is of the view that the ‘mutual defence clause’, as laid down in this Article and requested by France during the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 November 2015, will constitute a catalyst for further development of the EU’s security and defence policy, leading to stronger commitment by all Member States;

93.Considers that there is a need to enhance EU-NATO cooperation at all levels in areas such as capability development and contingency planning for hybrid threats, and to intensify efforts at removing remaining political obstacles;

94.Underlines that in the light of the recent attacks and the increase of the terrorist threat, a more intense and structured exchange of information and data between national security agencies and intelligence services, and with Europol and Frontex, is absolutely essential;

95.Recalls, in this context, that Article 222 TFEU provides for a solidarity clause that can and should be activated when a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster;

96.Highlights the need to set up an EU common asylum and immigration policy, which should provide as well for fair distribution of asylum seekers in the European Union; takes the view that such a policy should involve all Member States, but that, if this proves impossible, the potential of enhanced cooperation could be exploited;

97.Considers it necessary to strengthen Frontex and transform it into a European System of Border Guards, to be supported, when necessary, by military instruments such as a European Maritime Force (Euromarfor) and an upgraded European Corps (Eurocorps), together with the resources pooled through Permanent Structured Cooperation; suggests that automatic adjustment should also be envisaged of the databases of border agencies such as Eurodac, and, in future, Smart Borders, such that they incorporate the ‘European list of dangerous persons’ and the ‘European Database for wanted persons’;

98.Stresses the importance of distinguishing between the concepts of ‘unsafe third countries’ (war zones) and ‘safe third countries’ (mostly Western Balkans countries), and the corresponding distinction of procedures for processing applicants coming from these two categories of countries; calls for the signature of agreements with safe third countries in order to control and reduce migration flows before migrants arrive at the EU border; insists, at the same time, on strict procedures for returning applicants with unfounded claims;

99.Calls for the competences for external border controls to be strengthened by vesting Frontex, rather than the requesting Member State, with the power to command when the former is in charge of an operation;

100.Calls for an upgrade of the human and financial capabilities of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) so that it can be deployed to support Member States under particular migratory pressure in the processing of asylum requests, including in its mandate for the deployment of joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions similar to the ones added by Regulation 1168/2011 to the mandate of Frontex;

101.Underscores the importance of improved coordination between EASO, Frontex and the Office of the European Ombudsman in order to allow for smoother adoption of Early Alert Reports in the event of particular migratory pressure, which is likely to put at risk respect for the fundamental freedoms of asylum seekers; considers it possible for the Commission to use these Early Alert Reports as basis to trigger the contingency measures provided for in Article 78(3) TFEU;

102.Finds it imperative to strengthen the role of Parliament as co-legislator, on equal footing with the Council, through the use of Article 81 (3) TFEU, which makes it possible to switch decision-making in the field of family law with cross-border implications to the ordinary legislative procedure if the Council decides so unanimously, after having consulted the Parliament; calls for a switch in decision-making on all other policies in the field of JHA to the ordinary legislative procedure, using the ‘passerelle clause’ in Article 48 (7) TEU;

103.Insists on putting into practice the principles enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, namely solidarity and the sharing of responsibility between Member States, the principle of mutual recognition in the implementation of JHA policies (Article 70 TFEU), and the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

104.Recalls the obligation for the accession of the Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), in line with Article 6(2) TEU, and urges the swift re-launching of negotiations with the Council of Europe to this effect;

105.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

<PathFdR>PR\1083735EN.doc</PathFdR>1/15PE<NoPE>573.146</NoPE><Version>v01-00</Version>

[1] OJ C 184 E, 6.8.2009, p. 25.

[2] OJ C 212 E, 5.8.2010, p. 82.

[3] OJ C 13, 15.7.2015, p. 183.

[4] OJ C 313, 22.9.2015, p. 9.