Text · Opinion parliamentary committee draft
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Full title
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)
Document CONT-PA-771830 · COM(2024)0150 – C100005/2024 – 2024/0061(COD)
- Kind
- Opinion parliamentary committee draft CONT-PA-771830
- Date
- 19 March 2025
- Committee
- Committee on Budgetary Control
- Rapporteur
- Eero Heinäluoma
- Dossier
- 2024/0061(COD)
More facts (3)
- Formats
- Official page PDF Word
- Subject matter
- PIND, PESC
- Reference
- COM(2024)0150 – C100005/2024 – 2024/0061(COD)
In short
A summary of the text written by AI; ¶ opens the paragraph it rests on.
AI: In short Written by AI from the official text — check the source · deepseek-v4-flash · 4 Sept 2026
This draft opinion proposes amendments to the proposed regulation establishing the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), focusing on budgetary control, accountability, and transparency. It calls for diverse funding methods, clear objectives and award criteria, robust anti-fraud measures, and protection of the Union's financial interests, including for actions involving Ukraine. The amendments also address the lack of an ex ante impact assessment, the need for a long-term funding strategy, and the importance of a competitive defence market.
Position. The Committee on Budgetary Control proposes amendments to strengthen budgetary control, accountability, and transparency in the EDIP proposal, focusing on funding methods, anti-fraud measures, and Ukraine-specific provisions.
Key points
- Calls for diverse funding methods, including reimbursements of actual costs and simplified cost options, to mitigate risks of overcompensation and ensure robust ex post verifications.
- Urges clear definition of objectives, milestones, and award criteria in work programmes, focusing on projects with EU added value and a level playing field for suppliers.
- Demands inclusion of risk mitigation and anti-corruption provisions, particularly for actions with third countries like Ukraine, and a dedicated Risk Management Plan.
- Requires that OLAF, EPPO, and the Court of Auditors have access to audit documentation and on-site checks, including in Ukraine.
- Regrets the lack of a full ex ante impact assessment and calls for a long-term funding strategy beyond 2027, commensurate with challenges.
- Proposes that Member States and allies commit to supporting Ukraine militarily with no less than 0.25% of their GDP annually.
- Calls for measures to mobilise private investment, including revising the European Investment Bank's lending policy to remove restrictions on defence financing.
- Emphasises coherence with the EU Action Plan on Military Mobility 2.0 and other instruments, and filling funding gaps for dual-use infrastructure.
- Requires the Commission to establish accountability and anti-corruption provisions tailored to Ukraine, including eligibility rules, enhanced checks, and reporting obligations.
- Limits the derogation for urgent procurement to crisis states and requires written justification and information to Parliament, Council, and Court of Auditors.
- Mandates a framework agreement with Ukraine within six months of entry into force, and interim implementation reports by 30 June 2026 and annually thereafter.
- Requires a single ex post evaluation by December 2028 covering EDIP and other defence instruments, and an evaluation report by 30 June 2027 with specific sections.
Who is affected
- The European Commission, which must implement the proposed funding methods, risk management, and reporting requirements.
- Ukrainian authorities and entities, which face additional accountability and anti-corruption measures for EDIP-funded actions.
- Defence suppliers, including SMEs, start-ups, and mid-caps, which are to benefit from a level playing field and open supply chains.
- Member States, which are encouraged to increase defence financing and support Ukraine militarily.
- EU institutions OLAF, EPPO, and the Court of Auditors, which gain enhanced access and audit rights.
Figures and deadlines
- 0.25 percent of GDP annually for military support to Ukraine.
- 35 % of eligible costs for activities referred to in Article 11(3).
- 24 hours as from the award for delivery of goods or services under extreme urgency.
- Six months after entry into force for concluding the framework agreement with Ukraine.
- 30 June 2027 for the evaluation report.
- 30 June 2026 and annually thereafter for interim implementation reports.
- December 2028 for the ex post evaluation.
Text
The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.
Jump to an amendment (51)
- Amendment 1
- Amendment 2
- Amendment 3
- Amendment 4
- Amendment 5
- Amendment 6
- Amendment 7
- Amendment 8
- Amendment 9
- Amendment 10
- Amendment 11
- Amendment 12
- Amendment 13
- Amendment 14
- Amendment 15
- Amendment 16
- Amendment 17
- Amendment 18
- Amendment 19
- Amendment 20
- Amendment 21
- Amendment 22
- Amendment 23
- Amendment 24
- Amendment 25
- Amendment 26
- Amendment 27
- Amendment 28
- Amendment 29
- Amendment 30
- Amendment 31
- Amendment 32
- Amendment 33
- Amendment 34
- Amendment 35
- Amendment 36
- Amendment 37
- Amendment 38
- Amendment 39
- Amendment 40
- Amendment 41
- Amendment 42
- Amendment 43
- Amendment 44
- Amendment 45
- Amendment 46
- Amendment 47
- Amendment 48
- Amendment 49
- Amendment 50
- Amendment 51
Short justification
The rapporteur underlines the urgent need to reinforce Europe’s defence capacities, as demonstrated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the subsequent spotlight on critical shortfalls in the EU’s defence preparedness.
The rapporteur considers that the proposed European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) responds to Member States’ calls for stronger, more coherent defence cooperation. Nonetheless, the rapporteur also stresses that, while a good starting point, this short-term measure must evolve into a longer-term funding solution to address structural weaknesses in the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), commensurate in size to the challenges posed by the European threat landscape.
Building on the Budgetary Control Committee’s previous work on EDIRPA and on the European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) recent Opinion on the proposal and their and Special report 04/2025 “EU military mobility – Full speed not reached due to design weaknesses and obstacles en route”, the rapporteur underlines three core priorities from a budgetary control standpoint, to ensure that EDIP meets its objectives effectively and transparently.
Firstly, the choice and mix of forms of Union contributions demand rigorous scrutiny. While financing not linked to costs can speed up disbursements, the experience with similar delivery models, such as under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, shows that ambiguous milestones, weak audit trails, and uncertain corrective mechanisms risk undermining accountability. Consequently, EDIP should allow for diverse funding methods, including reimbursements of actual costs and simplified cost options, thereby mitigating risks of overcompensation and ensuring robust ex post verifications.
Secondly, EDIP’s success relies on the clear definition of objectives, milestones, and award criteria in the work programmes. Ensuring that EDIP concentrates on projects best responding to the current European threat landscape and with demonstrable EU added value, such as joint procurement, coordinated military mobility upgrades, and supply chain resilience, will strengthen cost-effectiveness and mitigate fragmentation. The cost-effectiveness of Union funding is likewise ensured by a competitive, fair and open European common market for defence with a level playing field for suppliers across the Union, involving in particular, SMEs, start-ups, small mid-caps and other mid-caps. Equally important is the inclusion of well-defined risk mitigation and anti-corruption provisions, particularly when funding actions in partnership with third countries, such as Ukraine.
Lastly, the protection of the Union’s financial interests must be embedded in every stage of EDIP’s design and implementation. This includes providing OLAF, the EPPO, and the Court of Auditors access to audit documentation and on-site checks. At the same time, dedicated monitoring tools, such as such as a robust Risk Management Plan should help deter fraud and detect irregularities early.
The rapporteur regrets the Commission’s decision to propose EDIP without a full ex ante impact assessment, which remains a critical component of sound financial management. Nonetheless, by incorporating stronger accountability measures, diverse funding mechanisms, and transparent reporting, the rapporteur considers that the Programme can achieve its immediate objectives of enhancing Europe’s defence readiness while laying the groundwork for a sustainable industrial base beyond 2027. The rapporteur considers that the amendments proposed, including these targeted improvements, would enable EDIP to serve effectively as the main vehicle for delivering on the European Defence Industrial Strategy’s overarching aim - a more secure and autonomous Europe.
The Committee on Budgetary Control submits the following to the Committee on Security and Defence and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committees responsible:
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) The long-term deterioration of regional and global threat levels requires a step-change in the scale and speed with which Europe’s defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB) can develop and produce the full spectrum of military capabilities. The return of high-intensity warfare and territorial conflict to Europe has a negative impact on the security of the Union and the Member States and requires a significant increase in the capacity of Member States to reinforce their defence capabilities. | (2) The long-term deterioration of regional and global threat levels requires a step-change in the scale and speed with which Europe’s defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB) can develop and produce the full spectrum of military capabilities. The return of high-intensity warfare and territorial conflict to Europe has a negative impact on the security of the Union and the Member States and requires a significant increase in the capacity of Member States to reinforce their defence capabilities and their financing of defence and security. |
The Parliament has repeatedly called for EU Member States to increase their defence and security financing to new levels, most recently in its resolution of 12 March 2025 on the white paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP)).
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2a) Similarly, the geopolitical context and the European threat landscape require reinforced efforts for the operationalisation of the Union’s mutual assistance clause, Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in order to ensure solidarity among Member States, particularly those whose geographical position leaves them directly exposed to imminent threats and challenges. |
In line with the Parliament’s call in its resolution of 12 March 2025 on the white paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP))
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5a) In order to address the European threat landscape and the structural changes required by the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), the short-term scope of this Regulation should be complemented by a long-term funding strategy beyond the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, commensurate in size with the challenges faced by the Union. Such a perspective would align with the European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS) objective of increasing defence readiness in the EU by 2030, while allowing for a sustained and stable investment horizon. |
The amendment reflects the ECA’s observation (Opinion, 15) that a 2-year time horizon (2026–2027) may not be commensurate with the structural, multiannual nature of strengthening the EU’s defence industrial base. Recommends a strategy in view of the next MFF.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (8a) In line with the European Parliament’s repeated calls for robust support to Ukraine, all Member States and NATO allies, and, where relevant, associated countries should collectively and individually commit to supporting Ukraine militarily, with no less than 0.25 percent of their GDP annually. The Programme should facilitate and incentivise these efforts, while ensuring full transparency and accountability. |
In line with the Parliament’s call in its resolution of 12 March 2025 on the white paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP)).
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (14b) In light of the magnitude of investment needs in defence and the comparatively modest size of the Programme, the mobilisation of private funding for the European defence industry is crucial to meet the challenges posed by the threat environment on the Union. The Programme should therefore be complemented by measures aimed at mobilising private investment in the European defence industry, including by a revision of the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) lending policy to remove current restrictions on financing defence. |
In line with the Parliament’s call in its resolution of 12 March 2025 on the white paper on the future ofEuropean defence (2025/2565(RSP)).
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (19a) Recognising that military mobility is a key enabling factor for European defence, the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) should be implemented in coherence with the EU Action Plan on Military Mobility 2.0, relevant provisions of the Connecting Europe Facility, NATO and inter-governmental mobility activities and national mobility programmes. Where appropriate, actions under the Programme should complement dual-use infrastructure projects or other initiatives fostering swift and seamless movement of forces within and beyond the EU. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (19b) Front-loading of funds under other Union instruments such as the military mobility envelopes of the Connecting Europe Facility has highlighted the risk of protracted intervals until the next multiannual financial framework. The Programme should, where possible, complement or fill funding gaps for dual-use infrastructure in strategic regions where projects best respond to the European threat landscape, especially if no calls are foreseen under existing transport programmes during the remainder of the 2021-2027 period. This ensures stable, predictable EU support for critical military mobility needs and helps maintain accumulated expertise among beneficiaries. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (21a) To ensure consistent and transparent use of financing not linked to costs, the Commission should define robust methodologies for setting and verifying milestones and targets, avoiding overcompensation, and ensuring compliance with Union and national rules. In particular, clarity is needed when establishing the cost basis for calculating profits, maximum EU funding rates, and the exclusion of double financing. |
The amendment addresses ECA’s concerns (Opinion, 26–29) that the Commission should clarify how financing not linked to costs will be implemented, including methodology for profit assessments, cost basis, synergy with other funding.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (27a) In order to ensure that the financial interests of the Union are protected when actions involve Ukrainian entities, it is vital to put in place clear anti-fraud measures, robust internal controls, and external scrutiny. The Commission should cooperate closely with Ukrainian authorities to counter corruption and secure transparency. Where appropriate, the Union may support Ukraine’s administrative capacity to implement adequate control and audit systems. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (27b) The sensitivity and complexity of defence-related projects, as well as the large scale of funding allocated to Ukraine, heighten the risk of fraud and irregularities. A dedicated Risk Management Plan is crucial to safeguard the financial interests of the Union by ensuring thorough risk assessments and robust controls. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (47a) With a view to fostering a competitive, fair and open common European market for defence, the Programme should be complemented by measures aimed at ensuring a level playing field and at opening supply chains for suppliers across the Union, involving in particular SMEs, start-ups and mid-capitalisation companies. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Grants may take the form of financing not linked to costs, pursuant to Article 180(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. | 1. Grants may take the form of financing not linked to costs, pursuant to Article 180(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. Where grants are awarded under this Regulation, the Commission may also use simplified cost options or reimbursements of eligible costs actually incurred, duly justifying in the work programmes the choice of delivery model for each grant. |
This amendment avoids an exclusive reliance on financing not linked to costs by providing for other forms of grants recognized by the Financial Regulation (cost-based, lump sums, unit costs, etc.). It addresses concerns that an excessive reliance on FNLTC can limit transparency, hamper milestone verification, or complicate ex-post audits.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3a. The Commission shall establish specific accountability and anti-corruption provisions tailored to the Ukrainian context. These provisions shall include, at a minimum, clear eligibility rules and additional award criteria reflecting the objectives of reconstruction, recovery, and alignment with the Union’s acquis; enhanced anti-fraud and anti-corruption checks, including a detailed risk assessment for projects implemented via financing not linked to costs; requirements for monitoring project implementation, verifying end-use, and disclosing subcontractors; and reporting obligations specifying performance and financial data to be collected from beneficiaries under the Ukraine Support Instrument. |
Addresses the ECA’s recommendation (Opinion, 19, 48) that Ukraine-specific actions face a heightened corruption risk and must include additional accountability arrangements beyond those applied to Member States.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) initiating and speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes, including through the creation and ramp-up of its manufacturing capacities and the opening of the supply chains for cross-border cooperation and effective availability and supply throughout the Union, involving in particular, to a significant extent, SMEs, small mid-caps and other mid-caps; | (a) initiating and speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes, including through the creation and ramp-up of its manufacturing capacities, with particular attention to cross-border readiness and enhanced military mobility targets, and ensuring a level playing field, notably through the opening of the supply chains for cross-border cooperation and effective availability and supply throughout the Union, involving in particular, to a significant extent, SMEs, start-ups, small mid-caps and other mid-caps across the Union; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) strengthening the Union’s and Member States’ response to the current European threat landscape, in particular, their exposure to the risk of materialisation of threats to their security and sovereignty, including by facilitating the operationalisation of Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Union's mutual assistance clause, to ensure solidarity among Member States, especially those whose geographical position leaves them directly exposed to imminent threats and challenges; |
Aligns EDIP’s objectives with the mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU). Emphasizes that collective procurement fosters operational readiness if a Member State is attacked. Wording in line with the Parliament’s call in its resolution of 12 March 2025 on the white paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP)).
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The amount referred to in paragraph 1 and 5 of this Article and the amounts of additional contributions referred to in Article 6 may also be used for technical and administrative assistance for the implementation of the Programme, such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities, including price investigations and corporate information technology systems and platforms, and all other technical and administrative assistance or staff-related expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme/other elements of the subject matter. | 3. The amount referred to in paragraph 1 and 5 of this Article and the amounts of additional contributions referred to in Article 6 may also be used for technical and administrative assistance for the implementation of the Programme, such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities, including price investigations and corporate information technology systems and platforms, and all other technical and administrative assistance or staff-related expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme/other elements of the subject matter. The Commission may provide technical assistance or allocate part of the financial envelope to strengthen the administrative and audit capacity of Ukrainian authorities responsible for implementing, monitoring, controlling and supervising EDIP-funded actions, in particular for the prevention of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest, and irregularities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. Where the Programme or the Ukraine Support Instrument is implemented in indirect management, the delegation agreements shall include explicit reference to the European Court of Auditors’ right of access to all documentation and premises related to the action. |
Reflects ECA’s recommendation (Opinion, 33) that delegation agreements uphold the ECA’s audit rights to prevent accountability gaps.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Only actions implementing the objectives set out in Article 4 shall be eligible for funding. An eligible action shall relate to one or more of the activities referred to in paragraph 2 to 5: | 1. Only actions implementing the objectives set out in Article 4 shall be eligible for funding. The Commission, together with the Member States, shall establish clear priority areas based on the European threat landscape and Member States’ capability gaps, taking into account the urgency of needs identified by the Defence Industrial Readiness Board; the available budget envelope and potential impact at EU level; and the demonstrated additionality delivered by the action. An eligible action shall relate to one or more of the activities referred to in paragraph 2 to 5: |
ECA (Opinion, 20, 38) warns of scattering limited funds across many actions. This amendment addresses the need for clear priorities in awarding grants.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (aa) The Commission shall ensure that any actions funded under the Programme for industrial readiness also consider the need for rapid logistical deployments, drawing on lessons from the implementation of the EU’s Military Mobility Action Plan 2.0; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5b. Before executing any Union financial contribution under the Programme, the Commission shall consult the designated procurement agent concerning progress on contractual milestones. The procurement agent shall certify that the contractual timeframes, intermediate targets, and relevant obligations have been met, so that the Commission can determine compliance with the conditions for payment. |
This ensures EDIP disbursements reflect real progress and that an independent agent can confirm milestone fulfillment.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) defence industrial readiness: contribution to competitiveness, increase production capacities, reduce lead times, eliminate bottlenecks thereby increasing interoperability and interchangeability; | (a) defence industrial readiness: contribution to competitiveness, increase production capacities, reduce lead times, eliminate bottlenecks thereby increasing interoperability and interchangeability in order to allow it to address the most critical capability gaps identified by the Member States; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) defence industrial cooperation: fostering genuine armament cooperation among Member States, associated countries or Ukraine and development and operationalisation of cross-border cooperation between undertakings established in different Member States, associated countries or Ukraine, involving in particular, to a significant extent, SMEs, small mid-caps and other mid-caps as recipients, as subcontractors or as other undertakings in the supply chain; | (c) defence industrial cooperation: fostering genuine armament cooperation among Member States, associated countries or Ukraine and development and operationalisation of cross-border cooperation between undertakings established in different Member States, associated countries or Ukraine, involving in particular, to a significant extent, SMEs, start-ups, small mid-caps and other mid-caps as recipients, as subcontractors or as other undertakings in the supply chain; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ca) the proposal’s contribution to strengthening the Union’s and Member States’ response to the current European threat landscape, in particular their exposure to the risk of materialisation of threats to their security and sovereignty, including by facilitating the operationalisation of Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Union's mutual assistance clause to ensure solidarity among Member States, especially those whose geographical position leaves them directly exposed to imminent threats and challenges; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (cb) the proposal’s coherence with the principles of a fair and open common European market for defence, allowing for a level playing field among contractors and subcontractors across the Union; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (cc) a demonstration of the additionality delivered by the proposal |
The additionality delivered by a proposal should be taken into account in the awarding of funding in order to ensure the limited Union resources are spent most effectively, avoiding funding of projects which would advance even without EU financial support.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) the quality of the implementation plan of the action, in particular measures to respect delivery lead times, including in terms of its processes and monitoring. | (d) the quality of the implementation plan of the action, in particular measures to ramp up production capacities and respect delivery lead times, including in terms of its processes and monitoring. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The Commission shall align these criteria with the objectives defined in Articles 4 and 11, ensuring consistency in terminology. “Defence industrial resilience” and “defence industrial cooperation” shall be clearly defined in the work programme, specifying relevant benchmarks for interoperability, standardisation, or cross-border supply-chain integration. |
The ECA notes (Opinion, 43) that the terms “defence industrial resilience” and “defence industrial cooperation” are not spelled out. This helps avoid subjective interpretations.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. By way of derogation from Article 190 of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046, the Programme may finance up to 100 % of the eligible costs. However, for activities referred to in Article 11(3) the support from the Programme shall not exceed 35 % of the eligible costs. | 1. By way of derogation from Article 190 of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046, the Programme may finance up to 100 % of the eligible costs. However, for activities referred to in Article 11(3) the support from the Programme shall not exceed 35 % of the eligible costs. Such derogation shall assess the risk of overcompensation, duplication of funding, and potential distortions to the internal market. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Each work programme shall justify the choice of funding instrument(s) (e.g., financing not linked to costs, reimbursement of costs actually incurred, simplified cost options, lump sums). Where the Commission opts for financing not linked to costs, it shall specify the reasons for its suitability in comparison to other forms of financing; demonstrate how the milestones and targets ensure effective budgetary control; and describe the corrective mechanisms in cases of partial achievement of milestones. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| When duly justified by the extreme urgency of the situation the Commission may, by way of derogation from Article 172(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, request the delivery of goods or services from the date on which the draft contracts resulting from the procurement carried out for the purposes of this Regulation are sent, which shall be no later than 24 hours as from the award. | When duly justified by the extreme urgency of the situation the Commission may, by way of derogation from Article 172(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, request the delivery of goods or services from the date on which the draft contracts resulting from the procurement carried out for the purposes of this Regulation are sent, which shall be no later than 24 hours as from the award. This derogation shall only apply where the Council has activated the “supply crisis state” (Article 44) or “security-related supply crisis state” (Article 48). The Commission shall justify in writing the urgency, expected duration, and scope of any procurement launched under this derogation, and regularly inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors. |
ECA (Opinion, 49) flags that broad use of extreme urgency to start deliveries before contract finalization increases litigation risk. This amendment limits it to crisis states.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. Grant agreements and procurement contracts concluded under this Regulation shall oblige beneficiaries to cooperate with Commission information requests (including timely data sharing, documentation, and site visits) needed for monitoring, mapping, and evaluating the EDTIB supply chains. |
ECA (Opinion, 50) advises that the Commission incorporate data requirements in grant agreements to ensure completeness of information.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Council of any measures taken in accordance with paragraph 1 and explain the reasons for its action. | 4. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Council without delay of any measures taken in accordance with paragraph 1, including, where relevant, the rationale, scope and expected duration of the measures taken, and explain the reasons for its action. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The Commission may, after consulting the Defence Industrial Readiness Board, issue guidance on the implementation and the use of the emergency measures. | 5. The Commission may, after consulting the Defence Industrial Readiness Board and informing the European Parliament and the Council, issue guidance on the implementation and the use of the emergency measures. This guidance shall include specific anti-fraud and risk mitigation procedures, periodic verification protocols, and ex-post audit obligations for all parties involved in supply crisis actions. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3a. In coordination with the European Union Military Staff (EUMS) and other relevant bodies, the Board shall maintain a repository of lessons learned from EU military exercises or table-top simulations that test logistical readiness and cross-border movements of defence equipment funded under EDIP. The Board shall propose remedial actions or additional funding measures when repeated bottlenecks are identified. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. The framework agreement shall be concluded no later than six months after the entry into force of this Regulation, ensuring that disbursements under the Ukraine Support Instrument are covered by robust monitoring and audit arrangements from the outset. |
Reflects ECA’s concern (Opinion, 55) about lack of a deadline for concluding the Ukraine framework agreement, recommending it be done swiftly to ensure accountability for any early disbursements
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Member States, the Commission and the High-Representative / Head of Agency shall ensure the protection of trade and business secrets and other sensitive and classified information acquired and generated in application of this Regulation in accordance with Union law and the respective national law. | 2. Member States, the Commission and the High-Representative / Head of Agency shall ensure the protection of trade and business secrets and other sensitive and classified information acquired and generated in application of this Regulation in accordance with Union law and the respective national law. However, such confidentiality shall not preclude the disclosure of project or contract-related information necessary for budgetary control, fraud detection, or auditing by OLAF, the EPPO, the Court of Auditors, or any other competent EU or national authority, in compliance with Union law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) to expressly authorise the Commission, OLAF, the Court of Auditors and, where applicable, EPPO to exert their rights as provided for in Article 129(1) of the Financial Regulation, in application of the principle of proportionality. | (d) to expressly authorise the Commission, OLAF, the Court of Auditors and, where applicable, EPPO to exert their rights as provided for in Article 129(1) of the Financial Regulation, in application of the principle of proportionality, enabling access to beneficiaries’ documentation and on-site controls in Ukraine. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (da) to identify the Ukrainian authorities involved in implementation, specifying responsibilities and procedures for budget execution; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (db) to define sanctions and recovery regimes in case of non-compliance or fraud; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (dc) to require the selection, establishment and systematic use of performance indicators and data sources tailored to the Ukrainian context; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (dd) to establish a mechanism for the reporting of irregularities to the Commission and mechanisms to ensure the use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) when appropriate; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (de) to establish a detailed roadmap on how Ukraine will put in place robust internal control systems, verification procedures and, where feasible, external audit arrangements to provide a level of assurance equivalent to that required by the Financial Regulation; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 64a | |
| Risk Management Plan | |
| 1. Within six months from the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall establish a dedicated Risk Management Plan for the implementation of the Programme and the Ukraine Support Instrument. | |
| 2. The Risk Management Plan shall include: | |
| (a) A mapping of high-risk procurement, grant, and financial instrument activities; | |
| (b) A structured method for early detection of potential fraud or irregularities; | |
| (c) Clear procedures for notifying OLAF, the Court of Auditors, the EPPO (where applicable), and national audit bodies, especially for cases involving cross-border elements or high-value contracts; | |
| (d) Provisions for on-site inspections and verifications by or on behalf of the Commission for actions funded under this Regulation; | |
| (e) Specific guidance on verifying end-use of funds, particularly for Ukraine-related actions. | |
| 3. The Commission shall regularly update the Fraud Risk Management Plan based on the results of audits, evaluations, and input from OLAF, the EPPO, the Court of Auditors, and national competent authorities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. By 30 June 2027, the Commission shall draw up a report evaluating the implementation of the measures set out in this Regulation and their results, as well as the opportunity to extend their applicability and provide for their funding, particularly with regard to the evolution of the security context and any persistent risks in relation to the supply of defence products. The evaluation report shall build on consultations of the Member States and key stakeholders. | 1. By 30 June 2027, the Commission shall draw up a report evaluating the implementation of the measures set out in this Regulation and their results, as well as the opportunity to extend their applicability and provide for their funding, particularly with regard to the evolution of the security context and any persistent risks in relation to the supply of defence products. The evaluation report shall build on consultations of the Member States and key stakeholders. The report shall: |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) detail any instances where financing not linked to costs was used, providing an analysis of milestone fulfilment, partial or full corrections, and lessons learned for the subsequent programming period or subsequent EU programmes; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) asses the contribution of measures under this Regulation to the development of a competitive, fair and open common market for defence, notably by ensuring a level playing field and opening supply chains for cross-border cooperation, involving in particular, to a significant extent, SMEs, start-ups, small mid-caps and other mid-caps across the Union; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) include a specific section on military mobility synergies and infrastructure bottlenecks addressed through EDIP, assessing to what extent the Programme has supported or accelerated dual-use transport infrastructure relevant to the movement of defence products or personnel; contributed to bridging capability gaps identified in the EU Military Requirements for Military Mobility, including those updated in 2023 and beyond; and coordinated with the Commission’s ‘gap analysis’ for the post-2027 MFF; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) include a section on the additionally delivered by the measures under this Regulation; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The evaluation report shall use output, outcome and result indicators, including standardized measures of interoperability, standardisation, and effective cross-border cooperation. Where relevant, it shall also reflect the EDIS core performance indicators (collaborative procurement ratio, intra-EU defence trade, and share of EU-based supply) with intermediate targets for 2027, and a breakdown by Member State to ensure transparency of results. |
ECA (Opinion, 59–64) recommends tracking both output and result indicators, referencing EDIS targets (collaborative procurement, etc.). This fosters consistency and better alignment with EDIS goals.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 66a | |
| Ex-post evaluation | |
| By December 2028, the Commission shall carry out a single ex post evaluation covering EDIP, the European Defence Fund (EDF), the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP), EDIRPA, and any other relevant EU instruments supporting the EDTIB. This consolidated evaluation shall provide a comparative assessment of effectiveness and identify options for any subsequent multiannual funding proposals. |
ECA (Opinion, 58) highlights that separate or mid-implementation evaluations may not yield meaningful results. A single ex post approach increases consistency and synergy across programmes.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 66b | |
| Interim implementation reports | |
| 1. By 30 June 2026 and annually thereafter, the Commission shall submit an interim implementation report to the European Parliament and the Council providing detailed information on the use of the Ukraine Support Instrument. The report shall include data on commitments, disbursements, project outcomes, risk assessments, and any identified or suspected cases of mismanagement or fraud. Where necessary, the Commission shall propose corrective measures, including suspension, reallocation or recovery of funds, to protect the Union’s financial interests. | |
| 2. The interim implementation report shall include a specific assessment of synergies and possible overlaps of EDIP actions with all other relevant Union programmes or instruments, particularly the European Defence Fund (EDF), EDIRPA, ASAP, the Ukraine Facility, and instruments such as TENT or CEF used for dual-use infrastructure. |
Connections
The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.
No connections found for this item.
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2025). “DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)”. Text, 19 March 2025. docId CONT-PA-771830. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/CONT-PA-771830 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/CONT-PA-771830 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-cont-pa-771830,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (‘EDIP’)}},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-03-19},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/CONT-PA-771830}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/CONT-PA-771830},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. docId CONT-PA-771830. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}