Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Change 9 under “9. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION”

Changed1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024;

Change 10 under “10. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION”

Added1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds for the financial year 2024;

Removed1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds for the financial year 2024 / Postpones the closure of the accounts of the ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds for the financial year 2024;

Change 11 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed1. Stresses the importance of respect for the Union’s fundamental values and principles as defined in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); in the framework of the discharge process puts special emphasis on the principlesprinciple of the rule of law as set out in Article 2 TEU, the principle of sound financial management as set out in Article 317 TFEU and the combatting of fraud and the protection of the financial interests of the Union as set out in Article 325 TFEU;

Change 12 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights is a precondition for sound financial management of the Union budget and that the Commission has a wide range of instruments at its disposal to ensure respect for these principles; notes with serious concern the continued backsliding with regard to the rule of law backsliding,and systemic corruption and attacks on fundamental rights in several Member States, with direct implications for the sound management of Union funds;funds, notes that the lack of Union funds has an alarming effect on the provision of public services; highlights in particular the deteriorating situation in Hungary, marked by widespread corruption and entrenched oligarchic networks;networks, which requires continued attention; deplores that, while problems persist or worsen, the pressure exerted by the Commission to induce meaningful reforms has diminished as the amounts of funds that remain frozen are decreasing; stresses that the Commission needs to move beyond monitoring and to make full and consistent use of the available instruments to suspend or protect Union funding where rule of law deficiencies affect sound financial management,management in Hungaryall andMember inStates concerned; stresses that respect for the rule of law must apply to all otherparticipants Memberin StatesUnion concerned;programmes, including third countries;

Change 13 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed3. Welcomes that the European Court of Auditors (the Court) for the financial year 2024 has again issued a clean opinion concerning the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of revenue; at the same time, deplores that the Court has had to issue an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of Union budget expenditure, for the 6th consecutive year, and a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF);

Change 14 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed4. Notes that the Court highlights several issues in theirits Annual Report for 2024 that give cause for serious concern; welcomes that the overall error rate has declined from 5,6 % for 2023 to 3,6 % for 2024; stresses, however, that this decrease should be interpreted with caution, as it may not necessarily reflect an improvement in the financial management or in the effectiveness of control systems but could also be influenced by contextual factors such as the end of COVID-19 related emergency spending, a comparatively low level of budgetary implementation in 2024 and the early stage of implementation of the 2021-2027 MFF; is particularly concerned that while the error rate for the heading ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ has decreased from 9,3 % to 5,7 %, it is still considerablywell above the materiality threshold of 2 %;% with the Court continuing to identify weaknesses in control and detection systems on both the Commission’s and the Member States’ side; expresses concern that the recurrent nature of these findings risks normalising the current level of error in cohesion policy; expresses serious concern in this context about proposals to introduce a new spending model under the next MFF that would rely even more heavily on Member States’ control systems, while the underlying causes of persistently high error rates do not yet appear to have been adequately addressed; recalls that cohesion policy remains a fundamental instrument of the Union for promoting economic, social and territorial convergence and supporting balanced development across regions, and stresses that any future reform of spending models must preserve the objectives, predictability and dedicated budgetary framework of cohesion policy;

Change 15 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed5. Expresses deep concern about the persistent shortcomings in the implementation of the RRF; notes that the Court has issued a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of RRF expenditure for the third consecutive year and that it estimates the minimum financial impact of its findings to be above the materiality threshold; underlines the serious audit and control deficiencies identified by the Court, which continue to undermine assurance over the regular use of RRF funds; is particularly concerned about the significant accountability gap resulting from the lack of reliable and complete information on final beneficiaries of Union funding, due in particular to the Commission’s interpretation of the concept of ‘final recipient’ under the RRF, which contradicts the existing legislation; considers that, taken together, these shortcomings in the RRF would justify a refusal to grant discharge for the implementation of the RRF in 2024 if the discharge authority were able to take this decision separately; recalls that Parliament has repeatedly raised serious concerns in previous discharge resolutions regarding the RRF, including on the transparency of final beneficiaries, and thereforebeneficiaries; demandsconsiders that the Commission provide, within six months, a complete and meaningful list of finalshould beneficiaries,start excludinginfringement merelyproceedings; intermediaryalso entitiesconsiders suchthat asthe ministriesCommission orshould managingact authorities;without statesundue that,delay failingand this,fully Parliamentexercise willits bringpowers theas matterguardian beforeof the EuropeanTreaties Courtagainst ofMember JusticeStates to ensure that citizens and stakeholders have full access to this information; should it fail to do so, Parliament will consider all appropriate measures within its prerogatives to ensure compliance, including legal action;

Change 16 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed6. Notes with concern that the current implementation rate for the cohesion funds is significantly lower than the implementation rate during the previous MFF 2014-2020, which coincides with the fact that only around 50 % of funds under the RRF had been disbursed by the end of 2024, implying that the remaining 50 % of the funds must be disbursed before then end of the RRF implementation period in December 2026; notes with concern that the total amount of outstanding EUUnion bonds rose to EUR 578,2 billion at the end of 2024 and notes with concern the Court’s estimates that this amount could reach EUR 900 billion by the end of 2027, which maywill place a significant burden on future MFFs due to the associated interest payments and principal repayments; notes that the sustainability of Union debt must be factored into all future budgetary decisions;

Change 17 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed7. Stresses that transparency is not an abstract governance principle but a core element of an effective control environment; underlines that incomplete documentation, inconsistent registration practices or reliance on informal communication channels directly weaken audit trails and hinder the discharge authority’s capacity to assess legality, regularity and sound financial management; in that regard regrets that there have been numerous examples over the last years where the Commission failed to live up to reasonable standards of transparency asand alsotakes statednote inof thecase EuropeanT-36/23, CourtStevi ofand JusticeThe caseNew concerningYork Times v Commission; recalls that under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 text messages betweensent or received by Union officials will only be qualified as documents if they concern Union policy or decisions; emphasises that the Commission Presidentshould andensure thetransparency CEOpractices ofmeet Pfizer;high recallsgovernance standards to guarantee that the Generaldischarge Courtauthority annulledcan thefully Commission’sassess refusallegality, decisionregularity, inand sound financial management of the NewUnion Yorkbudget; Times/Stevinotes casethe concerningimportance accessof totimely relevantresponses textto messages,access-to-documents underliningrequests; encourages the needCommission forto crediblestrengthen searchesits andprocedures robustto record-keepingensure forthat ephemeraloversight communications;bodies iscan similarlyfully concernedassess legality, regularity and sound financial management; considers that failures to ensure proper documentation and transparency at senior leadership level risk undermining public trust, institutional accountability and the credibility of the Commission onas manyguardian occasionsof hasthe notTreaties; providedcalls answerson tothe accessCommission leadership to documentensure requestsfull withincompliance stipulatedwith deadlines,transparency especiallyobligations, concerningproper casesregistration underof all work-related communications, including at the confirmatorylevel applicationsof wherethe President and Members of the EuropeanCollege, Ombudsmanand hasto foundstrengthen systemicinternal procedures and significantaccountability delaysmechanisms in theorder Commissionto administration’sprevent response;similar shortcomings in the future;

Change 18 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed8. Notes that Andrej Babiš has resumed officea asformer Prime Minister of Czechia since December 2025; recalls he had previously beenwas found to behave been in a situation of a conflict of interest linked toduring his ownershipprevious ofterm Agrofertin whileoffice exercisingwhich thatled functionto the suspension and thatfinancial thiscorrection conflictof Union funding; takes note of interestpublic ledstatements toby the suspensionPrime andMinister, financialindicating correctionan intention to relinquish ownership and control of business interests potentially benefiting from Union fundingfunds inthrough the past;creation notesof withan concernallegedly that,irreversible attrust present,arrangement; norecalls the importance of establishing verifiable legal arrangements haveto beenprevent putany risk that Union funds could benefit private business interests of public office holders; underlines that Member States should ensure that effective safeguards are in place to definitivelyuphold eliminatetransparency, theincluding riskon thatdisclosure Unionof fundsbeneficial couldownership benefit,information, directlyintegrity orand indirectly,sound hisfinancial privatemanagement businessof interests;Union funds;

Change 19 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed9. Stresses that Members of the Commission must meet the highest standards of integrity, independence and accountability, both in their current functions and in their previous roles; notes with concern that several senior management positions remained vacant in DG NEAR during the period in which Commissioner Várhelyi,the nowcurrent Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare,Welfare was responsible for this Directorate-General in his capacity as Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement, and notes that athe spyinformation ringprovided allegedlyby operatedthe outCommission in this regard during the exchange of views with the Permanentdischarge Representationauthority was inaccurate; stresses that the Commission must ensure that all Members of Hungarythe toCollege meet the Unionstandards whileof heintegrity, wasindependence and professional conduct required in chargeorder which,to exercise their responsibilities, particularly where those responsibilities involve the management of politically sensitive portfolios and significant Union funds; considers that, taken together, underminethe trustpast serious and prolonged management failures in hisDG abilityNEAR, tothe exerciseprovision officeof inaccurate information to Parliament in athe mannercontext fullyof consistentthe withdischarge procedure, and the Union’sadditional valuesconcerns relating to conduct and independence outlined above demonstrate a pattern that is incompatible with the requirementsstandards of accountability, reliability and sound administration;administration required of a Member of the Commission;

Change 20 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Removed10. Deplores that the Court in several Special Reports over the last years has repeatedly documented that the Commission systematically overestimates the positive climate effects of Union spending; at the same time regrets that the Commission methodologies for tracking climate and biodiversity effects of Union spending do not capture all of the effects of Union activities, for instance, the impact of some subsidies under the common agricultural policy that are harmful to climate and biodiversity; notes that only tracking the positive effects of the Union budget on climate and biodiversity leads to a systematic overestimation of the contribution of the Union budget to these objectives and provides an overly positive impression of the performance of the Union budget; stresses that these methodological shortcomings translate into concrete accountability gaps for the discharge authority; regrets in particular that the Commission was unable to provide traceable information on projects rejected or modified in 2024 on the basis of the Do No Significant Harm principle, despite its central role in the RRF and cohesion policy; underlines that the Parliament’s ability to exercise budgetary control also depends on verifiable, project-level evidence of environmental compliance and impact;

Added10. Stresses that the Commission must act in a fully impartial and transparent manner, which includes eliminating conflicts of interest, providing clear accountability for the management of Union funds and complying with its own guidelines on the rule of law; calls on the Commission to strengthen transparency and accountability regarding the appointment and activities of its special advisers by systematically publishing detailed information on their selection criteria, mandate, tasks, duration of assignment, remuneration, and declarations of interests; stresses that special advisers may exercise significant influence on policy development and therefore must be subject to clear governance standards, regular reporting obligations and proactive disclosure in line with the principles of sound financial management and Article 15(3) TFEU;

Removed11. Recalls that the Commission’s 2024 review of NGO grant agreements confirmed the absence of breaches of the law; underlines that civil society organisations are legitimate beneficiaries of Union funding under the Treaties and often contribute to the delivery of Union objectives in a cost-effective and impact-oriented manner; stresses that budgetary control, safeguards and transparency requirements must be applied in a neutral, proportionate and evidence-based way, respecting legal certainty and that they must not single out NGOs as a risk category; emphasises that selective transparency undermines trust in the discharge process and that effective scrutiny requires the application of equivalent standards to all beneficiaries, including companies and consultancies;

Added11. Stresses that the Commission's follow-up actions cannot lead to an extension of its competences beyond the scope provided for in the Treaties,

Removed12. Recalls that due to the urgent need to boost the Union's defence capabilities, the number and volume of Union defence funding instruments has increased since the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; underlines the need for a comprehensive Union approach to defence funding, with increased focus on countering hybrid threats, including those related to artificial intelligence, drones and cyber-attacks; underlines that democratic accountability, auditability and transparency must increase in parallel with expenditure and that security considerations cannot be used to justify weaker oversight, fragmented reporting or reduced access for the discharge authority; stresses the need for further improvement of the transparency of Union defence funding, including by ensuring audit arrangements equivalent in practical effect to those applicable to civilian spending, and that the discharge authority can exercise democratic scrutiny of all Union-funded activities, during the adoption, design and implementation phases;

Added12. Notes that, in several special reports over the last years, the Court has identified shortcomings in the Commission’s methodology for estimating the climate effects of Union spending which have led to systemic overestimation by the use of ex-ante tagging systems based on the expected effect of activities and which do not factor in actual results; stresses that limitations of current methodologies may affect the reliability of reported figures and have implications for the discharge authority’s assessment of performance; further notes that the current methodologies for tracking climate and biodiversity expenditure do not fully capture all effects of Union activities, including certain measures under the common agricultural policy; notes that the application of the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principle helps prevent the implementation of non-compliant measures; emphasises that such methodological limitations can create accountability challenges for the discharge authority; underlines that Parliament’s ability to exercise effective budgetary control depends on transparent, verifiable and project-level evidence of environmental compliance and impact;

Change 21 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed13.20. Calls on the CommissionCommission, in particularparticular, to:

Change 22 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Changed(ii) consistently and accurately apply the provisions related to the ‘final recipients’, of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (the RRF Regulation), by revising its Guidance on RRPs, to communicate with Member States on the correct application of the definition of ‘final recipients’ andrecipients’, to provide the discharge authority,ensure withinMember sixStates months,collect withand aprovide completeinformation andon meaningfulthe listlast ofentities finalreceiving beneficiaries,funds, excluding merely intermediary entities such as ministries or managing authorities;authorities, and making this information available to the discharge authority by the last RRF payment disbursement submission deadline, and start infringement proceedings if necessary;

Change 23 under “11. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION”

Removed(iii) ensure full compliance with Union rules on access to documents, including regarding text messages and other electronic communications of the Commission President and Commissioners;

Added(iii) publish the list of final recipients and contractors across all instruments in a harmonised, machine-readable format;

Removed(iv) ensure that no Union funds are paid, directly or indirectly, to Agrofert or any other business interests of Andrej Babiš if the identified conflict of interest has not been demonstrably and verifiably resolved;

Added(iv) ensure compliance with Union rules on access to documents, including text messages, while recognising that institutional communications of public interest should be made accessible in a proportionate manner and respecting the legal and security requirements, in order to safeguard democratic oversight and accountability;

Removed(v) calls on the President of the Commission, pursuant to Article 17(6) TEU, to withdraw confidence in Commissioner Várhelyi;

Added(v) ensure that no Union funds are paid, directly or indirectly, to beneficiaries, including those related to members of the European Council, where a conflict of interest has been identified and has not been demonstrably and verifiably resolved, in accordance with the applicable Union rules and safeguards;

Change 24 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed17.24. Welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, including those related to NextGenerationEU (NGEU),NGEU, the estimate related to the UK’s withdrawal process, and the impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, are presented fairly in the consolidated annual accounts;

Change 25 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed19.26. Strongly regrets the adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the Union budget expenditure issued by the Court for the sixth year in a row; considersrecalls thisthat increasinglythe problematicdischarge andauthority stressescontinues to closely monitor developments and that ifit reassesses the situation shouldin continuethe context of the discharge procedure; underlines the importance of continued and sustained efforts to persistaddress orthe evenunderlying furtherweaknesses deteriorate,and to strengthen the financial management and the control mechanisms of both the Commission and Member States; notes the difficulties for the discharge authority cannotwhen continuethe toCourt grantof dischargeAuditors toand the Commission;Commission apply different legal and methodological definitions;

Change 26 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed22.29. Notes that, unlike the Court, which must report all errors regardless of whether a financial correction is possible, the Commission only reports irregularities for which it considers recoveries are legally justified; recalls that in accordance with the Commission’sCommon definitionProvisions ofRegulation (CPR), the Commission considers by ‘irregularity’ excludesany irregularitiesbreach causedof applicable law, resulting from an act or omission by weaknessesan ineconomic nationaloperator, administrationswhich has, or inwould have, the Commissioneffect itself,of prejudicing the budget of the Union by charging unjustified expenditure to that budget, whereas the Court’s definition of “error’‘error’ includes all payments made without meeting the required conditions; reiterates its concern that the Commission and the Court, owing to their distinct institutional roles, apply different legal interpretations and methodological definitions, which may create confusion; is concerned that the Commission may systematically underestimate the existing error level; expresses its support for the development of a common audit approach and methodology;

Change 27 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed23. Reiterates its concern over the Court’s observation that the Commission’s risk assessment is likely to underestimate the actual level of risk in several areas; notes that the recurrent weaknesses identified in Member States’ management and control systems continue to limit the degree of reliance that can be placed on their work; welcomes that, as of 2025, the Court will discontinue the practice of selecting audit samples from transactions already reviewed by the Commission or national audit authorities, a change rendered necessary because this approach, though expected to reveal few or no errors, has repeatedly proven unreliable; underlines that this development raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Union’s control systems and reinforces Parliament’s longstanding call for reliable assurance mechanisms across all management modes;

Added30. Stresses the importance of ensuring that public authorities effectively recover amounts unduly lost through fraud, evasion, irregularities and administrative fragmentation, as an essential element of protecting public finances; calls on the Commission to enhance transparency by publishing clear, annual information on recoveries, financial corrections and confiscations linked to Union spending and enforcement cooperation, presented in a coherent and accessible manner that supports accountability while avoiding an unnecessary administrative burden;

Removed24 Calls on the Commission to accelerate the deployment of interoperable anti-fraud and data-mining tools across management modes, enabling cross-checks on beneficial ownership, procurement risk indicators and double-funding signals; urges the Commission to report annually to the discharge authority on the coverage and effectiveness of these tools, including uptake by managing authorities;

Added31. Reiterates its concern over the Court’s observation that the Commission’s risk assessment is likely to underestimate the actual level of risk in several areas; notes that weaknesses identified in certain management and control systems may affect the overall reliability of audit conclusions; highlights the need to ensure robust oversight across management modes; welcomes that, as of 2025, the Court will discontinue the practice of selecting audit samples from transactions already reviewed by the Commission or national audit authorities, a change rendered necessary because this approach, though expected to reveal few or no errors, has repeatedly proven unreliable; underlines that this development raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Union’s control systems and reinforces Parliament’s longstanding call for reliable assurance mechanisms across all management modes;

Removed25. Underlines that the estimated level of error in the Union’s expenditure, as reported in the Court’s statement of assurance, reflects amounts that were paid out without meeting all the applicable rules and conditions; considers that, although this is not an indicator of fraud or corruption and does not automatically imply a wasteful use of resources, it does indicate cases where corrective action is required and where the protection of the Union’s financial interests can be strengthened; regrets that persistent levels of error, while often technical in nature, may nevertheless undermine public confidence in the Union and expose the Commission to reputational risks regarding its capacity to ensure sound financial management of the Union budget;

Added32. Urges the Commission to accelerate the deployment of interoperable anti-fraud and data-mining tools across management modes, enabling cross-checks on beneficial ownership, procurement risk indicators and double funding signals; urges the Commission to report annually to the discharge authority on the coverage and effectiveness of these tools including uptake by managing authorities; reiterates the urgent need for the mandatory use of data mining and artificial intelligence tools to effectively combat fraud and irregularities;

Change 28 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed27.35. Recalls that the Commission bears primary responsibility for preventing and detecting fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests; notes that the Court of Auditors, in line with its mandate, must report any cases of irregularity identified during its audit work; further notes that the Court refers suspicions of criminal offences falling under the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)EPPO and suspicions of fraud, corruption or other illegal activities to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF); notes that in 2024 the Court reported 19 cases of suspected fraud to OLAF and, in parallel, transmitted 7seven of these cases to the EPPO, which have so far resulted in six OLAF investigations and seven EPPO investigations; commends the Court for its systematic reporting to OLAF and the EPPO, especially given that information stemming from audit activities carries a high degree of reliability; stresses that all cases of irregular expenditure identified by the Court should be reported to OLAF and the EPPO, leaving it to these competent bodies to assess whether there is fraudulent intent warranting further investigation; underlines the importance of continued coordination between the Commission, OLAF, EPPO and the Court to ensure timely and effective follow-up of all reported cases, in line with their respective mandates; reiterates the need for the Commission to equip these bodies with adequate resources to guarantee fully effective cross-border investigation and detection capabilities; recalls the importance of full operational independence of EPPO and OLAF;

Change 29 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed34.42. Notes with concern that for the CF,Cohesion ERDFFund (CF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and ESF+ the Commission forecasts total decommitments of EUR 2,7 billion, a notable rise from the EUR 2,2 billion projected in 2023 and nearly seven times the EUR 0,4 billion forecast in 2022, despite the assumption of a sharp acceleration in implementation in 2026 and 2027; stresses that failure to achieve this accelerated implementation rate will further increase the amounts at risk of decommitment;

Change 30 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed35. Notes that outstanding Union borrowing increased by more than 30,0 % in 2024, reflecting the Commission’s expanded use of capital markets to finance large-scale programmes such as Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) and NGEU; notes that by 2027 total outstanding borrowing could exceed EUR 900,0 billion, almost ten times the level recorded in 2020 prior to the launch of NGEU; notes that since December 2022 the Commission has applied a diversified funding strategy as its standard method for raising funds on capital markets, and that at the end of 2024 the nominal value of outstanding Union borrowing stood at EUR 601,3 billion, up from EUR 458,5 billion in 2023;

Added43. Warns that the different risks identified by the Court in the Union budget, including outstanding commitments, may jeopardise the achievement of Union objectives; calls on the Commission, in line with the Court’s recommendations, to act proactively to ensure that its mitigating risk tools (such as the Common Provisioning Fund) have sufficient capacity;

Removed36. Notes that interest expenditure linked to the financing of the non-repayable NGEU support reached EUR 5,4 billion for the period 2021 to 2024, including EUR 3,4 billion in 2024 alone, which is almost 50,0 % higher than the initial forecast of EUR 3,7 billion; observes that total interest expenditure in the current MFF may range between EUR 29,0 and EUR 30,4 billion, approximately double the Commission’s original estimate of EUR 14,9 billion; notes that a 2024 briefing entitled ‘Management of debt liabilities in the EU budget under the post-2027 MFF’ requested by the Committees on Budgets estimated that interest payments for the non-repayable NGEU support in the next MFF could amount to EUR 70,9 and EUR 73,8 billion, underscoring the long-term budgetary impact of NGEU borrowing;

Added44. Notes that the outstanding nominal value of Union borrowing reached EUR 601,3 billion at the end of 2024, reflecting the use of capital markets to finance Union programmes, such as Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) and NGEU; notes that by 2027 total outstanding borrowing could exceed EUR 900 billion, almost ten times the level recorded in 2020, prior to the launch of NGEU; notes that since December 2022 the Commission has applied a diversified funding strategy as its standard method for raising funds on capital markets, underlines the importance of transparent reporting, fiscal responsibility and sound financial management in the context of increased borrowing and interest rate risk in order to safeguard fiscal sustainability and ensure full accountability as well as democratic oversight by the discharge authority;

Removed37. Notes with concern that the Union budget’s exposure continued to increase in 2024, reflecting the growing volume of borrowing operations and associated guarantees; points out that the total exposure of the Union budget amounted to EUR 342,0 billion at the end of 2024, which amounts to an increase of 14,8 % compared with EUR 298,0 billion at the end of 2023; underlines that this trend underscores the importance of a robust system to ensure that the Union can meet its debt obligations under all circumstances; stresses that, in the context of rising debt levels, the development of genuine new own resources is essential to prevent debt servicing costs from crowding out priorities under future multiannual financial frameworks;

Added45. Notes that interest expenditure linked to the financing of the non-repayable NGEU support amounted to EUR 5,4 billion for the period 2021–2024, including EUR 3,4 billion in 2024 alone, nearly 50 % above the initial forecast of EUR 3,7 billion; observes that total interest expenditure in the current MFF could range between EUR 29,0 and EUR 30,4 billion, approximately double the Commission’s original estimate of EUR 14,9 billion; further notes that a 2024 briefing entitled ‘Management of debt liabilities in the EU budget under the post-2027 MFF’, requested by the Committee on Budgets, estimates that interest payments for non-repayable NGEU support in the next MFF could amount to EUR 70,9 and EUR 73,8 billion, highlighting the long-term budgetary implications of NGEU borrowing;

Change 31 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed40.49. Calls on the Commission, in particularparticular, to:

Change 32 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(i) strengthen the reliability and transparency of financial reporting,reporting; in particular by further improving the clarity of the presentation of negative net assets and accrued expenses, and by ensuring that the long-term budgetary implications of NGEU borrowing are communicated clearly and systematically to the budgetary authority;

Change 33 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(ii) take all necessary measures to address the persistent weaknesses in the legality and regularity of expenditure, including by improving and clarifying guidance to managing authorities, and acceleratingcontinuing efforts to remedy recurrentaddress shortcomings identified in reimbursement-based spending and consistentlyensuring applyconsistent application of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where risks persist;

Change 34 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(iv) strengthen monitoring of the implementation of 2021-2027 shared management funds,funds including more active follow-up on low absorption rates, enhanced administrative support and targeted technical assistance to Member States, and the systematic identification of structural bottlenecks that slow down implementation;

Change 35 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(vi) clearly communicate onthe impact of expected interest expenditure on the Union’s borrowing operations, including its budgetary implications for future MFFs, and the sustainability of the current diversified funding strategy;

Change 36 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(vii) urges the Commission to review and simplify the Union budget’s flexibility frameworkarchitecture for the next MFF, including by establishing a clear sequencingsequence for mobilising margins and special instruments, avoidingensuring overlapscomplementarity between flexibility tools, and improving theenhancing transparency ofand predictability in their use;use while fully ensuring democratic oversight by the budgetary authority;

Change 37 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(ix) callsensure onthat the CommissionUnion’s toanti-fraud continuearchitecture, tonotably ensureOLAF and the EPPO, is provided with sufficient and appropriate resources, and that robust cooperation withbetween OLAFthem and with the EPPO,Commission is facilitated; including through the timely transmission of suspected fraud cases and reinforcedthe strengthening of fraud-prevention strategies, especiallyin particular in high-risk expenditure areas and large-scale financial instruments;

Change 38 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(x) publish clear, user-friendly performance and spending summaries, including one-page overviews and interactive dashboards with machine-readable datasets;

Change 39 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed42.51. NotesUnderlines the importance of Member States’ responsibilities for the collection of value-added tax (VAT) and traditional own resources (TOR) in ensuring fair competition and fair taxation in the Single Market and in guaranteeing that the burden of financing Union expenditure is fairly shared among the Member States; notes with satisfaction that the revenue systems thatexamined by the Court examined were generally effective; at the same time asksurges the Commission to addressintensify efforts to improve the collection of existing own resources, including by addressing the remaining weaknesses identified by the Court, especially those related to long-outstanding issues concerning VAT reservations and open points concerning traditional own resources (TOR);TOR;

Change 40 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed43.52. Underlines that reform of the Union customs system continuesremains toimportant befor aboth problemthe relatedmodernisation toof own resources but alsoand tofor the effective fight against organised crime;crime regretsat thatEuropean theand Courtnational haslevel; observednotes that the Commission has notCourt’s developedobservation aon detailedthe planneed for further implementation ofand operationalisation planning; underlines the customsimportance of achieving agreed reform proposalelements ofin Maya 2023;timely and coordinated manner;

Change 41 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed44.53. Stresses that fast adoption and implementation of all elements of the proposal for a customs reform mustshould remain ana absolutekey priority; highlights that the establishment of the EU Customs Authority and the EU Customs Data Hub should ensurecontribute to real-time risk assessment, fraud detection, and uniform ruleapplication application,of customs rules, replacing fragmented national systems for a stronger and digitalizeddigitalised Customs UnionUnion; andunderlines shouldthe ensureimportance of ensuring that reform helps to achieve a significant reduction of the customs gap and shouldenhances thereforethe beeffectiveness acceleratedof asthe muchUnion’s ascustoms possible;controls; points to the importance of having real-time risk assessment and digitalised customs controls;

Change 42 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed45.54. Commends the efforts madeof bythe EPPO and OLAF to fight againstcombat the organised exploitation of weaknesses in Union customs controls; encourages the currentfurther weaknessesstrengthening of EPPO’s operational capacity and expertise in thetackling organised crime patterns affecting Union customsrevenues controls;and expenditure, including through specialised joint tasking, enhanced intelligence-sharing and risk-analysis capabilities;

Change 43 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed46. Welcomes the proposals for new own resources presented by the Commission, including as part of the package of proposals for the next MFF, which should at the very least be able to cover the expenses related to the interest and repayment of loans under the RRF in order to ensure that such expenses do not limit Union funds available for regular Union spending programmes;

Added55. Underlines the importance of preventive and precautionary measures in combating VAT fraud; encourages the exploration of innovative approaches, such as risk-based sampling and statistical extrapolation of control results to wider transaction populations, in full respect of legal safeguards and proportionality;

Added56. Welcomes the proposals for new own resources presented by the Commission, including as part of the package of proposals for the next MFF, which should at the very least be able to cover the expenses related to the interest and repayment of loans under the RRF in order to ensure that such expenses do not limit Union funds available for regular Union spending programmes; recognises, that other revenue sources might also be considered should the existing proposals not materialise without compromising fiscal responsibility; considers that the revenue potential of a digital service tax and a financial transaction tax should be explored as possible solutions;

Change 44 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed47.57. Calls on the CommissionCommission, in particularparticular, to:

Change 45 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(i) intensifytake itsthe actionsnecessary steps to ensuresupport the fastesttimely possibleand effective implementation of the customs reform,reform , including the establishment and initial operation of the EU Customs Authority and the development, implementation, and maintenance of the EU Customs Data Hub;

Change 46 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(iii) addressintensify efforts to improve the collection of the Union’s existing revenue sources, including those from e-commerce by addressing the remaining weaknesses identified by the Court especially those which concern long-outstanding issues concerning VAT reservations and open points concerning traditional own resources (TOR);

Change 47 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(v) continue to address the major custom gap challenges that the rapid growth of e-commerce poses to customs authorities; provide adequate human, technical and financial resources;

Change 48 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed49.59. Notes that the Court has examined 127 transactions covering the full range of spending under this MFF heading; notes with concern that 32 (25 %) of the 127 transactions that the Court examined contained errors; regrets that, based on the 28 quantifiable errors the Court found, and additional errors detected in MFF heading 1 transactions implemented by EUUnion agencies, joint undertakings and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the Court estimates that the level of error in spending on ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ in 2024 was material at 3,2 %; further notes that the Commission estimates the risk at payment as 1,6 % for this heading, which is in the lower half of the range of the Court’s estimate;

Change 49 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed51.61. Notes with concern the Court’s observation that research and innovationcontinues expenditureto isbe mosta affectedhigh-risk byspending error,area, particularly in the area of personnel costs; notes that the Court found quantifiable errors relating to 26 of the 99 research and innovation transactions it sampled; recognises that the way funds are disbursed has an impact on the risk of error and the complex rules associated with reimbursement-based funding generally used in the area of research; underlines, in this regard, the need to simplify rules governing Union research and innovation programmes with a view to reducing the risk of errors while facilitating access of beneficiaries, notably SMEs, to Union funding;

Change 50 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added62. Observes that the Court has also identified several issues in Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) projects, including the reporting of indirect costs, discrepancies between declared and actual payments and non-compliant procurement procedures, and calls for strict compliance with cost eligibility rules and sound financial management by all partners; furthermore, emphasises the need to take these issues into account in the context of the upcoming CEF Regulation (2028–2034), in order to improve transparency in the implementation of CEF projects and to reinforce their EU added value;

Change 51 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed53.64. Is concerned that the Court detectedidentified gaps in the traceability of reported results, particularly for Horizon 2020; considersunderlines itthe essentialimportance toof verifyverifying and ensureensuring the traceability and reliability of data used to establish performance indicators; notes with concern that, owing to the introduction and increasing use of simplified cost options and deliveryfinancing models based on financing not linked to costs, weaknesses in the traceability and reliability of performance data canmust adverselybe affectaddressed to protect the Union financial interests;

Change 52 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed54.65. Notes with concern the Court’s finding that the Commission could not provide project-level information for InvestEU, as it is implemented through indirect management, complemented by monitoring visits; regrets the Commission’s reply that InvestEU implementing partners are neither required by the guarantee agreements nor by the InvestEU Regulation to report key performance indicators (KPIs) at project level; considers that project-level data should be the basis for enhanced performance reporting for financial instruments implemented under indirect management, such as InvestEU; stresses that the European Investment Bank (EIB), as the main implementing partner of InvestEU, must be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability;

Change 53 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed56.67. Recalls the importance of Union research and innovation (R&I) funding programmes for the scientific, societal, economic and technological development of the Union, adequately addressing emerging priorities and challenges, reducing inequalities, achieving the green and digital transitions and decreasing the Union’s energy dependency on Russia; underlines that in order to enhance the Union’s competitivenesscompetitiveness, technological leadership and strategic autonomy and to close the innovation gap,gap with global competitors, increased funding for R&I is needed,needed and a stronger and more targeted investment effort in research and innovation, combined with reduced administrative burden for applicants and better mobilisation of private capital, is essential, also with a view to addressing the Draghi report’s pertinent recommendations; recalls that the Draghi report underlines that excellence in research and innovation is fundamental to the Union’s competitiveness and that within the Union research and innovation system, including the Horizon Europe programme, there should be one selection criterion, namely, excellence; reiterates, in this regard, its position that funding for research and innovation should continue to be determined by the principle of excellence and should remain merit-based;

Change 54 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed57.68. Notes that the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 estimated that for each euro of costs linked to the programme, five euros worth of benefits would be generated for society by 2040; deeply regrets that 74 % of proposals assessed as high quality by independent experts could not be funded due to budget constraints; notes that an additional EUR 159 billion would have been needed to fund all high-quality proposals; stresses the importance of ensuring sufficient funding for Union R&I to boost the Union’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness; highlights the importance of making full use of the Seal of Excellence and other complementary Union and national funding instruments, including those under cohesion policy, to support high-quality but unfunded research and innovation projects and to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems across the Union;

Change 55 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed58.69. Underlines the importance of simplifying the rules and procedures governing Union R&I funding to facilitate beneficiaries’ access to funding and programme implementation; stresses that simplification measures should be designed in a way to benefit applicants and beneficiaries, including first-time applicants, SMEs and universities, while promoting smaller and more flexible consortia, modular project structures and staged participation in order to facilitate broader participation and effective inclusion across the Union; is worriedconcerned by the Court’s finding that despite the simplifications introduced under Horizon Europe to facilitate the beneficiaries’ cost reporting, the Court found no significant differences between Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe as regards the regularity of expenditure;

Change 56 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed60.71. Notes that in 2024 the Commission has continued the roll out of simplified cost options such as lump sums and unit costs in Horizon Europe, with lump sum funding accounting for 27 % of the total call budget in the work programmes for 2024; recalls the Court’s clarification that when lump sum grants are given, the beneficiaries are paid a pre-defined lump sum for each completed work package, regardless of the actual costs incurred; further notes that the Commission’s target is to provide by 2027 at least 50 % of the call budget in published work programmes in the form of lump sums; is concerned, that for the reasons explained in box 5.4 of its Annual report, the Court was not able to assess whether including a specific item of equipment in the budget proposal was necessary and justified in the case of a lump sum grant it audited; calls on the Commission to ensure that future funding instruments include safeguards to avoid overcompensation for equipment that was not actually purchased although included in the lump sum budget, in line with the Court’s observations;

Change 57 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed61.72. Acknowledges that the Horizon Europe interim evaluation found that lump sums provided real simplification for beneficiaries, as estimated savings range between 14 % and 30 % of their administrative costs; notes the findings of the Commission’s assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe 2018-2024, including that beneficiaries also reported to the Commission that they would welcome more clarity on how lump sum grants would be audited; appreciates that in 2024, the Commission put in place an ex-post control strategy for Horizon Europe grants, including a methodology for ex-post technical reviews in lump sum grants; notes that the Commission has launched the first 30 Horizon Europe ex-post technical reviews in the fourth quarter of 2024; recognises, at the same time, the Court's observation that although lump sums are appropriate for clearly defined work packages, difficulties in the implementation of such schemes would arise in situations where work packages are delayed, partially completed or some of the activities stipulated in the work package are replaced;

Change 58 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed62.73. Notes the Court’s finding that there has been a significant increase in EUUnion financial support to third parties in research, as under Horizon 2020 grants EUR 2,5 billion of such funding was provided for the whole programming period, whereas by the end of 2024, EUR 5,5 billion was provided under Horizon Europe; is concerned by the Court’s finding that for nine out of 11 transactions sampled relating to grants to third parties, the EUR 60 000 funding threshold set by Article 207 of the Financial Regulation had been exceeded without proper justification for derogation in the work programme or the call; notes that in the Commission’s view, the need for higher grant amounts is inherent to certain types of actions; is alarmed by the Court’s finding that third parties are not required to demonstrate the effectiveness of their controls to ensure the regularity of Union spending; agrees with the Court that this poses a risk to sound financial management and the protection of the Union’s financial interests;

Change 59 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed63.74. Notes that Union research and innovation programmes, including Horizon Europe, support the development of advanced technologies for civil applications, but acknowledges that certain technologies may carry inherent dual-use risks; considers that strengthening Union defence requires enhanced support for research and innovation under Horizon Europe; highlights the significant potential of emerging technologies, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum computing, to contribute to the Union’s security and resilience; considers that civilian research and innovation programmes should therefore be appropriately supported and strategically aligned, including, where relevant, by enabling their results to be used for dual-use purposes in order to safeguard the EU’s defence capabilities; notes with concern however, the Commission’s reply that it is currently not monitoring specifically after the end of a project if the results of Union-funded R&I projects are taken forward for dual use, military or defence applications; calls on the Commission to ensure appropriate monitoring of the follow-up of Union-funded R&I projects with potential dual use, military or defence applications in line with Union requirements; underlines the importance of ensuring that Union funding is fully consistent with the Union’s values and obligations under international law; stresses at the same time the need for the Commission to strengthen the follow-up of Union-funded research results, including their transition to commercial use, in order to maximise societal impact and ensure an adequate return on investment for taxpayers;

Change 60 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed64. Recalls that on 10 March 2022 the European Parliament decided to set up the PEGA Committee to investigate alleged infringement or maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware surveillance software and the European Parliament recommendation of 15 June 2023 to the Council and the Commission adopted following PEGA Committee’s work; expresses its profound concern about media reports alleging that Union funding has directly supported companies implicated in the development, deployment and export of spyware by entities whose technologies have been linked to unlawful surveillance of journalists, human rights defenders and political actors in the Union and in third countries; notes the Commission’s reply that the proper use of Union funds is ensured by various contractual provisions related to, for example, the obligation to respect the highest ethical standards and applicable law when implementing the action, and the obligation to ensure the respect of basic Union values and that failure to respect these obligations can result in various contractual measures, including suspension of contract or payments and contract termination; notes also the Commission’s written reply that it considers that it has put in place several measures to address the risk that spyware falls into the wrong hands and increase protection for the potential victims of spyware, including European Media Freedom Act, e-Privacy Directive, Cyber Resilience Act and Dual-use regulation and that its annual Rule of Law reports also cover developments regarding the allegations of illegal use of spyware;

Added75. Recalls that the EIB Group has been allocated 75 % (EUR 19,6 billion) of the Union budgetary guarantee under the InvestEU Regulation; recalls also the discharge authority’s recommendations in its previous reports on the control of the financial activities of the EIB; notes the accountability and audit gaps in relation to the EIB’s operations, as identified in the Contact Committee statement CC 1/2025; stresses the need to align and adapt the audit framework to the EIB’s expanded mandate; urges the Commission to actively support the granting of full audit access for the European Court of Auditors to the EIB’s activities; underlines the need for comprehensive information on the EIB’s portfolio quality and risk management practices to enable meaningful democratic oversight of its operations; calls on the Commission to engage with the EIB in order to provide reporting on its portfolio quality to the discharge authority, ensure that risk assessment profiles for large-scale investments are subject to independent review and that the EIB discloses the lessons learned from cases where significant lending has resulted in default; stresses that public confidence in the sound management of Union-backed lending depends on the highest standards of institutional integrity; urges, therefore, the Commission to require the EIB to strengthen conflict-of-interest prevention mechanisms;

Removed65. Notes the Commission’s reply to CONT that the companies in question have received a total of EUR 12,77 million from the Union budget since 2021; regrets that despite the discharge rapporteur’s repeated requests, the Commission only shared with the CONT committee partial information on the total amount of Union funding allocated to spyware or intrusive surveillance software firms, as the reply it provided is limited to information already publicly available in the Financial Transparency System (FTS), which currently only publishes information on beneficiaries and contractors under direct management and on implementing partners under indirect management; considers that based on media reports, it cannot be excluded that the companies in question might have also received Union funding from programmes under shared management and that additional spyware companies may have benefitted from Union funding; deplores the fact that the discharge authority received an incomplete reply to its request;

Added76. Underlines the strategic importance of research in the field of defence for strengthening the Union’s security and long-term resilience; emphasises that defence and security research requires close and trusted cooperation among Member States to ensure a more cost-effective and efficient use of Union taxpayers’ money, avoid unnecessary duplication and foster synergies; underlines that research activities in this domain necessarily involve highly sensitive data, technologies and information which must be subject to the highest standards of protection against external interference or malicious manipulation; stresses, in this context, the urgent need to develop a common and robust protective architecture at Union level to counter hybrid threats and safeguard critical knowledge, infrastructure and innovation ecosystems;

Added77. Recalls that on 10 March 2022 the European Parliament decided to set up the PEGA Committee to investigate alleged infringement or maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware surveillance software and the European Parliament recommendation of 15 June 2023 to the Council and the Commission adopted following PEGA Committee’s work; expresses its dissatisfaction that the Commission still has not presented enforcement measures and legislative follow-up to Parliament’s recommendations regarding the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware; takes note of media reports alleging that Union funding may have directly supported companies implicated in the development, deployment and export of spyware by entities whose technologies have been linked to unlawful surveillance of journalists, human rights defenders and political actors in the Union and in third countries; notes the Commission’s reply that the proper use of Union funds is ensured by various contractual provisions requiring respect of the applicable law and Union values and that failure to respect these obligations can result in various contractual measures, including suspension of contract or payments and contract termination; notes also the Commission’s written reply that it considers that it has put in place several measures to address the risk that spyware falls into the wrong hands and increase protection for the potential victims of spyware, including European Media Freedom Act, e-Privacy Directive, Cyber Resilience Act and Dual-use regulation and that its annual Rule of Law reports also cover developments regarding the allegations of illegal use of spyware;

Added78. Notes the Commission’s reply to the Committee on Budgetary Control that the companies in question have received a total of EUR 12,77 million from the Union budget since 2021; regrets that the Commission only shared with the Committee on Budgetary Control partial information on the total amount of Union funding allocated to spyware or intrusive surveillance software firms, as the reply it provided is limited to information already publicly available in the Financial Transparency System (FTS), which currently only publishes information on beneficiaries and contractors under direct management and on implementing partners under indirect management; deplores the fact that the discharge authority received an incomplete reply to its request;

Change 61 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed67. Recalls that to achieve the Union’s ambition of reaching climate neutrality by 2050, the Union needs to transform its energy system;80. notesNotes the Commission’s written reply that since 2021, EUR 12,63 million was spent on renewable hydrogen production and related infrastructure from the CEF -renewablerenewable energy funding and EUR 187,21 million of CEF-TransportCEF transport funding was spent on refuelling stations; notes further that between 2021 and 2024 the Commission allocated EUR 791,13 million in grants under the Innovation Fund to e-fuel projects; underlines the importance of allocating Union funds to support solutions with potential for long-term decarbonisation and scalability and of taking an evidence-based approach to emerging solutions in order to ensure the efficient use of public resources, maximise climate impact and ensure that public resources are used efficiently; stresses that all technologies need to be assessed on their effectiveness and scalability; calls for caution in the allocation of Union funds to technologies with an uncertain or limited long-term role in the decarbonisation pathwaypathway; suchstresses asthat e-fuels,achieving inclimate orderneutrality by 2050 is of decisive importance; emphasises the need to ensure a reliable, affordable and resilient Union energy supply; notes, in this context, that scarcethe publicCommission resourcesshould arepromote prioritiseda technology-neutral approach to research and innovation; calls in particular for the support of cross-border projects to foster genuinely European solutions within the highestfield climateof impactenergy supply, ensure the cost-efficient use of Union funds, strengthen the internal market, and scalability;create EU added value; calls on the Commission to ensure that funding criteria are based on measurable emissions reduction outcomes rather than prescriptive technology preferences;

Change 62 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed68.81. Recalls that the Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to ensure fair and innovation-friendly digital markets in Europe, preventing any single actor from dominating it at the expense of consumers, competitors, or democratic oversight; stresses the significant negative effects that digital market dominance pose to fundamental rights and the spread of information manipulation and disinformation and the need for joint Union action in these areas; notes that during 2024, the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP)facedCOMP) faced serious understaffing, as reported in its Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2024; notes that DG COMP reallocated staff to units responsible for the enforcement of the DMA which created staff shortages in other departments;

Change 63 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed(ii) introduce requirements for implementing partners to provide performance reporting based on project-level data also for financial instruments implemented under indirect management, such as InvestEU;

Added(ii) secure the provision of significantly increased Union funding for research and innovation, determined by the principle of excellence and merit;

Removed(iii) conduct a review of the simplification measures introduced for Horizon Europe to assess whether they provide genuine simplification for project beneficiaries and applicants;

Added(iii) introduce binding requirements for implementing partners, including the EIB, to provide performance reporting based on project-level data also for financial instruments implemented under indirect management, such as InvestEU; demands that such reporting should rely on a balanced mix of output, result, and impact indicators;

Added(iv) conduct a review of the simplification measures introduced for Horizon Europe to assess whether they provide genuine simplification for project beneficiaries and applicants, including their impact on administrative burden, participation rates, geographical balance and ease of access for new applicants, in particular from less performing regions, and fostering synergies with other Union instruments, including cohesion policy and the Seal of Excellence;

Change 64 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed(vi) conduct a comprehensive review of Union funding for the development, deployment and export of spyware or intrusive surveillance software across all management modes since 2021, and share it with the discharge authority;

Added(vii) ensure that future funding instruments include safeguards to avoid overcompensation for equipment that was not actually purchased although included in the lump sum budget;

Removed(vii) ensure that Union research funding, including under Horizon Europe and through agreements with non-EU partners, does not contribute to the development of spyware or equivalent intrusive surveillance technologies in line with the Parliament’s relevant recommendations adopted on 15 June 2023;

Added(viii) review a representative sample of lump sum grants, and analyse the lessons learnt from their implementation and the methods used to establish Union financial support, before further extending the use of lump sum grants to future funding instruments;

Added(ix) conduct a comprehensive review of Union funding for the development, deployment and export of spyware or intrusive surveillance software across all management modes since 2021, and prepare an action plan to prevent the abuse of spyware in the Union, and share them with the discharge authority;

Added(x) pursue a technology-neutral approach to research and innovation, including by promoting cross-border projects, in order to support the achievement of climate neutrality by 2050 and foster a stable, resilient and affordable Union energy supply, while guaranteeing cost-effectiveness, accelerating progress towards Union climate goals and enhancing competitiveness;

Change 65 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed70.83. NotesUnderlines the role of Union cohesion policy in reducing economic, social and territorial disparities within the Union, as established by the Treaties, as well as for supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; insists on continued support for cohesion in the post-2027 MFF, following the principles of partnership and multilevel governance, and with the involvement of local and regional authorities and relevant stakeholders; notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF-Heading 2 ‘Cohesion, resilience and values’ was EUR 61,4 billion (32,1 % of the Union budget) distributed as follows: 47,7 % for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)ERDF and other regional operations, 16,4 % for the European Social Fund (ESF), 6,7 % for the Cohesion Fund (CF),CF, 6,6 % for Erasmus+, 2,2 % for CEF Transport, 3,6 % for EU Recovery, and 3,1 % for other schemes;

Change 66 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed71.84. Notes that the Court has examined a sample of 223 transactions covering the full range of spending under MFF Heading 2; notes with concern that the Court’s estimated overall level of error in expenditure under this heading in 2024 is again significantly above the materiality threshold at 5,7 %; reminds that the Court’s error rate includes the errors that remained undetected by the Member States and the Commission and demonstrate that the Commission’s error rates are underestimated;

Change 67 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed77.90. Notes that the Court, in its Review 04/2025 ‘The Future of EU Cohesion Policy: Drawing lessons from the past’ recalled the longstanding challenge related to the complexity of the regulatory framework, and that, despite efforts to simplify rules and procedures, the complexity of Union regulation and the coexistence of national and regional requirements continues to impose significant administrative burdens and contributes to a high error rate; recalls, however, the important role that cohesion policy has played in reducing economic, social and territorial disparities and promoting convergence and stability across the Union, thereby demonstrating its added value for Union taxpayers, which can be further strengthened by addressing persistent weaknesses; notes that, while simplified cost options have been introduced to reduce reporting obligations, their use remains limited, especially in the ERDF; stressesrecalls thatthe persistent weaknesses in Member States’ management and control systems; calls into question the Commission’s plan for increased reliance on national systems and stresses that they must be remedied before the introduction of any such future spending model under the next MFFMFF; stresses the need to define clear and binding supervisory and control responsibilities for both the Commission and the Member States prior to the beginning of implementation; considers that increasesthe relianceCommission should not rely solely on Member States’ control systems, but should define minimum requirements and verification mechanisms, similar to those provided for under shared management, in order to avoid any non-compliance with national controls;and Union rules, as requested by the Court;

Change 68 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed78.91. Notes that the Court’s findings, in its Special Report 04/202522/2025 ‘Financial corrections in cohesion policy funds’ that the Commission does not apply financial corrections as it should to protect the Union budget from irregular expenditure in cohesion policy, and that, despite cohesion spending being affected year after year by a significant number of errors, the Commission took more than a decade to adopt its first financial correction in September 2025 for the 2014-2020 period; points out that the legal framework governing the correction mechanism is complex that guidance and criteria for assessing serious deficiencies is not clear enough, and is not applied consistently, and that there is no well-defined timeframe for the procedure;

Change 69 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed79. Notes that the discharge authority is considering introducing an acceptable level of error rate in cohesion policy above which annual discharge would be postponed;

Change 70 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed81.93. Recalls that, following a discharge-related access to documents request concerning contracts with 30 economic operators, the Commission had to undertake a broad and resource-intensive identification exercise due to limitations in its internal data systems, which resulted in the identification of hundreds of entities with similar or related names; acknowledges the efforts made by the Commission services to respond promptly and transparently; further recalls that, as of the next MFF, the Commission will be required to use data stored in the Arachne data-mining and risk-scoring tool to feed a centralised transparency website, with Member States obliged to provide automated access to relevant data, an obligation which will apply from 2027 onwards and on which the Commission has already begun preparatory work; stresses, however, thaturges the Commission should assess, ahead of the rollout of the new compulsory system, whether more efficient interim solutions canto beimplement putan ininteroperable placesystem to enable the rapidallow anda reliableEuropean identificationtracing of contractual relationshipsfunds with specific economic operators, at least under direct and indirect management where it does not depend onthe datastart inputof fromthe Membernew States;MFF;

Change 71 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed83.95. Is concerned about the Court’s observation that implementation of the cohesion policy funds (ERDF, CF, ESF+), accounting for over 90 % of the shared management funds under the CPR for 2021-2027, remained low; highlightsnotes that when the Court compares their implementation (prefinancing and interim payments) with the previous programming period, the overall absorption rate of these three funds was only 5 % by the end of 2024 compared to 14 % at the equivalent point of the previous MFF (end of 2017); underlines that the current programming period has been implemented in an exceptionally challenging context marked by successive crises, inflationary pressures, supply chain disruptions and evolving geopolitical and economic conditions; acknowledges, at the same time, that the 2021-2027 programmes were adopted seven months later than those of the 2014-2020 programming period and that the pre-financing rates under the 2014-2020 programmes were higher and cleared at a different moment than those under the current MFF; notes, in this regard, that the absorption rate at the comparable implementation stage, at the end of June 2017, for the ERDF, the CF and the ESF+ stood at 3,49 %, which is comparable to the rate at the end of 2024; notes with concern that as the end of the eligibility period for the underlying expenditure and the deadline for payment of the final balance for the 2021-2027 MFF are set one year earlier than in the previous programming period, the pressure to absorb Union funds will increase further;

Change 72 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed84.96. Expresses its concern that in 2024, the Commission forecast decommitments for the period 2025-2027 increased at EUR 8.88,8 billion compared to the 2023 forecast of EUR 8.18,1 billion for the same period and that this increase in estimated decommitments was mainly driven by the cohesion programmes under the current MFF and by the EAFRD; notes that EAFRD decommitments are expected when the programmes of the previous MFF close in 2026, while cohesion programmes for the 2021-2027 MFF face significant risks of decommitments from 2027 onwards;

Change 73 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed85. Highlights the Commission Internal Audit Service’s (IAS) recommendation, in its audit carried out in 2024 on assurance building processes for the funds implemented under shared management, that the single audit strategy of the DG REGIO, DG EMPL and the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) needs to be updated as certain elements were not sufficiently clear or have not been sufficiently developed at this stage of the programming period; also notes the IAS’ recommendation that DG REGIO, which also implements the EU Solidarity Fund under shared and indirect management, needs to further improve its design and effective management;

Added97. Recalls that in 2024, several amendments to the cohesion policy and legal framework, namely STEP and RESTORE, entered into force; highlights the importance of these instruments in enhancing Union competitiveness and addressing the consequences of natural disasters; reiterates, nevertheless, that constant amendments to the cohesion policy framework lead to legal uncertainty and instability and risk undermining the long-term structural cohesion policy objectives of reducing disparities across the Union; stresses that cohesion policy needs a stable regulatory framework in order to provide predictability for beneficiaries;

Added98. Reiterates its deep concern over the disproportionate impact that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine continues to have on the Union's eastern regions bordering Russia and/or Belarus; draws attention to the costs borne by these regions as a result of their shared border with hostile neighbouring countries, notably the respective Member States' need to direct public funding into security, defence and preparedness, while facing dramatically reduced resources due to a disruption in economic activities, cross-border trade and other exchanges; is concerned, further, about the loss in Union financial support experienced by some border regions as a result of amendments to cohesion funds under the current programming period, notably to ERDF funds initially earmarked for cross-border cooperation with Russia and Belarus and funds reallocated in the context of the 2025 cohesion mid-term review (MTR);

Added99. Underlines that territorial cohesion requires strengthening local economic resilience, for example through sustainable tourism, protection of cultural assets, youth employment and vocational skills development, including in green reconstruction, energy efficiency and civil protection services; stresses the importance of Union cohesion policy for economic and territorial convergence and development in the regions of the Union, as well as for supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; stresses the need to safeguard access to essential services in rural and remote areas and calls on the Commission to assess whether Union spending effectively contributes to reducing depopulation pressure;

Added100. Highlights the increasing exposure of certain regions, including Mediterranean coastal and inland territories, to climate-related risks such as storms, floods, coastal erosion and drought stress; stresses that prevention and adaptation measures are more cost-effective than post-disaster reconstruction; stresses the necessity of frontloading investments in risk prevention, hydraulic safety, slope stability, nature-based solutions and climate-resilient infrastructure, including sustainable ports, intermodal logistics, rail connectivity and resilient water systems, leakage reduction, resilient irrigation and smart water management, in order to ensure rapid and measurable resilience outcomes, enhance territorial resilience and safeguard the effectiveness of Union spending;

Added101. Highlights the Commission Internal Audit Service’s (IAS) recommendation, in its audit carried out in 2024 on assurance building processes for the funds implemented under shared management, that the single audit strategy of DG REGIO, DG EMPL and the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) needs to be updated as certain elements were not sufficiently clear or have not been sufficiently developed at this stage of the programming period; also notes the IAS’ recommendation that DG REGIO, which also implements the EU Solidarity Fund under shared and indirect management, needs to further improve its design and effective management;

Change 74 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed88. Notes that from the EUR 20,9 billion allocations under the CPR initially blocked due to fundamental rights concerns, only EUR 8,6 billion remain blocked for the Hungarian government in January 2026; further notes that from the EUR 6,3 billion initially blocked under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation because of rule of law and corruption concerns, EUR 1 and 1,1 billion have been decommitted at the end of 2024 and 2025 respectively; expresses deep concern that, while the rule law continues to deteriorate and corruption flourishes through entrenched oligarchic networks in Hungary, the amount of Union funds that remains frozen due to rule of law and corruption concerns decreases, and consequently, the pressure applied by the Commission on the Hungarian government to make reforms shrinks constantly;

Added104. Reiterates its serious concerns about the Commission's decision of 13 December 2023, concluding that the Hungarian government had satisfied the Charter requirements in relation to judicial independence and lifting the suspension on the disbursement of funds for related programmes, resulting in Hungary becoming eligible to receive approximately EUR 10,2 billion from various funds governed by the CPR; reminds that on 25 March 2024, the European Parliament brought an action before the Court of Justice in order to review the legality of the Commission decision, as well as to bring legal certainty to the implementation of the rule of law mechanism; notes that while the CJEU ruling is still pending, the Advocate General proposed on 12 February 2026 that the Court of Justice annul the Commission's decision lifting the suspension on the disbursement of funds to Hungary;

Removed89. Notes that MOL, a publicly listed Hungarian petrochemical conglomerate, is effectively controlled through three so-called public interest trusts affiliated with the Hungarian Government, each holding a 10 % share; recalls that Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 prohibits the Commission from entering into new legal commitments, under direct or indirect management, with Hungarian public interest trusts and entities maintained by them when implementing the Union budget; notes with concern that at least one funding agreement appears to have been concluded between the Commission and MOL after the adoption of that Decision; takes note of the Commission’s reply that it is investigating the matter, and expects the Commission to provide the discharge authority without delay with a clear explanation of how such a commitment could have been signed;

Added105. Notes that from the EUR 19,8 billion allocations under the CPR, initially blocked due to fundamental rights concerns, only EUR 7,6 billion remain blocked for the Hungarian government in January 2026; further notes that from the EUR 6,4 billion initially blocked under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation because of rule of law and corruption concerns, EUR 1 and 1,1 billion have been decommitted at the end of 2024 and 2025 respectively; expresses deep concern that, while the rule law continues to deteriorate and corruption flourishes through entrenched oligarchic networks in Hungary, the amount of Union funds that remains frozen due to rule of law and corruption concerns decreases, and consequently, the pressure applied by the Commission on the Hungarian government to make reforms shrinks constantly;

Removed90. Notes that the Hungarian government is set to receive the third-largest allocation under the SAFE instrument, amounting to EUR 16,2 billion, intended to support major defence-industry investments; recalls that the Commission has the power to withhold approval of national defence investment plans under SAFE where there are concerns regarding the protection of the Union’s financial interests; notes that the Hungarian government recently sold a controlling 75 %+1 stake in its state defence-industry holding to 4iG, a company widely seen as close to the government; strongly warns that, in light of the continued deterioration of the rule of law, persistent corruption risks and systemic weaknesses in oversight as described above, the Union’s financial interests cannot be considered adequately protected if SAFE funding were to be disbursed to Hungary without, at the very least, setting strict conditions that must be met prior to any disbursement of funds;

Added106. Notes the requests by the Hungarian government on 28 and 29 March 2025 to transfer EUR 545 million from two cohesion programmes to new priorities under the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), of which EUR 395 million from funds frozen due to the failure to meet the horizontal enabling condition under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; deeply regrets the Commission’s approval of the amendments on 25 September 2025, that despite again blocking reimbursements for the new STEP priorities due to non-compliance with Charter requirements, nevertheless gave the Hungarian government access to EUR 317,3 million in pre-financing; reaffirms that the reallocation or reshuffling of frozen appropriations to other programmes or objectives would signal to governments non-compliant with Union values and with their obligations to protect the Union’s financial interests that losses can be offset elsewhere; recalls its position that funds suspended pursuant to the Conditionality Regulation or due to non-fulfilment of horizontal enabling conditions should not be eligible for programme amendments or transfers; calls, therefore, on the Commission to exercise its right of initiative and propose measures to close any existing loopholes in the Union's legislative framework that may enable governments to transfer funds suspended due to breaches of their rule of law or other Charter of Fundamental Rights obligations, and ensure that any future funding instruments are proofed for circumvention;

Change 75 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed93.111. Deplores that, according to civil society’s analysis, the vast majority of recommendations from the Rule of Law Report repeat the previous ones; considers that this raises concerns as to whether the recommendations are taken sufficiently seriously by Member States and whether the Commission is applying adequate pressure to ensure their effective implementation; stresses that, many of the shortcomings listed in the Rule of Law Report have a direct impact on the sound financial management of the Union budget and therefore considers it essential from a budgetary control perspective that the exercise produces tangible and measurable results; invites, therefore, the Commission to translate the country-specific recommendations from its annual Rule of Law Reports into concrete milestones to be systematically acted upon by the Member States, and to trigger the Conditionality Regulation where systematic rule of law breaches, identified under the pillars of the Report, have a sufficiently direct link to the protection of the Union budget;

Change 76 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed94.112. Notes the Commission reply that the Secretariat-General (SG) coordinates between the use of three different instruments of the Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Report, the RRF and of the CPR horizontal enabling conditions to ensure consistency across all programmes, instruments and Member States, and that within each instrument, there is a lead service entrusted with the implementation and relevant associated services also feed into this work; further notes that the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST) and SG jointly lead the work on the Rule of Law Report, DG EMPL leads for the work on the Charter horizontal enabling condition, SG REFORM with the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) for the work on the RRF and the Directorate-General for Budget (DG BUDG) for the work on the Conditionality Regulation; deplores, however, that the role ofinvites the Commission Presidentto onfurther clarify the decision-makingrole behindof frozenall fundsdecision-makers remainsin opaque;these notesprocedures; that,underlines despitethat while a solid framework exists on paper, the decision-makingpractical processapplication remainsof insufficientlyprocedures transparentcould inbe practice;further enhanced; regrets that in the past,Commission in the Commissionpast only provided the bare minimum amount of information, without key details, and did not share the full documentation,documentation even after Parliament had requested it; stresses that cleartimely, comprehensive and transparentproactive decision-makinginformation structuressharing areis essential for it to avoidexercise anyits perceptionbudgetary ofand theoversight freezingresponsibilities ofeffectively fundsand beingfor subjectcitizens to politicalmaintain considerations;trust in the Union institutions and the EU’s credibility as a whole;

Change 77 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added114. Recalls the findings of the Court’s Special Report on the Digitalisation of Healthcare, which concluded that Union support to Member States has been overall effective in fostering the digital transformation of healthcare systems; notes, however, that Member States have faced difficulties in utilising Union funds allocated for this purpose and regrets that while the Commission monitors the progress achieved by Member States in the digitalisation of healthcare, it does not yet possess a comprehensive overview of how Union funds are being used to support these activities; calls on the Commission to implement in full the Court’s recommendations, in particular by improving guidance to Member States, strengthening monitoring and performance-based oversight of Union funds used for digital health and ensuring that digital health investments uphold the highest standards of data protection, cybersecurity and interoperability;

Added115. Acknowledges that the EU4Health programme has contributed to the InvestEU programme through blending with the Union guarantee, thereby mobilising additional investments; notes in particular the contribution of EUR 110 million via an InvestEU top-up supporting EIB investments in innovative life-science projects related to medical countermeasures; underlines the importance of ensuring transparency, efficient coordination with national and Union funding instruments, and broad access to Member States so that these investments deliver strong European added value and strengthen the resilience of the Union’s health systems; recalls the importance of investing in medical innovation and technologies at a European level and the importance of strengthening the cooperation between research institutions, private medical companies and public authorities to better serve the public interest;

Added116. Regrets the Commission’s decision to discontinue operating grants supporting the health sector which represented just over 1% of the EU4Health budget in 2024; observes that these changes have affected a continuity contribution to European public health objectives; stresses the importance of predictable and stable support mechanisms for stakeholder and civil society organisations active in health; suggests that future funding continues to be based on clear criteria of European added value, transparency, political neutrality, and measurable impact, to ensure resources are directed where they provide the greatest benefit for patients and health systems; highlights the role of stakeholder and civil society actors in contributing to Union health policy objectives and implementation;

Added117. Notes that the Commission allocated EUR 8 million in 2024 and EUR 20,9 million in 2025 for calls for proposals for the production of content on Union affairs by consortia of news media organisations, and that three media consortia currently receive Union funding; recalls that a free, independent and pluralistic press is a cornerstone of democratic accountability; considers that Union support for media can contribute to strengthening media pluralism and informed public debate across the Union, provided that strict safeguards are in place to ensure full editorial independence and transparency; underlines the importance of transparency regarding all financial support, including grants, contracts and indirect funding provided to media organisations, and that such information should be easily accessible and clearly presented;

Added118. Regrets that the Commission had not performed interim evaluations of the flagship programmes Erasmus+, European Solidarity Corps, and Creative Europe before the legally defined deadline; stresses that evaluations should inform decision-making for the current programming period, as well as for the future one;

Change 78 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(ii) further strengthen guidance, coordination and monitoring in order to ensure greater legal certainty and more effective reuse of reflows across Member States;

Added(iii) work closely with Member States, in particular those facing structural or capacity constraints, to provide technical assistance, administrative simplification and sufficient flexibility in implementation in order to ensure the full and effective absorption of cohesion funds;

Change 79 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(iii)(v) link recommendations from the Rule of Law Report to the implementation of concrete measures by the Member State concerned to have a stronger impact and at best contribute to protecting the Union’s financial interests, and refers in this regard to the recommendations made in Parliament’s resolution of 18 June 2025 on the Commission’s 2024 Rule of Law Report;

Change 80 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(viii) exercise its right of initiative and propose measures to close any existing loopholes in the Union's legislative framework that could enable governments to transfer funds suspended in accordance with the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation or on account of non-fulfilment of horizontal enabling conditions, and ensure that any future funding instruments contain adequate safeguards against circumvention;

Change 81 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(x) carry out an ex-post evaluation of the financial impact of cohesion policy amendments on eastern border regions, notably the ERDF funds initially earmarked for cross-border cooperation with Russia and Belarus as well as funds reallocated in the context of the 2025 cohesion mid-term review, covering the extent to which Union funds originally intended for regions sharing a border with Russia and/or Belarus have ultimately remained in them or conversely been directed elsewhere, share its evaluation with the discharge authority, and urgently propose targeted financial support for these regions to counter the disproportionate impact of Russia's war of aggression, including remedying losses suffered as a result of the amendments during the current programming period;

Added(xi) reconsider the single audit approach until the weaknesses identified in the managing and audit authorities in Member States have been tackled;

Added(xii) ensure operating grants are provided under the EU4Health programme;

Change 82 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed100.123. WelcomesNotes that at the end of 2024, payments from EAFRD 2021-20272023-2027 amounted to EUR 6,3 billion (in 2023: EUR 700 million), representing an absorption rate of 9,5 % (compared to 1 % in 2023); alsostresses welcomesthat delayed payments undermine farmers’ income stability; notes the 32 % absorption rate of the Just Transition Fund; notes with concern the low absorption rate of European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), which reached only 3 % by the end of 2024,2024;

Change 83 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed103.126. Expresses its concern that in case of 13 quantifiable errors, the Court considers that the Member State authorities and the Commission had sufficient information to prevent, or to detect and correct the error before accepting the expenditure and that, had the Member State authorities made proper use of all the information at their disposal, the estimated level of error for this heading would have been 2,2 percentage points lower;

Change 84 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added127. Draws attention to the need for simplification, further development and promotion of digital tools, and stronger controls to reduce the level of ineligible expenditure; stresses the importance of reducing administrative burdens on farmers to strengthen sound financial management;

Change 85 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed105.129. Recalls that under the performance-based model of CAP 2023-2027, Member States set the rules to be complied with by final beneficiaries in accordance with the general framework of the Union, while the Commission focuses on performance results and the functioning of the systems that Member States put in place to ensure the respect of those conditions and no longer on the individual transactions; further recalls that accordingly for CAP 2023-2027, Member States are obliged to report to the Commission on output and result indicators related to policy performance, and not on control statistics; notes the Court's observation in its special report 07/2024 ‘The Commission’s systems for recovering irregular EU expenditure’ that recoveries concerning agricultural expenditure have been relatively successful, attributed in part to the so-called 50/50 rule that incentivised Member States to recover funds; notes that this rule has not been retained in the 2023-2027 CAP and the Court's warning that this might lead to a deterioration of the rate of recovery for agricultural expenditure;

Change 86 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed111.135. Recalls that CAP 2023-2027 is builtstructured around ten key objectives, including ensuring a viable, fair and stable income for farmers;farmers, safeguarding food security and strengthening the resilience of the agricultural sector; considers that direct income support under CAP should be providedbetter onlytargeted to active farmers whoseactively mainengaged activityin isagricultural agriculture,production, while preserving legal certainty and avoiding excessive administrative constraints, with a specific focus on supporting those most in need, such as family-sized andfarms, small farms, farms located in areas withfacing natural constraints or other specific challenges, young farmers and female farmers; considerscalls thaton the Commission should take measures to increaseimprove the effectivenessefficiency and targeting of Union agricultural funds and ensure that only active farmers receive direct income support, while at the same time ensuring proportionality and notmaintaining landowners;robust controls;

Change 87 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed112. Is concerned by the allegations of large-scale fraud affecting Union agricultural funds, which were first reported in the media in February 2025, concerning the Greek Payment and Control Agency for Guidance and Guarantee Community Aids (OPEKEPE); recalls that EPPO published a press release in May 2025 confirming that they were conducting an investigation into an alleged organised fraud scheme involving agricultural funds and corruption involving public officials of OPEKEPE; recalls that EPPO has, according to press reports, handed over information to the Greek Parliament with a view to investigating two former ministers; notes that the OPEKEPE scandal has led to the resignation of several ministers and deputy ministers over their alleged involvement in the scandal; notes with concern EPPO’s press release of 22 October 2025 that explains that in the course of EPPO’s preliminary investigation, an organised criminal group, allegedly involved in a systematic large-scale subsidy fraud scheme and money-laundering activities, has been identified;

Added136. Notes the Court’s 2025 conclusions on Union funding for forest-fire-related action: while Member States increasingly used Union funds for prevention, the Commission had an incomplete overview of total forest-fire spending and monitoring of results was weak, an issue with clear agricultural and rural implications; calls on the Commission to improve aggregation of forest-fire related spending and to strengthen monitoring of outcomes and long-term sustainability of preventive measures;

Removed113. Acknowledges that DG AGRI issued in its AAR 2024 four reservations related to expenditure managed by OPEKEPE; notes that one such reservation covers all the IACS interventions under the CAP Strategic Plans, as DG AGRI’s conformity audit and the work of the certification body revealed a number of potential serious deficiencies in relation to the implementation of the identification system for agricultural parcels, as well as in the design and functioning of the management and control system; notes another reservation was issued concerning non-IACS expenditure under the CAP Strategic Plans covering the wine sector and apiculture due to potential serious deficiencies in relation to the design or set-up of the systems not covering the principles of economy, efficiency and measures to avoid double funding; notes that the third reservation for OPEKEPE concerns 2014-2022 rural development programmes, for which the adjusted error rate is estimated to be 7,45 %, due to DG AGRI’s audits in 2023 and 2024 that identified several weaknesses related to land parcel identification system, weaknesses in the OPEKEPE’s on-the-spot checks, serious deficiencies with regard to the supervision and checks of the local action groups, procedures to verify the potential creation of artificial conditions, checks on double financing and public procurement and deficiencies in the evaluation of the reasonableness of costs and verification of SME status; notes the fourth reservation concerning market measures outside of CAP Strategic Plans was issued covering fruit and vegetable producer organisations and exceptional measures, for which an adjusted error rate of 10 % is estimated following DG AGRI’s audit in 2024 that identified deficiencies in administrative and on-the-spot checks impacting exceptional measures and due to fact that, based on the Certification Body’s assessment, adjustments were made to the error rates for fruit and vegetable producer organisations and promotion;

Added137. Stresses that in the context of growing natural-disaster risks the Commission and Member States must ensure that Union-funded prevention measures are well-targeted, based on up-to-date risk assessments, and sustained beyond one-off project cycles so that investments deliver lasting benefits for agriculture and rural communities;

Removed114. Acknowledges the Commission’s written replies that in 2023 and again in June 2024, DG AGRI requested that the Greek competent authority places OPEKEPE’s accreditation under probation; notes the explanation in DG AGRI’s AAR that deficiencies affecting several accreditation criteria were identified by the Certification Body and by DG AGRI, and as a result, Greek authorities put the accreditation of OPEKEPE under probation in September 2024 and drew up an accreditation action plan; further notes that the Commission is following the progress of the implementation of this remedial action plan; insists that the Commission share the latest revised action plan and its assessment with the discharge authority;

Added138. Is concerned by the allegations of large-scale fraud affecting Union agricultural funds, which were first reported in the media in February 2025, concerning the Greek Payment and Control Agency for Guidance and Guarantee Community Aids (OPEKEPE); recalls that EPPO published a press release in May 2025 confirming that they were conducting an investigation into an alleged organised fraud scheme involving agricultural funds and corruption involving public officials of OPEKEPE; recalls that EPPO has, according to press reports, handed over information to the Greek Parliament with a view to investigating two ministers who later stepped down; notes with concern EPPO’s press release of 22 October 2025 that explains that in the course of EPPO’s preliminary investigation, an organised criminal group, allegedly involved in a systematic large-scale subsidy fraud scheme and money-laundering activities, has been identified; acknowledges the measures taken by Greek authorities without delay, including inter alia the decision to establish a special investigative task force, comprising the Financial Police and the Independent Authority for Public Revenue; underlines, in this context, that the assets of several individuals suspected of involvement in the alleged criminal activities have been seized;

Change 88 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed117.143. Recalls that thea currentformer Prime Minister of Czechia was found to behave been in a situation of conflict of interest during his previous mandateterm in office and the related the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2018; notes the Commission’s written replies concerning the measures taken in response to the conflict of interest due toarising Andrejfrom Babiš'shis ownership of Agrofert while servinga asprivate Primeholding Ministercompany ofwhile Czechia;holding inpublic particularoffice notesand that the Commission suspended in March 2020 the payment of one Agrofert project worth EUR 30 606,96; notes that in June 2022, the Commission applied a financial correction of EUR 3,3 million to Czechia, part of which (EUR 30 606,96) concerned the situation of conflict of interest of the Prime Minister during his mandate that ended in 2021; insists that the Commission should continue to monitor possible conflicts of interestsinterest that might affect Union funds, especially in relation to elected officials, and take action to protect the Union budget;

Change 89 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed118.144. Notes that Andrej Babišfollowing hasnational beenelections, re-electeda andnew assumedgovernment thetook office of Prime Minister ofin Czechia in December 2025; takes note of his public announcementstatements thatby hethe intendsPrime Minister, indicating an intention to relinquish ownership and control of Agrofertbusiness interests potentially benefiting from Union funds through the creation of an allegedly irreversible trust arrangement; notes, however, that as of mid-January 2026, no concretepublicly available legal documentation has so far been madeprovided public,to thatdemonstrate the trust structure has noteffective yetestablishment beenand establishedoperational assafeguards of 15 January 2026, that its jurisdiction,such governancearrangements and trustees remainthat unknownthe andPrime thatMinister Mrof BabišCzechia continues, at present, to own Agrofert and other business interests which could potentially benefit from Union funds; notes,stresses further,that that,the evenmere underannouncement theof arrangementfuture asarrangements described,is Agrofertinsufficient wouldto ultimatelydispel beconcerns transferredof toconflict hisof children,interest; therebyinsists maintainingthat aany clearfuture long-termarrangements must ensure the effective removal of economic interests and influence, in line with Union rules on conflict of interest; stresseswelcomes recent media reports that the mereCommission announcementhas offormally futurerequested arrangementsdetailed isinformation insufficientfrom the Czech authorities on the measures put in place to dispelprevent concernspotential conflicts of conflictinterest ofin interest;relation to companies owned or controlled by the Prime Minister, and has sought assurances that no further Union funds are directed to Agrofert until the situation is fully clarified;

Change 90 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed121.147. Notes that applying its climate and biodiversity tracking methodologies, the Commission calculates that the Union is on track to meet its 30 % climate spending target for 2021-2027 and its biodiversity spending ambition of 7,5 % for 2024;2025; regrets that it is not on track to meet its biodiversity spending ambition of 10 % for 2026 and 2027; notes, furthermore, that there is an average annual financing gap of EUR 21,4 billion to achieve Union biodiversity goals; underlines that increased budgetary allocations must be accompanied by improved effectiveness, better monitoring of biodiversity outcomes, while making sure that these changes to do not create disproportionate administrative burdens for farmers and local authorities;

Change 91 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed122.148. Is concerned that in several audits, the Court found that Union funds’ contribution to climate objectives was unclear and potentially overestimated due to weaknesses in the Commission tracking methodologies; recalls that in its special report 09/2022 on climate spending in the 2014-2020 Union budget, the Court found that the climate contribution of the Union budget had been overstated by EUR 72 billion under the 2014-2020 MFF, as reported spending was not always relevant to climate action, particularlyincluding under the CAP; is aware that in response to above special report the Commission commissioned a study with a view to establishing a more scientific approach to quantify the CAP climate contribution and considers that the study should be made public; looks forward to receiving the Court’s assessment of the Commission’s follow-up of its recommendations made in special report 09/2022 in 2026;

Change 92 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed123.149. Notes the Commission’s written reply that from 2021 to 2023, agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the Union decreased by 3 %, while those for energy supply and industry decreased by 16 %; considers all policy areas and activities must contribute fairly to reducing emissions; notes the Court’s Special Report 20/2024 on Common Agriculture Policy Plans and the Commission’s reply,reply; in particularparticular, thatnotes the Court’s overall conclusionassessment that the CAP Strategic Plans 2023-2027 arerepresent ‘greener’an thanimprovement incompared to the previous CAPprogramming period, but do notincluding matchwith theregard Union’sto ambitionsclimate forand theenvironment climateconsiderations, andthough the environment,monitoring and that key elementsperformance forframework assessingcould performancebe arefurther missing;strengthened; welcomes that the Court also recommends the Commission to estimate the CAP’s contribution to the Green Deal targets and strengthen the future CAP monitoring framework forwith a view to improving its contribution to the Union's climate and environmental objectives; considers that improvements to the environment;monitoring and performance framework should not result in additional administrative burden for farmers or managing authorities;

Change 93 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed124.150. Notes the Court’s special report 14/2024 ‘Green transition – Unclear contribution from the Recovery and Resilience Facility’ and the Commission’s reply; istakes disappointednotes byof Court’s overall conclusionfindings thathighlighting weaknesses and limitations in the design and implementation of the RRF call intoas questionregards the achievementmeasurement of its climate and environmental objectives and that the RRF’s contribution to the green transition isclimate notand clear;environmental isobjectives; concernednotes that the Court found that tracking climate expenditure involves a high level of approximation and some coefficients were leading to potential overestimations; welcomes that the Court also recommends that the Commission tofurther betterrefine estimatemethodologies for estimating climate spending underin future funding instruments and ensureto adequateincorporate the lessons in the design of future funding instruments that are to supportsupporting the climate and environmental objectives and targets;

Change 94 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed127.153. Recalls that EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a key component of the European Green Deal and one of the main instruments for achieving the Union’s climate ambition; welcomes that according to the Directorate-General for Climate Action’s (DG CLIMA) 2024 AAR, the EU ETS generated EUR 43,6 billion of revenue for climate-action investments in the previous year, out of which EUR 7,4 billion was supplied to the ETS Innovation Fund and the Modernisation Fund and EUR 2,8 billion was supplied to the RRF, which Member States use to advance the clean energy transition and boost energy security; notes the finding of 2024 IAS audit on the implementation and monitoring of the EU ETS that despite the heavy workload, complex legal framework and scarce resources they operate with, the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DGDG CLIMA)CLIMA staff showed commitment to perform their tasks and willingness to improve the efficiency of the EU ETS related processes; appreciates the Commission’s written confirmation that DG CLIMA intends to address most internal audit recommendations by 2025 and all by mid-2028;

Change 95 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed131.157. Recognises the importance of the LIFE programme, the Union’s only standalone programme for the environment and climate action, toin fundingsupporting nature conservation, circular economy,economy initiatives, climate action and the clean energy transition projectstransition, and more broadly,broadly toin promoting sustainable development across the Union; recalls that the provisions of the LIFE+LIFE Regulation, including Article 11(6), which indicatesprovide that providing operating grants tomay support the functioning of non-profit making entities which are involvedactive in the development, implementation and enforcement of Union legislation and policy,policy; andstresses, whichhowever, arethat primarilysuch activeoperating grants must be implemented in thestrict areacompliance ofwith Union legal, financial and transparency requirements; stresses, furthermore, the environmentimportance orof climateclear action,safeguards includingto energyensure transition,that isUnion anfunds eligibleare actionused exclusively for LIFEthe funding;objectives defined in the programme; notes that operating grants allocated to NGOs under the LIFE Programme represent onlyapproximately 1 % of the programme’s total budget; calls on the Commission to ensure robust monitoring, full accountability and transparency in the use of the Union funds, including advocacy activities;

Change 96 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed132. Regrets the allegations of undue lobbying made against non-governmental organisations whose activities were supported by LIFE operating grants; notes that the reply of the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition to CONT on 2 December 2025 in the discharge hearing confirms that the activities by non-governmental organisations supported by LIFE operating grants did not breach any legal framework and that the implementation of LIFE programme fully respected the Financial Regulation;

Added158. Takes note of concerns raised by certain MEPs regarding the use of LIFE operating and action grants by certain beneficiaries, such as civil society organisations and companies; stresses the importance of full transparency with regard to both beneficiaries and the activities financed, continued monitoring and, where necessary, further clarification of the safeguards in place to ensure that Union funds are used exclusively for the objectives defined in the programme;

Change 97 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed133.159. Notes that a review of a number of funding contracts between the Commission and economic operators, requested inunder the framework of this discharge procedure,procedure showsindicates that activities aimedrelated atto influencing public policy or decision-making are not limited to NGOs but also appear inmay contractsoccur withacross otherdifferent categories of beneficiaries;beneficiaries, including NGOs; expresses its concern that, in some cases, companies receiving Union funding for such activities may simultaneously have EUUnion decision-makers sitting on their boards and receiving remuneration; furtherstresses notesthat safeguards must ensure that theany IASpotential performedconflicts aof targetedinterest engagementare focussedprevented exclusivelyand onthat NGOUnion fundingfunds underare managed transparently, independently of the LIFEtype programmeof beneficiary; highlights the need to verifyensure consistent oversight and verification across all beneficiaries to guarantee compliance with the guidanceCommission’s on2024 fundingguidance foron activities related tosupporting the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policypolicy; butencourages, didtherefore, notthe verifycreation complianceof witha thatstandardised guidancereview process for applications to operating grants including having at least two members of agreementsthe signedCommission withor otheragency beneficiaries;staff reading and reviewing application proposals and the creation of a standardised set of rules in the selection of external experts for the evaluation board of operating grants;

Change 98 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(iv) keep the discharge authority informed about the recovery rates of agricultural expenditure under the 2023-2027 CAP, and consider the introduction of new incentives for Member States to recover funds;

Added(v) together with Member States, accelerate disbursements of the EAFRD and mobilise measures to increase absorption where delays persist, ensuring balanced support across all regions;

Added(vi) support Member States in targeting funds to high-value preventive measures (e.g. landscape management, maintenance of agricultural firebreaks, restoration of degraded soils, purchase and supply of veterinary vaccines) and promote the dissemination of best practices and effective agriculture projects across Member States;

Change 99 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(viii)(xi) monitor possible conflicts of interests affecting Union funds, and ensure that conflicts of interests are actually resolved, including for Members of the European Council and ensure, in particular, that no Union funds are paid, directly or indirectly, to Agrofert or any otherbeneficiaries businesswhere interestsconflict of Andrej Babiš as longinterest ashas thebeen identified conflict of interestand has not been demonstrably and verifiably resolved;

Change 100 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(xii) share the letter addressed to the Czech authorities to clarify the conflict of interest situation of the Prime Minister with the discharge authority and keep it fully informed of any follow-up steps, including the possible launch of an audit procedure;

Change 101 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(x)(xiv) draw lessons learnt from the OPEKEPE case, strengthen the control system of the EUUnion agricultural funds, reinforce the Commission’s control activities accordingly and report back to the discharge authority on the measures taken;

Change 102 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(xi)(xv) improve its methodology used to track Union spending on climate and biodiversity-related activities of 2021-2027 MFF, including by addressing the relevant recommendations made in the Court’s special reports andas alsowell trackingas improving the monitoring and reporting of actual results of investments and negative effects of Union spending on the environment and biodiversity objectives;

Change 103 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed(xii) develop and implement a comprehensive green budgeting methodology in the next MFF by integrating climate, biodiversity and environmental considerations into all steps of the budget cycle;

Added(xvi) ensure that climate and environmental considerations are taken into account in the next MFF;

Removed(xiii) continue to verify that funding agreements with all types of beneficiaries comply with the Commission guidance of May 2024 on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy;

Added(xvii) propose a dedicated, detailed plan to ensure that the biodiversity spending target set for the years 2026 and 2027 is met, foster financial tools to close the financing gap and fully implement environmental legislation and mainstreaming biodiversity action into key sectors in order to reach policy targets, including with the view of providing financing for the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation;

Removed(xiv) ensure strict compliance with Article 61 of the Financial Regulation by effectively preventing, identifying and managing conflicts of interest when concluding grant agreements in particular with beneficiaries that employ or remunerate EU decision-makers;

Added(xviii) continue to verify that funding agreements with all types of beneficiaries comply with the Commission guidance of May 2024 on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy;

Change 104 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed143. Notes the 2024 adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum in 2024 and the allocation of an additional EUR 2 billion to MFF heading 4 for 2024-2027 in the context of the mid-term revision of the MFF 2021-2027, also with a view to enabling the full implementation of the new rules of the Pact; appreciates the Commission’s written replies that confirm that it has made available additional EUR 3 billion under the AMIF and BMVI for the years 2025–2027 to, inter alia, support Member States hosting persons fleeing the war in Ukraine;

Added169. Expresses its concern that detailed and comprehensive data on Union home affairs spending, especially under shared management by Member States, is difficult to obtain, impeding sound oversight by the budgetary and discharge authority; calls for increased transparency in this regard;

Removed144. Stresses that managing the Union’s external borders is a pillar of the Pact on Migration and Asylum; maintains that the Union needs to better protect vulnerable people from smuggling and trafficking networks; notes that following the adoption of the Commission Communication of 11 December 2024, the Commission has allocated approximately EUR 520 million to Union Member States bordering Russia and Belarus through the BMVI;

Added170. Welcomes the adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum in 2024 and recalls that its implementation is a corner stone for the new system of migration and asylum management in the EU, which will be in application mid-2026 in all Member States; welcomes, further, the allocation of an additional EUR 2 billion to MFF heading 4 for 2024-2027 in the context of the mid-term revision of the MFF 2021-2027, also with a view to enabling the full implementation of the new rules of the Pact and addressing the growing challenges in migration and border management resulting from the current geopolitical context; stresses the importance of ensuring sufficient funding for its effective implementation, including new border procedures, and thus appreciates the Commission’s written replies that confirm that it has made available additional EUR 3 billion under the AMIF and BMVI for the years 2025–2027 to, inter alia, support Member States hosting persons fleeing the war in Ukraine;

Removed145. Recalls that solidarity and fair responsibility-sharing are core principles underpinning the Union’s migration and asylum policy; highlights in this context the role of the AMIF in supporting Member States in reception, asylum procedures, integration measures and resettlement, including for persons fleeing conflicts and humanitarian crises; underlines that the effective implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum requires sufficient, well-managed and timely funding to support solidarity measures across the Union;

Added171. Stresses that managing the Union’s external borders is a pillar of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and an essential precondition for a functioning Schengen area of free movement; recognises that EU-funded projects that support the protection of the external border serve to ease the pressure on internal border protection, as stated by the Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration in his hearing in the Committee on Budgetary Control on 8 December 2025; acknowledges that while the overall number of migrants arriving irregularly in the Union decreased by 38 percent in 2024, patterns shifted across the continent with certain routes seeing significant increases, notably the Eastern Borders route, where a threefold increase in crossings was reported in 2024; observes that the BMVI can support frontline Member States to ensure they have the resources for infrastructure, facilities and installations necessary to secure the external borders of the Union, including electronic border security enhancements and other tools for border surveillance as provided for in annex III of the BMVI regulation;

Change 105 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(iii) continue to monitor and scrutinise the steps required by Member States and Union agencies for the full and timely implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum by 2026, and report to the Parliament on progress towards its implementation;implementation and grant the Parliament access to all relevant documents to facilitate effective democratic oversight of the implementation process;

Change 106 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed(iv) closely monitor Union-funded actions for border management, in particular with a view to ensuring full compliance with the fundamental rights in the Union and the principle of non-refoulement;

Added(iv) provide support to frontline Member States for the purposes of securing the external borders of the EU;

Added(v) increase the transparency and accountability of the programming and implementation of the Union home affairs funds by ensuring detailed and comprehensive data, including as regards funds spent in third countries, while safeguarding the role of Parliament in ensuring democratic scrutiny of Union spending;

Added(vi) enforce transparent and independent human rights monitoring mechanisms of Union home affairs funds in third countries;

Added(vii) closely monitor Union-funded border management actions, in particular to ensure full compliance with Union fundamental rights obligations and the principle of non-refoulement;

Change 107 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed151.180. Notes with concern that, for the reasons explained in the section on migration and border management, the Court cannot provide a separate estimate of the error rate for MFF heading 5 ‘Security and Defence’ and that, based on its audit results, the Court considers expenditure from this heading to be high-risk; notes that the Commissioner for Defence and Space has clarified during his hearing in CONTthe Committee on Budgetary Control on 6 November 2025 that the Court’s Annual Report 2024 does not include any errors found on defence projects; further notes that the Commission estimates that in 2024 the risk at payment was 0,5 % for expenditure on security and defence;

Change 108 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed152.181. Recalls that the highly unstable geopolitical situation in the Union’s neighbourhood is giving rise to greater security and defence challenges, including hybrid threats;threats, stressesand thatthereby Russiato posesgreater ainvestment considerableneeds threatin security, defence and preparedness, since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; draws attention to the fact that MFF heading 5, dedicated to security and defence, is the smallest of all MFF headings and regrets that the Union;Union’s current budget for ensuring the security and defence of its citizens is not equal to the challenges to be met either in the short or the long term; reaffirms its position that Russia represents the primary and most significant threat to the Union and its Member States; recalls that the European Parliament has called on the Union and its Member States to put in place a legal framework enabling Russia to be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism;

Change 109 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed153.182. Recalls that defence capabilities in the Union suffer from decades of under-investment and that, according to the Commission, the defence spending gap for the next decade currently stands at EUR 500 billion; noteswelcomes that due to the urgent need to boost defence capabilities, the number of Union defence funding instruments has increased since Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; notes that Union defence instruments include extra-budgetary ones such as the European Peace Facility (EPF), and the Security Action for Europe (SAFE), a temporary defence loan instrument; stresses, furthermore, that in addition to defence funding programmes, other Union programmes can serve dual-use purposes, notably the Military Mobility component of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the Union Secure Connectivity programme, established in 2023 primarily to provide Union Member States with guaranteed access to highly secure, sovereign and global connectivity services; also notes that after its mid-term review in September 2025, cohesion policy funds can also be used to improve military mobility and develop defence infrastructure, especially in the Eastern border regions;

Change 110 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed154.183. Appreciates the Commission’s written replies that acknowledge that the multitude of defence-related instruments resulted in a fragmented funding landscape, with certain overlaps and gaps; underlines the need for a comprehensive and long-term Union approach to security and defence funding, responding to both conventional military threats and non-conventional threats; stresses the need for further improving the transparency of Union defence funding, including by guaranteeing the Court's audit rights for all instruments and ensuring that the discharge authority can exercise democratic scrutiny of all Union-funded activities; highlights the need for increasing the user-friendliness of information on Union defence funding published, with a view to also benefiting applicants and beneficiaries, especially SMEs; underlines that the participation of SMEs across all Member States should be facilitated and promoted, and their fair and equitable access to Union-funded projects ensured; encourages sustained investment and support for SMEs;

Change 111 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed155.184. Stresses that the rapid increase in Union defence and security expenditure in 2024 requires audit arrangements equivalent in practical effect to those applicable toproportional civilianaudit spending,arrangements, includingallowing effective access for the European Court of Auditors, OLAF and the EPPO to all relevant documentation, even whereincluding projects involve classified orwith dual-use technologies; recalls that the Commission itself acknowledged that access to classified deliverables can be delayed or prevented where Member States are ‘originators’ of classification and thatunderlines correctivethat, measures,where includingaudit suspensionaccess oris terminationlimited for duly justified reasons such as the classified nature of funding,projects, mayappropriate measures and constructive solutions should be necessarypursued whereto auditensure accessfull iscompliance obstructed;with financial oversight requirements and the sound management of Union funds;

Change 112 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed156.185. ReiteratesExpresses itsdeep concern over the Commission’s decision to proceed with the adoption of the ‘Rearm“Rearm EU’EU” initiative without prior consultation of the European Parliament; regrets that such a decision bypasses the principle of institutional balance and undermines Parliament’s role as co-legislator in shaping strategic and budgetary priorities; insists thaturges the Commission shouldto refrain from initiating substantial policy instruments that impact the Union’s financial and strategic architecture without ensuring full respect for the prerogatives of the Parliament;

Change 113 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed157.186. Recalls that the EDF’s general objective is to foster the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB) throughout the Union; notes that, as outlined in the Commission’s written replies, EDF funding amounting to EUR 227,9 million was allocated to 20 projects related to artificial intelligence and further EUR 171,1 million was allocated to 18 projects focused on aerial-drone technologies, while 50 projects focused on what can be classified as traditional defence equipment, relating to ground, air and naval combat, underwater, air missiles defence and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) risk mitigation, were supported with a total of EUR 1,49 billion from the EDF; expresses its concernnotes that since 2021, less than EUR 400 million from EDF was spent on projects related to artificial intelligence and drone technologies, despite the fact that experience from ongoing and recent conflicts clearly demonstrates the rapidly growing rolesuggests ofthat cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and unmanned systems, including drones, can play an increasingly important role in modern warfare; considers that in the funding of technologies those that provide the greatest operational advantage should be prioritised;

Change 114 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed158.187. Notes the Court’s Special Report 04/2025 on EU military mobility and the Commission’s replies; is concerned by the Court’s overall conclusion that the second EU action plan on military mobility, published in November 2022, was not built on sufficiently solid foundations and that progress towards its objective, namely ensuring swift and seamless movement of personnel, materiel and assets at short notice and on a large scale, has been variable due to design weaknesses and obstacles to implementation; notes with concern the Court’s observation that the Commission had not carried out a robust assessment of the overall funding required to make its objectives and targets achievable; regretsnotes the fact, highlighted by the Court, that parliamentary oversight of all Union military mobility activities is not possible,always asfeasible due to the fact that not all projects are funded through the Union budget; notes that the Europeanbudget, Parliamentas lacksis the power to oversee military mobility activitiescase offor the European Defence Agency (EDA), which is an intergovernmental agency,(EDA) or that of PESCO, which is a Member State-driven cooperation framework;PESCO;

Change 115 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed159.188. Expresses its concern that following three calls for proposals organised in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the entirety of the military mobility envelope under the CEF for the current programming period has already been exhausted, while at least EUR 100 billion investment is estimated to be needed for addressing the 500 hotspots identified in the Union as needing urgent upgrading; notes the Commission’s written reply that the 2024 revision of the TEN-T Regulation introduced elements to integrate military mobility into Union transport policy; further notes that the European Commission and the High Representative adopted the Military Mobility Package 2025; reiterates its concernthe aboutimportance theof currentfurther lackstrengthening ofthe responsiveness and efficiency in military mobility,of whichUnion ismilitary hamperedmobility by reducing regulatory and procedural complexitycomplexity, andenhancing lackharmonisation ofand harmonisationstreamlining resultingcoordination into slowreduce coordinationdelays and timeimprove loss;operational readiness;

Change 116 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed160.189. Invites the European Court of Auditors to provide an estimate of the error rate for MFF heading 5;

Change 117 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(i) takecontinue measuresits efforts to improveenhance the transparency of Union spending on defence across all relevant instruments, including by guaranteeingfacilitating the Court'sCourt’s audit rightswork forin allline instrumentswith the applicable legal framework and by ensuring that the discharge authority canis appropriately informed so as to exercise democratic scrutiny of all Union-funded activities, not onlyactivities during negotiation butthe alsoadoption, duringdesign theand implementation phase;phases;

Change 118 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(ii) provide the discharge authority with annualregular consolidated reporting coveringon the budget execution and performance of all defence-related expenditure from the Union budget, off-budget instruments and all other relevant instruments, such as military mobility and security-related programmes, in order to enable democratic scrutiny and avoid fragmentation;scrutiny;

Change 119 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(v) repeats its call to further strengthen Union security and defence measures by substantially increasing the funding available to improve dual-use transport infrastructure corridors and by taking action to eliminate administrative, procedural and regulatory barriers to cross-border military movements, including through the harmonisation of joint and common defence procurement, as referred in the Regulation (EU) 2025/2643 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2025 ("EDIP Regulation"), and related procedures among Member States in order to enhance interoperability, efficiency and strategic coherence, while prioritising Union funding to projects that best respond to the current European threat landscape;

Change 120 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(vi) take further action to ensure a level playing field for all defence industry actors across the Union and simplify access to Union funding, including SMEs and Member States most vulnerable to external threats;

Change 121 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed168.197. Notes that, EUUnion investment in trade-related assistance to the world’s least-developed countries (LDCs) has declined, with only 12,0 % of Aid for Trade (AfT) flows reaching LDCs in 2022 compared to 18,0 % on average between 2010 and 2015; notes with concern that this underperformance persists despite the 25,0 % spending target for LDCs set in the revised 2017 EU Aid for Trade strategy; takes note of the findings of the European Court of Auditors in Special Report 17/2025,17/2025 ‘EU aid for trade to least developed countries’, which concluded that EU Aid for Trade is not on track to meet the 2030 target; welcomes the Commission’s acceptance of the Court’s recommendation to analyse the underlying causes of this decline and notes that this assessment is planned for 2026, stressing the need for timely corrective action to ensure that Union trade assistance reaches those most in need;

Change 122 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed169. Stresses that Union aid must under no circumstances, directly or indirectly, finance terrorism, and therefore must not support any entity linked to Hamas or to any other terrorist or extremist organisation; recalls that, to this end, it is both legitimate and essential to clearly identify all final beneficiaries of Union assistance, also in third countries; emphasises the need for rigorous oversight of the distribution and use of aid to ensure that no funds are misused;

Added198. Notes that budget support reported in 2024 by INTPA and DG NEAR to countries outside of the Union amounted to EUR 1,56 billion; regrets the absence of publicly available data identifying beneficiary countries, as published statistics refer only to regions or country groupings; further regrets the lack of transparency regarding the use of these funds and the identification of final recipients; emphasises that budget support should be aligned with partner countries’ needs and the Union’s strategic policy objectives;

Removed170. Welcomes the Commission’s continued engagement with the Palestinian Authority on curriculum reform and acknowledges the tangible progress reported in 2025, including the ongoing review and amendment of textbooks by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education to ensure alignment with UNESCO standards; notes in particular that the revised Grade 12 textbooks were finalised and made public in early October 2025 and are currently undergoing review by the Union;

Added199. Stresses that Union aid must under no circumstances, directly or indirectly, finance terrorism or any activities incompatible with the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, and therefore must not support any entity linked to Hamas or to any other terrorist or extremist organisation; recalls that, to this end, it is both legitimate and essential to clearly identify all final beneficiaries of Union assistance, also in third countries; emphasises the need for rigorous oversight of the distribution and use of aid to ensure that no funds are misused; further calls on strengthening due diligence, monitoring and control mechanisms in order to prevent any form of ideological infiltration in programmes financed by the Union; underlines that anti-terror safeguards and transparency requirements must be applied rigorously without undermining humanitarian principles and the delivery of life-saving assistance;

Removed171. Notes that, as in previous years, no Union funding in 2024 has been used to support the production of Palestinian textbooks, and that Union assistance under both the 2024 Emergency Support package and the Multiannual Comprehensive Programme for Palestinian Recovery and Resilience (2025-2027) is strictly limited to traceable expenditure items such as salaries, social allowances and arrears to hospitals; notes that this multiannual programme is conditional upon an ambitious Reform Matrix agreed with the Palestinian Authority, which includes a systematic review of learning materials;

Added200. Recalls that education is a central pillar of peacebuilding, coexistence and preparation for a negotiated two-state solution, and a key mean of countering extremism, intolerance and radical ideologies; recalls that Union financial assistance and political engagement should support education that promotes peace, tolerance and coexistence; welcomes the Commission’s continued engagement with the Palestinian Authority on curriculum reform and acknowledges the tangible progress reported in 2025, including the ongoing review and amendment of textbooks by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education to ensure alignment with UNESCO standards; notes in particular that some revisions were made to Grade 12 and more comprehensive revisions to Grades 1-4, and new learning material has been published in December 2024 and October 2025 respectively and is currently undergoing review by the Union; recalls the necessity for the Palestinian Authority to remove all educational materials and content that fail to adhere to UNESCO standards, in particular those containing antisemitism, incitement to violence, glorification of jihad and martyrdom, and the rejection of peaceful conflict resolution; reminds the Commission to base its review on public and verifiable evidence and to publish the result of its reviews;

Change 123 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed178.208. Notes that Ukraine’s anti-corruption specialised bodies (NABU, SAPO and HACC) continue to deliver investigations, prosecutions and judgments in high-level cases, demonstrating that independent anti-corruption institutions are starting to function and that recent resignations of accused ministers show a degree of governmental responsiveness and accountability; regrets, however, that progress remainscommends limited,the thatreforms investigationsundertaken by other law-enforcement bodies have stagnated,Ukraine andin thatthe legislativemidst initiativesof adopteda orfull-fledged tabledinvasion; innotes 2024,that includingthe attempts to place NABU and SAPO under the authority of the Prosecutor General, risked undermining the independence and effectiveness of the anti-corruption framework; welcomes the swift reversal of these amendments following domestic and international pressure, but expresses concern at reports from anti-corruption institutions and civil society of growing pressurehighlighting fromchallenges statein authorities,maintaining reducedthe transparency,effectiveness and attempts to limitindependence liabilityof forthe corruptionanti-corruption offences;framework; calls on the authorities to prevent backsliding, address procedural delays and obstructions in high-level cases, and revise statutes of limitation in line with European standards;

Change 124 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed179.209. Notes with concern the recent fraud allegations in Ukraine’s energy sector, including suspected large-scale misappropriation, procurement manipulation and illicit enrichment involving state-owned energy companies and regulatory bodies;sector; underlines that these allegations, if confirmed, point to structural vulnerabilities in governance, oversight and internal control systems; stresses that suchthe casesneed riskto underminingbuild public trust,trust weakeningto strengthen Ukraine’s reform credibility andthrough jeopardisingrobust EUpublic financialprocurement support;and internal control systems;

Change 125 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed181.211. Underlines that, beyond its oversight role, the Audit Board may issue recommendations to the Ukrainian authorities on addressing financial irregularities or structural shortcomings in the management of Union funds; stresses that Ukraine, represented by the Ministry of Economy, must provide a written response to each recommendation, either outlining implementation measures or providing a justified explanation for non-implementation; highlights that the Audit Board’s findings may carry significant financial consequences,consequences; asunderlines itsthat reports,sustained similarlyUnion tofinancial thosesupport ofmust OLAF,be mayaccompanied constituteby groundssound forfinancial themanagement, Commissiontransparency and performance monitoring in order to reduce,ensure suspendeffective oruse withholdof Union fundingfunds underand maintain the Ukrainecredibility Facility;of the enlargement policy;

Change 126 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed184. Is214. concernedExpresses aboutconcern thethat allocation of EFSD+ under the EFSD+ new flexible ‘Support to Investments’ envelope in favour of benefitingbenefits countries where the Global Gateway investments are easier to implement at the expense of prioritising LDCs and fragile and conflict-affected countries;

Change 127 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed185.215. Notes that despite longstanding Union funding to strengthen Libyan border and migration controlscontrols, reports indicate that such assistance has not prevented the continuation of systemic violations, including forcedcontinues returns,to inhumaneraise detentionserious conditionsoperational and deaths,humanitarian andconcerns mayas havewell madeas theconcerns Unionwith vulnerableregard to reputational damage; underlines that the discovery of mass graves in Libya in 2025 and continued allegations from civilfundamental societyrights and human rightsgovernance, organisationspotentially aboutexposing the treatment of migrants heighten concerns about whether Union funding in this context aligns with fundamental Union values, including respect for humanto rights,reputational andrisks; stresses the need for rigorous monitoring, transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that migration-related assistance does not indirectly contribute to further harm;

Change 128 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed186.216. Notes that, as of 1 February 2025, the European Commission reorganised the former Directorate-General for DG NEAR, dividing its responsibilities between two newly established directorates: the Directorate-General for Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood (DG ENEST), responsible for candidate countries and the Eastern Neighbourhood, and the Directorate-General for the Mediterranean,Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf (DG MENA), which now covers the Mediterranean region;

Change 129 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed187.217. Notes that to audit the regularity of transactions, the Court examined a sample of 85 transactions, representing the full range of spending from the EDFs; notes, furthermore, that this comprised 16 transactions related to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, 54 transactions authorised by 14 EUUnion delegations, 14 transactions approved by Commission headquarters and 1 transaction related to the Bêkou Trust Fund;

Change 130 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added226. Recalls that the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, established to address the root causes of displacement and irregular migration, has mobilised over EUR 5 billion, of which 88 % from the EDF and the Union budget; regrets the lack of transparency in the management and allocation of these funds and the difficulty in verifying compliance with Official Development Assistance principles, as highlighted by the Court’s Special Report 17/2024; calls for the EUTF to sufficiently support the agreed priorities; also notes with concern the findings of the Court’s Special Report 20/2025 on the Commission’s support to fight hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, which identified weaknesses in cost assessment and project planning, including insufficient scrutiny of budgets and cases of unused or inappropriate equipment; stresses that such shortcomings undermine sound financial management and calls on the Commission to strengthen cost analysis, procurement planning and needs-based implementation;

Change 131 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(i) strengthen preventive and corrective controls under heading 6,6 by addressing recurrent weaknesses such as ineligible expenditure, procurement breaches,irregularities, missing supporting documentation and expenditure not actually incurred; calls for reinforced guidance to delegations and implementing partners;

Change 132 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(vii) ensure that no Union assistance to third countries benefits entities that are involved in human rights violations, repression or democratic backsliding, and apply conditionality rigorously, including through suspension of assistance where fundamental Union values are undermined; provide a detailed outline of the safeguards, monitoring mechanisms and corrective measures implemented to uphold the integrity and accountability of Union external assistance;

Change 133 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(viii) continue support UNRWAto andsupport reliable humanitarian partners, coupled with independent oversight by external experts and the Court, to ensure effective control and confidence in the use of Union funds;

Change 134 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed(ix) calls on the President of the Commission, pursuant to Article 17(6) TEU, to withdraw confidence in Commissioner Várhelyi;

Change 135 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(xiv) engage with the EIB to ensure that its lending operations in non-EU countries are aligned with the Union’s external policy objectives and accompanied by effective cooperation frameworks with partner countries;

Added(xv) increase transparency by publishing accessible dashboards tracking high-value external action contracts, performance indicators and the status of the Court’s recommendations;

Added(xvi) reinforce financial due-diligence and procurement safeguards under Global Gateway;

Added(xvii) ensure that implementing partners strictly comply with visibility rules to present transparent information for the public and requests stricter follow-up in cases of repeated non-compliance;

Change 136 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed198.229. Continues to be critical of the process whereby the Commission in 2023 decided to sell 23 of its office buildings in Brussels and lease 17 of them back for a period until 2029; notes that apparently the decision to do this was taken without clear impact assessments of all transactions; finds it especially worrying that the Commission only received one bid for the transaction from a Belgian state-owned company, which had submitted an indicative offer before the Commission launched the call for applications and that the offer did not fulfil the requirements in the call for tenders concerning the time period for the validity of a bank guarantee; expresses its deep concern that the Commission’s evaluation committee lacked independence since all members were subordinates of the authorising officer; notes with concern in this context the recent evidence-collecting activities carried out by the EPPO in relation to this transaction, which further reinforce serious doubts regarding the handling and governance of the sale;

Change 137 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed199.230. Notes that the Commission reports that 54 requests for article 24 assistance under the Staff Regulation were submitted in the period 2021-2024 and that only 8 have been followed up on with the opening of an administrative inquiry; finds that this number is worryingly low, as it means that 85 % of the requests have been dismissed without any follow-up; welcomes that the office of the Chief Confidential Counsellor has been strengthened, taking into account that around 300 Commission staff asked her for help in harassment related cases within one single year; further notes that 14 complaints were submitted directly to the Investigation and Discipline Office of the Commission (IDOC), where four cases were closed as non-cases after assessment, two cases were closed without follow-up after administrative inquiry; pre-disciplinary proceedings led to one warning, one written warning, and three reprimands, one case is still in pre-disciplinary phase and two cases are currently with the Disciplinary Board, while two case were reported directly to OLAF both of which were dismissed on grounds of insufficient suspicion; stresses that these numbers seems to be very low for an organisation with more than 30.000 employees and encourages the Commission to improve the possibilities for employees to come forward with cases of harassment in a safe environment; regrets that the Commission has not come up with a self standing report analysing the reasons for the apparent dysfunctionality of the formal harassment procedure as requested in the context of the 2023 discharge exercise;

Change 138 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed202.233. Underlines that transparency in the administration and access to information and documents are key elements in ensuringof asound, justaccountable, and democratically sounddemocratic society;governance; in that regard regrets that there have been numerous examples over the last years where the Commission has not lived up to reasonable transparency standardsstandards; astakes alsonote evidencedof byEuropean theCourt lostof courtJustice case concerningT-36/23, textStevi messagesand betweenThe theNew CommissionYork PresidentTimes v Commission; considers that informal exchanges must not replace official communication and thethat CEOany information related to decision-making or workflow must be transmitted through official channels in full respect of Pfizer;transparency requirements; stresses that it is important for the credibility of the Commission that it ensures a strict and trustworthy implementation of the new guidelines concerning the use of text messages in relation to workflowsworkflows; andrecalls that at least twounder qualifiedRegulation persons(EC) checkNo whether1049/2001 text messages exchanged in relation to work conveysent importantor informationreceived beforeby theyUnion areofficials deleted,will inonly particularbe thosequalified textas messagesdocuments exchangedif bythey Commissionersconcern andUnion thepolicy Commissionor President;decisions;

Change 139 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Removed203. Stresses that access to documents is a key principle to ensure transparency in public administration; points out that unfortunately the Commission in many situations has not provided answers within stipulated deadlines especially concerning cases under the confirmatory applications where the European Ombudsman has found systemic and significant delays in the Commission administration; highlights that it is essential for the credibility of the Commission that journalists and the general public can have access to documents within the legally applicable deadlines;

Added234. Notes with concern that in 2024 the Commission revised its internal rules on public access to documents; considers that these changes are incompatible with the right of access to documents as developed in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; stresses that, for example, the rules state that only “content that constitutes important information that is not short-lived shall be registered” and require the automatic disappearance of text messages; notes that the legality of these rules is currently being challenged before the European Court of Justice;

Removed204. Recalls that the European Ombudsman has found cases of maladministration in relation to several legislative proposals that the Commission has presented in 2025; notes with great concern that these cases include the Omnibus I package where the consultation time between Commission departments had been reduced to less than 24 hours over a weekend and where there were no clear internal records of a climate consistency assessment being carried out; stresses the importance of adhering to the rules about better law-making; underlines that the European Union will not win any global competitive race by destroying some of the very foundations the Union is built on including principles on how to ensure robust, durable and legally sound legislation that ensures a stable regulatory business environment for the private sector to operate in;

Added235. Stresses that access to documents is a key principle to ensure transparency in public administration; points out that unfortunately the Commission in many situations has not provided answers within stipulated deadlines especially concerning cases under the confirmatory applications where the European Ombudsman has found systemic and significant delays in the Commission administration; highlights that it is essential for the credibility of the Commission that journalists and the general public can have access to documents within the legally applicable deadlines; stresses, furthermore, that transparency requires not only timely access but also that the documents themselves are drafted in clear, comprehensible language, as overly technocratic communication might hinder citizens’ meaningful access to information even when documents are available;

Removed205. Deplores the technical, organisational and procedural shortcomings of the functioning of EPSO over the last years which have led to serious reputational damage to the general Union recruiting process and have had severe negative consequences for many candidates who have invested time and resources in trying to participate in selection procedures that have been cancelled, delayed or have had serious technical shortcomings;

Added236. Recalls that the European Ombudsman has found cases of maladministration in relation to several legislative proposals that the Commission presented in 2025; notes with great concern that these cases include the Omnibus I package; stresses the importance of adhering to the rules regarding better law-making; underlines the importance of robust, durable and legally sound legislation that ensures a stable and predictable regulatory environment, also with a view to strengthening the Single Market and boosting the Union’s global competitiveness;

Change 140 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed210.245. Underlines that when oral questions cannot be answered by the responsible Commissioner directly during a discharge hearing in Parliament, follow-up answers in writing should be provided to Parliament within the agreed timeframe; recalls that the provision of timely and substantive replies constitutes a core component of effective parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability;

Change 141 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed212.247. Calls on the CommissionCommission, in particularparticular, to:

Change 142 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(iii) provide the discharge authority with all relevant information and documentation concerning the 2023 sale of 23 of its buildings, including a detailed account of all procedural steps taken such as the valuation methodology used and the assessment of competing bids, in full transparency and in due respect of the ongoing EPPO investigation;

Change 143 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Changed(vi) guarantee strict and trustworthy implementation(vii) ofimplement the new guidelines concerning the use of text messages in relation to workflows, in particular in relationorder to Commissionersensure andthat theany Commissioninformation President,related soto asdecision-making, toor avoidworkflow futureis justifiedtransmitted critiquethrough ofofficial thechannels, Commission’sin handlingfull respect of suchtransparency texts;requirements;

Change 144 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(viii) revise the 2024 changes to the Commission’s Detailed Rules of application of Regulation 1049/2001 and amend its Rules of Procedure to ensure full compliance with Regulation 1049/2001;

Change 145 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(x) ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from the requirements set out in the rules and establish, where derogations are granted, a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process;

Added(xi) ensure that the principles of independence and integrity, as set out in the Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, are upheld in observance of the highest standard of ethical conduct;

Change 146 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(xiii) in cooperation with EPSO and the other Union institutions, ensure the full and timely implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations concerning EPSO and restore confidence in the fairness, accessibility and reliability of EPSO selection procedures, and report on the progress to the discharge authority;

Change 147 under “CHAPTER I - Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)”

Added(xv) adopt measurable plain language standards for all of its public communications and develop an action plan to improve the accessibility of its publications, including press releases, programme documents, annual reports and annual activity reports, to citizens in all of the official languages of the Union, and report on its implementation to the discharge authority;

Added(xvi) liaise with the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) to ensure that it provides coverage for a broader range of illnesses, including further autoimmune diseases, and to reimburse a wider range of testing and treatments;

Added(xvii) evaluate, and if necessary, suspend the 2021 Agreement on Air Transport between the European Union and its Member States and the State of Qatar;

Added(xviii) follow up the Ombudsman’s findings and urgently investigate the exchanges between DG TRADE staff and tobacco industry representatives, and report its findings to the discharge authority;

Change 148 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed216.251. Notes that, under the CourtRRF, alsopayments identifiedby fourthe casesCommission ofto vaguelyMember definedStates are conditional on the satisfactory fulfilment of agreed milestones orand targets, whichrather hadthan alsoon beenthe acknowledgedverification of compliance of individual expenditures with Union and documentednational byrules, thewhich Commissionmakes init itschallenging preliminaryto assessment;assess notescompliance thatwith whenthe M&Tsapplicable arelegal definedrequirements; inalso vaguenotes terms,that the RRF Regulation does not specify criteria for assessinginterpreting theirthe fulfilmentterm inevitably“satisfactory” becomein vaguerelation asto well,the underminingfulfilment theof robustnessmilestones and claritytargets, ofand that, in the case of qualitative criteria, this assessment process;depends noteson themultiple Commissionjudgments, acknowledgesleading thatto invarious somepossible casesinterpretations M&Tsas setto bywhether themilestones Councilor Implementingtargets Decisionshave couldbeen satisfactorily met; further notes that cases of vaguely defined milestones or targets, which have been draftedidentified, moreresult clearly;in the criteria for assessing their fulfilment remaining unclear;

Change 149 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Removed217. Recalls that the RRF super milestones for Poland mandated specific reforms in the field of justice including first, the dismantling of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and its replacement by an independent Chamber of the Supreme Court, and second, that all judges affected by the rulings of the Disciplinary Chamber had the right to have their case reviewed by the new Chamber within a clear timeframe; notes that, in an attempt to achieve compliance with that super milestone, the PiS Government abolished the Disciplinary Chamber and created a new Chamber of Professional Responsibility in June 2022, and highlights that no Union funds were disbursed as this represented a cosmetic change; notes that, after Donald Tusk’s cabinet came to power in 2023, however, the Commission used those same reforms passed by the PiS Government over one year earlier to declare that the super milestones had been fulfilled; highlights that this sequence raises serious doubt as to whether Poland’s judicial-independence milestones is fully and durably met, and that the release of RRF funds may have been premature, given that core elements of the super milestones remain unfulfilled; highlights that also the Court found serious weaknesses in the appointment of judges in Poland but, due to the ongoing Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case C-517/24 regarding a request for preliminary ruling directly related to this matter, the Court decided, in its 2024 annual reports, to refrain from concluding on the satisfactory fulfilment of these two milestones; underlines that the outcome of case C-517/24 will be decisive for assessing the regularity of the RRF payments concerned;

Added252. Notes the Court also identified four cases of vaguely defined milestones or targets, which had also been acknowledged and documented by the Commission in its preliminary assessment; notes that when milestones and targets are defined in vague terms, the criteria for assessing their fulfilment inevitably become vague as well, undermining the robustness and clarity of the assessment process; notes the Commission acknowledges that in some cases milestones and targets set by the Council Implementing Decisions could have been drafted more clearly;

Removed218. Notes with particular concern that the Court has found that projects relating to one milestone and three targets in two payments had begun before the eligibility period; notes that the Regulation stipulates that only measures which started from 1 February 2020 onwards may be financed under the RRF, but does not further define what constitutes the ‘start’ of a measure; notes that, in October 2024, the Commission issued guidance interpreting the ‘start’ of a measure as the beginning of its implementation on the ground, when costs materialise; recalls, however, the Court’s view that the start of a measure should be considered the date of the first legal commitment (e.g. a contract, purchase order, or financing decision), as this constitutes the start of the first activity related to the measure; does not share the Commission’s interpretation that the eligibility period concerns only the date of start of works on a specific project rather than the beginning of the preparatory or projection phase;

Added253. Recalls that the RRF super milestones for Poland mandated specific reforms in the field of justice including firstly, the dismantling of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and its replacement by an independent Chamber of the Supreme Court, and secondly, that all judges affected by the rulings of the Disciplinary Chamber had the right to have their case reviewed by the new Chamber within a clear timeframe; is concerned by the continued refusal of the Polish president to sign into law the reforms proposed in 2025 by the Polish Government and adopted by the Polish Parliament concerning the rule of law which aim to implement the recommendations of the European Commission regarding the fulfilment of the judicial milestones under the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP); stresses that the fulfilment of judicial-independence milestones, in line with Union law, including the case-law of the European Court of Justice, is essential to ensure legal certainty and protect the Union budget;

Added254. Notes that the Court has found that projects relating to one milestone and three targets in two payments had begun before the eligibility period; notes that the Regulation stipulates that only measures which started from 1 February 2020 onwards may be financed under the RRF, but does not further define what constitutes the ‘start’ of a measure; notes that, in January 2021, the Commission issued guidance interpreting the ‘start’ of a measure as the beginning of its implementation on the ground, when costs materialise; acknowledges that the Court considers the start of a measure to be the date of the first legal commitment (e.g. contract, purchase order, or financing decision), which constitutes the start of the first activity related to the measure, while the Commission considers the start as the beginning of implementation on the ground when costs materialise; recognises the existence of different interpretations of what constitutes the ‘start’ of a measure under the RRF;

Change 150 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed221.257. Notes that by the end of 2024, payments under the RRF amounted to EUR 197,5 billion out of EUR 358,9 billion in committed grants, leaving up to EUR 161,4 billion still to be disbursed by the end of 2026; notes that this substantial volume of outstanding payments, concentrated in the final two years of the instrument, increases the risk of implementation bottlenecks and further delays, particularly in Member States facing structural capacity constraints; stresses that the timely absorption of the remaining RRF grants will depend on the quality and maturity of reforms and investments, the stability of national governance systems, the availability of administrative capacity and technical support, and the Commission’s ability to process a high volume of payment requests efficiently within a compressed timeframe;

Change 151 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed222.258. Notes the Court’s finding that RRF grantgrants implementation was lower than expected, while NGEU top-up absorption accelerated in 2024; notes that annual payments of RRF grants totalled EUR 55.955,9 billion in 2024, of which EUR 7.97,9 billion was financed from REPowerEU and EUR 48.048,0 billion from NGEU grants, and that the annual payments for NGEU-financed RRF grants were only half what the Commission had expected in June 2023 (EUR 96 billion); highlights, however, that 15 Member states had submitted payment requests totalling EUR 58.558,5 billion in December 2024; notes that with payments by the end of 2024 of EUR 197.5197,5 billion out of EUR 358.9358,9 billion of commitments made, RRF grants of up to EUR 161.4161,4 billion remain available to be paid by the end of 2026;

Change 152 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed224.260. Stresses its concern about the Court’s findings in Special Report N°22/202422/2024 on double funding resulting from the RRF model’;model; highlights that Member States national plans may include so-called ‘zero cost measures’, i.e. measures estimated to have no costs to be financed by the RRF, and for which no checks for double-fundingdouble funding are carried out, as the Commission considers that measures receiving no RRF funds pose no such a risk; notes that, in 2024,that the Court nevertheless identifiedreported apotential casecases of double funding in Croatia;relation furtherto notesRRF measures; recalls that the reported finding in Croatia concerns such a zero-cost measure, and that neither the Commission doesnor notthe collectMember confirmedState dataconsider onthat any RRF funds were duplicated; underlines that the Court’s finding reflects a different interpretation of what constitutes “funded” rather than actual double fundingfunding; casesnevertheless understresses that ‘zero-cost measures’ and the RRFabsence inof 2024systematic cross-checks create a structural blind spot which requires strengthened monitoring and reliesguidance; primarilycalls on Memberthe States’Commission systems,to despitecontinue monitoring and providing guidance to Member States on the Courtapplication identifyingof the double funding asrules, awhile structuralacknowledging blindthe spot;legal and methodological framework established in the RRF Regulation;

Change 153 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed225.261. Recalls that the Regulation stipulates that, measures and actions relating to previously fulfilled M&Tsmilestones and targets must not have been reversed, and that Member States are required to confirm this non-reversal in the management declarations accompanying their payment requests; notes with concern that the Court found one case of reversal of a Greek target relating to the establishment and full operation of 50 mental health care establishments, which was deemed in the Court’s 2023 annual report as not satisfactorily fulfilled as five of the 50 establishments were found not operational; deplores the RRF legal framework does not allow the Commission to effectively address reversals after 31 December 2026;

Change 154 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed226.262. Underlines that, in line with Article 12(1) of the Financing Agreement and Article 21(1) of the Loan Agreement, the Commission ‘may carry out verifications, reviews, checks and audits for the implementation of the RRP regarding the information and justification regarding the satisfactory fulfilment of M&Tsmilestones and targets in a payment request’, and that such verifications, reviews, checks and audits may be carried out for a period after the RRF has expired and could help identify cases where information underlying the payment request as submitted by a Member State was not correct;

Change 155 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed227.263. Notes that, under the European Semester, the implementation of measures set out in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans is monitored annually, with Member States submitting progress reports to the Commission; notes that, in line with the guidance to Member States on the information requirements for the medium-term fiscal-structural plans and for the annual progress reports, for the lifetime of the RRF, these reports are required to include information on progress in implementing any of the RRP reforms and investments included in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans; underlines that these reports are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and the effective use of Union funds, and calls on the Commission to verify that Member States provide complete, timely, and accurate information in line with the objectives of the RRF;

Change 156 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed228.264. Notes that since 2021, the Commission has issued 20 final audit reports covering milestones and targets, containing 591 recommendations to 15 Member States; expresses particular concern that for most (64 %) of the 136 recommendations related to critical and very important findings, the implementation deadline set in the audit report had already passed; notes the Commission acknowledgement that such delays in implementation by some Member States represent 22 % of the total recommendations related to critical and very important findings; notes, further, the Commission’s acceptance of the Court’s recommendation to analyse the reasons for delays in implementation by Member States and its ongoing review of the status of all outstanding recommendations; expects it to urgently address delays in implementing the Commission’s recommendations from the ex-post audits;

Change 157 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed229.265. NotesRecalls that control milestones continued to be added by the Commission following the detection of Member States’ weaknesses in their control systems; notes the Court’s observation that Memberwhile Statethe controlCommission systemshas toenhanced ensureits compliancechecks withon public procurement and state aidaid, areMember States’ control systems remain insufficiently effective;effective to ensure compliance; notes the Court identified weaknessesweaknesses, which pose a risk to the protection of the Union’s financial interests, in 22 individual public procurement procedures including lack of checks to prevent/detectprevent conflictor detect conflicts of interest;interest, weaknessweaknesses in justifying the use of urgent procedure;procedures and weaknessweaknesses in estimating the procurement value and project duration leading to significant differences between the tender documents and the actual contracts signed; notes that the Commission is reviewing its guidance to Member States with a view to improving the related controls at national level; underlines that while compliance with public procurement and state aid rules generally has no bearing on the regularity of RRF payments made by the Commission to Member States, these rules are crucial for ensuring a fully functioning internal market; considers, therefore, that funding must be subject to compliance with applicable internal market rules; recognises the acknowledgement by the Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration during his hearing in the Committee on Budgetary Control on 8 December 2025 that one of the weaknesses which cannot be repeated is the fact that rules on public procurement and state aid are not included as conditions for payment, and the Commission’s commitment to correct this under the next MFF;

Change 158 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed230.266. Notes the Court identified weaknesses, for five Member States, in their management declarations, which are to provide assurance that the information submitted with the payment requests is complete, accurate and reliable; notes the Court’s finding that the five Member States, including Czechia, Spain, France, Croatia and Slovakia, were aware of insufficient evidence for the satisfactory fulfilment of some M&Tsmilestones and targets when submitting the payment request, but that none of them included any reservation in their management declaration highlighting that a milestone/target was only partially fulfilled at the time of the payment request;

Change 159 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed231.267. Expresses concern about the Court’s findings in Special Report n° 21/2025: on21/2025 RRF‘RRF support for an improved business environment;environment’; highlights that reforms set out in the national plans differ in scope, nature and ambition, and may not always translate into structural changes in the business environment; also expresses disappointment that M&Tsmilestones and targets are generally limited to measuring legal ‘outputs’, mostly the adoption of laws, rather than their results, and therefore, the payment conditions were fulfilled once the laws were adopted, not when the laws have shown their effects; notes that many reforms were already envisaged before the RRF, but that the RRF’s financial support helped ensuring that the reforms were implemented at that moment in time;

Change 160 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed232.268. Notes the Court’s observation that, as regards serious irregularities not corrected by the Member State, the Director-General of DG ECFIN qualified its assurance with a reservation following the high risk identified in one memberMember stateState, (Czechia)namely Czechia, due to two individual cases of conflict of interest for which there is no information on further corrective action taken by Czechia at this stage and for which the MemberCommission Statehad refusednot toyet takelaunched corrective actions; notes that this reservation concerns two RRF payments, and that the Commission also assessed 2022 payments as medium risk and fivesix payments as low risk of serious irregularities; notes with concern the Court’s view that, as the risk assessment criteria are similarbroadly toaligned with those usedapplied byfor Memberchecks Statesin forareas checkssuch onas public procurement and state aid, the Court considersoverall thatassessment thismay assessmentnot alsofully underestimatescapture the level of underlying risk;

Change 161 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed233.269. Is concerned by the Court reporting that information available to the Commission on detected fraud is limited;limited and underlines the need to improve information flows with a view to ensuring the protection of the financial interests of the Union, particularly through enhanced precautionary measures; highlights that, at the end of 2024, the EPPO was handling 311 active cases related to NGEU, and that all but four of these concerned the RRF, representing approximately 17 % of all active expenditure fraud investigations; notes that the estimated damage to the Union’s financial interests is EUR 2.82,8 billion, representing 30 % (2023: 25 %) of the overall estimated damage resulting from all EUUnion expenditure fraud; ishighlights, worriedhowever, that,that inthe 2024,EPPO had only officially notified the MemberCommission States’of management75 declarationscases hadrelated reportedto onlythe fiveRRF, casesand that 80 % of detectedthese suspectednotified fraud,cases meaningrelated to one measure in a verysingle limitedMember ofState, Italy; also notes the EPPO openfinding casesthat werenational reportedlaw byenforcement authorities remained the main source of reporting, with 90 % of the new investigations opened based on their information; also notes from the Court’s Special Report 06/2026 ‘Tackling fraud in the RRF’ that Member States themselves,had castingreported doubts51 cases of suspected fraud to DG ECFIN from the start of the RRF in 2021 until end of 2024; is concerned that reports from Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, including the Commission, account for less than 1 % of the new EPPO investigations opened in 2025, raising further concerns on Memberthe States’Commission’s ability to detectoversee andthe fightRRF; fraud;is also alarmed that since the RRF implementation is less than halfway to completion, EPPO expects the number of cases will continue to grow; stresses that the figures presented by the EPPO confirm that the risk of fraud is present in the RRF,RRF; andstresses that theythis callsituation intoshowcases questionthe need to further strengthen national detection and reporting capacities, the abilitycooperation ofwith Memberthe StatesEPPO toand identifythe Commission, and reportthe suspectedoverall fraudeffectiveness and consistency of anti-fraud systems across the remedialUnion; measuresemphasises taken;that protecting the Union's funds and taxpayers’ money requires a robust, coordinated and well-resourced anti-fraud framework at both Union and national level;

Change 162 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed234.270. NotesWelcomes the reforms carried out by Bulgaria and the progress achieved in 2025, during which the country received approximately 31 % of its total allocated RRF funding through two tranches amounting to EUR 1,91 billion; acknowledges key reforms in the area of public procurement and judicial transparency; notes that, on 3 November 2025, the Commission adopted an Implementing Decision on the partial suspension of the disbursement of the second instalment of the non-repayable support for Bulgaria as one control milestone related to the anti-corruption reform had not been deemed satisfactorilyfulfilled fulfilled;satisfactorily; notesacknowledges thatthe efforts undertaken by the Bulgarian government had passedto aintroduce reformreforms aiming to ensure a politically independent appointment of the Anti-corruption Commission,Commission; andnotes that the Commission’s Implementing Decision further notesacknowledges that the National Assembly retains a predominant role in both the nomination and appointment of the management of the Anti-corruption Commission, notably its three members, and the Nomination Committee in itself cannot mitigate this role;Commission; notes that Bulgaria has six months to find a way to revise the legislative framework and demonstrate it meets the required threshold of political independence to receive the second instalment ofreach the RRF non-repayable support; remindsrequired thethreshold; Commissionunderlines that the suspension should only be lifted wherewhen Bulgaria has taken the necessary measures to ensure a satisfactory fulfilment of the milestone;

Change 163 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Removed235. Considers that the RRF constitutes a constitutional test for democratic accountability, given its size, speed and exceptional delivery model; stresses that Parliament’s role as discharge authority is meaningful only if transparency, traceability and verification standards are applied rigorously and consistently across all Member States;

Added271. Notes the Court’s repeated findings of certain national audit authorities’ shortcomings in terms of scope, quality, documentation and reporting; stresses the need for a clear framework of responsibilities to guarantee quality and consistency; insists that audit bodies in Member States comply with internationally accepted audit standards; warns that failure to do so undermines the reliability of their work and poses risks to the Single Audit approach;

Added272. Regrets the incomplete audit trails observed by the Court in the RRF, which weaken traceability and limit the ability of Parliament and the Court to exercise scrutiny; stresses that all Commission databases and information systems used for the collection, exchange and monitoring of data between the Commission and the Member States must be accessible to the Court; underlines that the Court should have direct and prompt access to the original data as recorded in the system, without prior modification, aggregation or editing by national authorities or Commission services; emphasises that such access is essential to ensure the independence, reliability and effectiveness of audits and to uphold transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Union budget;

Added273. Expresses concern that audits of RRF and other performance based instruments focus on system audits rather than controls on actual expenditure incurred; warns that such system audits may not reveal underlying issues which can spill over and seriously undermine the sound financial management of the Union budget and the protection of the financial interest of the Union; calls on the Commission to take decisive corrective measures, strengthen audit and accreditation procedures, and ensure that similar systemic failures cannot recur, while respecting the principle of proportionality regarding reporting and documentation duties;

Added274. Considers that the RRF constitutes a constitutional test for democratic accountability, given its size, speed and exceptional delivery model; recalls that the RRF is financed through substantial common European borrowing and therefore requires the highest standards of financial responsibility, transparency and value for money for Union taxpayers; stresses that Parliament’s role as discharge authority is meaningful only if transparency, traceability, objective application of the rules and verification standards are applied rigorously and consistently across all Member States and if the assessment of milestones and targets is carried out in a fully objective and non-politicised manner ensuring equal treatment of Member States; considers that any shift towards performance-based instruments must be accompanied by parliamentary scrutiny in order to guarantee democratic accountability; opposes any proposal that would upset the institutional balance and undermine Parliament’s role as discharge authority;

Change 164 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed236.275. Notes that for 2024 the Court assessed the national systems of five Member States to assess whether they were capable of tracking RRF funds from the national budget down to final recipients and beyond, as well as providing data on expenditure incurred by final recipients; notes the Court’s observation that traceability of RRF funds is not systematic across Member States, and that the systems in place in two Member States did not ensure the systematic collection of data on expenditure incurred by final recipients of RRF funds; deploresregrets the Court’s finding that, despite the Commission’s guidance on the methodology to be followed by Member States for publishing the 100 biggest final recipients, significant variations in the type of information published occur; expresses serious concern that such shortcomings in transparency and traceability risk undermining public trust and effective democratic scrutiny of RRF expenditure; also notes that two Member States reported amounts allocated (i.e. budgeted) or disbursed but in some cases only to the level of intermediate bodies, and in some cases combined with national funding, and that one Member State only reported data related to measures with M&Tsmilestones and targets submitted for payment to the Commission, which did not fully reflect implementation of ongoing measures;

Change 165 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed237.276. Recalls that Article 22(2)(d)(ii) of the RRF Regulation (EU) 2021/241 provides for the obligations of theobliges Member States, for the purpose of audit and control andcontrol, to providecollect comparable information on the use of RRF funds, to collect name of contractor and sub-contractor,including whereon the final recipientnames isof afinal contractingrecipients, authority,contractors and thatsub-contractors, Articleand 25a(2)beneficial ofowners; Regulationrecalls, (EU)further, 2023/435that amendingwhile the RRF Regulation requiresdoes not oblige Member States to collect and publish information onabout theexpenditure 100incurred by final recipients receiving the highestin amountpursuit of fundingmilestones underor thetargets RRF,nor and,to inprovide thesuch caseinformation ofwith atheir legalRRF person,payment therequests, recipient’sthey fullare namehowever andrequired VATto identificationpublish numberthis orinformation taxabout identificationthe number,100 or‘final anotherrecipients’ uniquereceiving identifierthe establishedlargest atamounts nationalof levelfunding shallunder bethe published;RRF; notes that the Commission position, presented in its Guidance on Recovery and Resilience Plans, describes a final recipient as the ‘last entity receiving funds that is not a contractor or subcontractor’; expresses deep concern over this interpretation of the concept of ‘final recipient’, whichand reiterates its view that this contradicts the existing legislation; stresses that,that shouldit expects the Commission continueto enforce compliance with existing legislation and to refuseuse all means at its disposal to ensure fullthat Member States provide, a complete and meaningful list of final recipients, excluding merely intermediary entities such as ministries or managing authorities; underlines that, to ensure transparency, the Parliament will consider all available measures to enforce compliance, and to prevent a similar interpretation from being applied to the transparency provisions in other financial regulations; considers that persistent failure to ensure meaningful publication of final recipients seriously calls into question the Parliament’s ability to grant discharge on an informed basis;basis recalls that the Parliament has repeatedly raised serious concerns in previous discharge resolutions regarding the RRF, including on the transparency of final beneficiaries, and thereforerecipients; demandsconsiders that the Commission provide,should withinstart sixinfringement months,proceedings aand completethat andit meaningfulshould listact ofwithout finalundue beneficiaries,delay excludingto merelyfully intermediaryexercise entitiesits suchpowers as ministriesguardian orof managingthe authorities;Treaties statesagainst that,Member failingStates this,to Parliamentensure willthat bringcitizens theand matterstakeholders beforehave thefull Europeanaccess Courtto ofthis Justiceinformation; should it fail to do so, Parliament will consider all appropriate measures within its prerogatives to ensure compliance, including legal action; stresses that citizensfull and stakeholdersreliable haveinformation fullon accessthe final recipients is essential in order to thisprevent information;misuse of funds, detect fraud and ensure equal standards of accountability across all Member States;

Change 166 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed239.278. Highlights furthermore that, on 4 February 2025, CONTfor the purposes of discharge under Article 319 TFEU, Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control requested that the Commission to provide for each Member State the list of the 100 largest natural persons or entities receiving funds under the RRF, including contractors and subcontractors; finds it unacceptable that only six Member States shared the requested data with the Commission services, and that a Member State expressed its intention to share the list in the future, while three other Member States indicated they would not submit the data, claiming that the request was not in line with the reporting requirements under the RRF Regulation, while the remaining 17 Member States failed to react to the Commission’s request;

Change 167 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Added279. Highlights the RRF's crucial contribution to preventing a severe economic downturn and social crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic and its ability to provide a strong crisis response tool;

Change 168 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed(i) perform sufficient substantive testing to ensure the reliability of the information supporting the Member States’ compliance with the Council Implementing Decisions requirements when assessing M&Tsmilestones and targets supported primarily by monitoring or implementation reports, instead of relying on Member States’ data and checks;

Change 169 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed(i) closely monitor the continued fulfilment of M&Ts,milestones and targets, in particular those related to audit, monitoring and control, and ensure an adequate monitoring of the state of implementation of various M&Tsmilestones and targets at different point in time after the expiry of the RRF with the options provided under the Financing and Loan Agreements and the European Semester;

Change 170 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed(ii) work closely with Member States to ensure that M&Ts,milestones and targets, in particular those of a structural nature or linked with CSRs, are fully and diligently implemented;

Change 171 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Removed(iv) consider suspending payments to Poland if compliance with the two super milestones aimed at strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary backslides or remains partial;

Added(iv) ensure full compliance with the RRF milestones and only disburse funding if milestones continue to be met;

Removed(v) urgently reinforce fraud detection mechanisms, including the use of a mandatory fraud risk assessment for all large-scale RRF projects;

Added(v) establish, without any further delay, a binding interinstitutional arrangement ensuring the Court’s full, systematic and real-time access to all the relevant databases including Arachne and Fenix;

Change 172 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed(vi) consistently and accurately apply the provisions related to the ‘final recipients’,recipients’ of the RRF Regulation,Regulation by revising its Guidance on RRPs, to communicate with Member States on the correct application of the definition of ‘final recipients’, and to provide the discharge authority,ensure withinMember sixStates months,collect withand aprovide completeinformation andon meaningfulthe listlast ofentities finalreceiving beneficiaries,funds, excluding merely intermediary entities such as ministries or managing authorities;authorities, making this information available to the discharge authority by the last RRF payments’ deadline, and start infringement proceedings if necessary;

Change 173 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Removed(vii) ensure consistent performance information, in the post-2027 MFF, by establishing a single set of clearly defined policy areas and a consistent methodology to link challenges, objectives, measures, funding and performance indicators to one or more policy areas;

Added(vii) ensure greater transparency in the RRF through the timely publication of Commission assessments, national reports, audits and recovery actions in an accessible and verifiable format, enabling proper scrutiny by Parliament, the Court and citizens; supports a layered approach to access—full real-time access for the Court, unrestricted information rights for Parliament, and transparent public access in line with CJEU rulings—while ensuring compliance with GDPR and Union data protection rules; stresses that published data must reflect actual project implementation and results;

Added(viii) ensure consistent performance information, in the post-2027 MFF, by establishing a single set of clearly defined policy areas and a consistent methodology to link challenges, objectives, measures, funding and performance indicators to one or more policy areas, including through the use of harmonised reporting frameworks and measurable, comparable indicators across all Member States, enabling a clear assessment of results, efficiency and value for the Union's funding;

Change 174 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Changed(ix)(x) mandate interoperable, automated cross-checks across RRF, cohesion and direct management instruments and to report annually to the discharge authority about detected double-fundingdouble funding cases;

Change 175 under “CHAPTER II - Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)”

Removed(x) propose, for post-2026 instruments and regulation revisions, an obligation for Member States to report suspected fraud and irregularities using a harmonised taxonomy aligned with OLAF/EPPO standards and needs and to include penalties for systemic under-reporting.

Added(xi) work closely with Member States, in particular those facing structural capacity constraints, by providing targeted technical assistance, guidance and administrative support in order to ensure the full and effective implementation of RRF investments and reforms across all Member States;

Added(xii) strengthen monitoring mechanisms and ensure that reforms and investments financed under the RRF remain operational and deliver durable impact beyond the disbursement period, in order to protect the Union’s financial interests and taxpayers’ money;

Added(xiii) propose, for post-2026 instruments and regulation revisions, an obligation for Member States to report suspected fraud and irregularities using a harmonised taxonomy aligned with OLAF/EPPO standards;

Added(xiv) perform a macroeconomic evaluation with the objective of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of Union support to Member States through the RRF, including the extent to which support has been timely and proportional to the intended objectives of the Facility, notably recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, and share it with the discharge authority;

Added(xv) call for the introduction of predictive analytic tools powered by AI as well as machine learning capabilities that would enable auditors to conduct real-time risk assessments and identify anomalies more effectively.