Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

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;

Added(xix) 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 Union decision-makers;

Added(xx) ensure that all grant agreements, including operating grants, respect the necessary requirements related to transparency, traceability and visibility of funds;

Added(xxi) incorporate in its checks and systems a risk-based verification of recipients’ compliance with Union values, in order to detect potential breaches;

▸9 unchanged paragraphs

Migration and Border management

161. Notes that in 2024 the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 4 ‘Migration and Border Management’ was EUR 3,4 billion (1,8 % of the Union budget spending) distributed as follows: EUR 1,4 billion (40,1 %) for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), EUR 1,3 billion (37,7 %) for three decentralised agencies, the European Border and Coast Agency (FRONTEX), the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) and the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU- LISA); and EUR 0,8 billion (22,2 %) for the Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF), which is composed of the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI) and the Customs Control Equipment Instrument (CCEI);

162. Recalls that AMIF funding for 2014-2020 had to be spent by June 2024 and the final accounts had to be submitted by 31 December 2024; notes the Court’s finding that, at the time of their audit, a material amount of AMIF 2014-2020 funding remained to be cleared (12 % or EUR 528 million) pending acceptance of these final accounts by the Commission; acknowledges the Commission’s reply that the total expenditure declared by the Member States during the period 2014-2020, including the submission of the final accounts, amounted to 94 % of AMIF;

163. Notes that the Court examined a sample of 23 transactions, which it considered not large enough to be representative of the spending under MFF headings 4 and 5 and, thus, it cannot provide a separate estimate of the error rate for these headings; further notes that the Court’s audit results show that the expenditure under MFF headings 4 and 5 is affected by errors due to eligibility and procurement issues and the absence of supporting documents and that thus it is deemed a high-risk area (8 out of 23 transactions audited were affected by errors); is concerned that the Court detected three quantifiable errors which had a financial impact on the Union budget, seven cases of non-compliance with legal and financial provisions (which had no direct financial impact on the Union budget) and two transactions that did not comply with the principles of sound financial management due to inadequate protection of Union-funded equipment and reimbursement of value added tax to public bodies above incurred costs contrary to Commission guidance; notes that the Commission estimates that the risk at payment in 2024 is 1,3 % for the expenditure on migration and border management;

164. Welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the Commission has fully addressed two recommendations the Court made in its 2021 Annual Report and one recommendation made in its 2022 Annual Report, which relate to providing further guidance to the beneficiaries of Union action and emergency assistance and to conducting better targeted ex ante checks; appreciates the adoption of the revised control strategy for Emergency Assistance projects implemented under direct and indirect management in the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) in December 2024;

165. Expresses its dissatisfaction with the fact that the Court continues to experience difficulties with obtaining the documentation necessary to carry out its mandate from international organisations implementing Union-funded projects; notes with concern that some international organisations restricted the Court’s access to documents to a temporary electronic consultation in a view-only environment and the Court’s conclusion that this indicates a lack of precision in the Commission’s contractual arrangements with international organisations; notes the Commission’s reply that they consider that the existing contractual agreements with the international organisations already provide a framework to ensure document accessibility in a manner that permits the required checks; regrets the fact that the Commission has not fully accepted the Court’s recommendation to address this recurring issue, especially given that the Court’s difficulties with auditing international organisations implementing Union-funded projects have persisted since their audit of the 2018 financial year; insists that the Commission’s contractual arrangements with partners must guarantee the Court’s full audit rights, including the ability to download and retain evidence necessary for audit, review, quality control and follow-up;

166. Notes with concern that two reservations on the declaration of assurance were issued in DG HOME’s Annual Activity Report for 2024; notes that one reservation concerns the implementation of 2014-2020 AMIF and ISF programmes in several Member States due to serious deficiencies in management and control systems for these programmes detected by DG HOME; further notes that the other reservation concerns 2021-2027 AMIF, BMVI and ISF programmes in several Member States due to serious deficiencies in the management and control systems for these programmes;

167. Notes that Member States submitted their first national annual accounts for the 2021-2027 AMIF and BMVI programmes in 2024; further notes that the Court has reviewed five audit authorities’ work in relation to their annual control reports and audits of AMIF and BMVI expenditure; welcomes the Court findings that the audit authorities had developed and implemented detailed procedures of sufficient quality to report on their work in the annual control report;

168. Further notes the Court’s conclusion that the audit authorities it has reviewed had detailed audit programmes and used the checklists to support their conclusions; notes with concern that the Court has also observed some weaknesses in the audit authorities work; acknowledges the Commission’s acceptance of the Court’s recommendation to follow up the shortcomings in audit authorities’ work;

Change 104

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;

Removed146. Observes that in 2024, 37,7 % of Union funding for migration and border management was allocated to decentralised agencies in the area of migration and Home Affairs; recalls that while decentralised agencies are independent from the Commission legally, financially, and in the execution of their obligations, the Commission has oversight responsibility over their activities; reminds that migration must be managed in full compliance with Union law, including fundamental rights; expresses its deep concern regarding reports of pushbacks at the Union’s external borders, including by Frontex in Greece and the related European Court of Human Rights judgement of 7 January 2025; appreciates the Commission’s written replies that more monitoring of Frontex’ activities in Greece is needed;

Added172. Maintains that the Union needs to better protect vulnerable people from smuggling and trafficking networks, address hybrid attacks and the instrumentalisation of migration by third countries or hostile non-state actors; notes that following the adoption of the Commission Communication of 11 December 2024, the Commission has allocated approximately EUR 520 million to Member States bordering Russia and Belarus through the BMVI, in order to strengthen border management capacities and address security and migration-related challenges; highlights, in particular, the need for supporting frontline Member States for the purposes of securing the EU’s external borders;

Added173. Acknowledges the Commission’s ongoing efforts to strengthen meaningful cooperation with third countries of origin and transit, in particular those neighbouring the Union in view of addressing irregular migration at the source; underlines the need for adequate oversight and due diligence when allocating funds to partners involved in migration management outside the EU, in order to ensure that migration is managed in a mutually beneficial manner and in alignment with European Asylum and Migration Strategy, including on fundamental rights; urges the Commission to reinforce the transparency and accountability of Union home affairs funds in third countries;

Added174. Recalls that solidarity and fair responsibility-sharing, in line with the Treaties, are core principles underpinning the Union’s migration and asylum policy; acknowledges the Commission's ongoing efforts to enhance solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum challenges, including the instrumentalisation of migration; 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;

Added175. Observes that in 2024, 37,7 % of Union funding for migration and border management was allocated to decentralised agencies in the area of migration and Home Affairs; recalls that while decentralised agencies are legally and financially independent from the Commission, the Commission retains an oversight responsibility over their activities; reiterates that migration management must be carried out in full compliance with Union law, including fundamental rights; welcomes the Commission’s written replies highlighting the need to further strengthen monitoring and accountability mechanisms, including with regard to Frontex’s activities;

▸5 unchanged paragraphs

Recommendations

176. Invites the European Court of Auditors to provide an estimate of the error rate for MFF heading 4;

177. Calls on the Commission to:

(i) fully implement the Court’s recommendations, including ensuring that its contractual arrangements with international organisations fully respect the Court’s audit rights;

(ii) address system deficiencies, together with Member State authorities, related to the reservations issued in DG HOME’s Annual Activity Report 2024, and if necessary, also launch conformity clearance procedures and issue recovery orders for the amounts paid to Member States and considered as irregular by the Commission;

Change 105

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

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;

Security and Defence

178. Notes that in 2024 the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 5 ‘Security and Defence’ was EUR 2,1 billion (1,1 % of the Union budget spending) distributed as follows: EUR 800 million (36,9 %) for the European Defence Fund (EDF), EUR 300 million (15,9 %) for military mobility, EUR 300 million (13,3 %) for Defence instruments and Union Secure Connectivity; EUR 300 million (12,1 %) for decentralised agencies, namely the European Union Drug Agency (EUDA), European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), and European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), EUR 300 million (11,9 %) for nuclear safety, decommissioning and other areas, and EUR 200 million (9,9 %) for the Internal Security Fund (ISF);

179. Recalls that ISF funding for 2014-2020 had to be spent by June 2024 and the final accounts had to be submitted by 31 December 2024; notes the Court’s finding that, at the time of their audit, a material amount of ISF funding remained to be cleared (16 % or EUR 505 million) pending acceptance of these final accounts by the Commission; acknowledges the Commission’s reply that the total expenditure declared by the Member States during the period 2014-2020, including the submission of the final accounts, amounted to 94 % of ISF;

Change 107

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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;

Recommendations

Change 116

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

190. Calls on the Commission to:

Change 117

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

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;

(iii) provide to the Parliament more systematic follow-up and reporting on Union defence and military mobility measures, implementation and funding, including those relating to EU-NATO cooperation, EPF, EDA and PESCO;

(iv) strengthen the EDF’s contribution to a comprehensive European defence approach by increasing support for projects addressing hybrid threats, including artificial intelligence, cyber and drone technologies;

Change 119

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

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;

▸4 unchanged paragraphs

Neighbourhood and the world

191. Notes that the budget for the programmes under MFF heading 6 ‘Neighbourhood and the world’ was EUR 15,4 billion (8,0 % of the Union budget expenditure excluding RRF;) distributed as follows: 62,4 % for the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Global Europe (NDICI-Global Europe), 15,9 % for Humanitarian Aid (HUMA), 14,9 % for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III), 2,7 % for Ukraine Macro-Financial Assistance Plus and 4,1 % for other actions and programmes;

192. Welcomes that in 2024 the Court examined a statistically representative sample of 137 transactions covering all spending under this MFF heading, enabling it for the first time to calculate an error rate; notes with concern the estimated error rate of 4,9 %, significantly exceeding the 2,0 % materiality threshold; further notes that 56 of the 137 transactions (40,9 %) contained quantifiable errors that have a financial impact on the Union budget; observes that these errors concerned ineligible costs, serious breaches of public procurement rules, missing essential supporting documentation, ineligible beneficiaries, and expenditure not actually incurred; considers that these issues may indicate weaknesses in the functioning and reliability of control systems;

193. Is struck by the fact that in ten of the cases involving quantifiable errors, the Commission already had sufficient information at its disposal to prevent the error or to detect and correct it before accepting the expenditure; notes that, had the Commission effectively used this information, the estimated level of error would have been reduced by 1,4 percentage points;