What changed

G. whereas a systematic reduction of the VAT gap would strengthen the protection of the Union’s financial interests, enhance tax fairness and trust in fiscal systems, contribute to the sustainability of public finances, and support economic cohesion among Member States, particularly in times of budgetary pressure;

27. Notes that the absence of disaggregated regional and sectoral data on the VAT gap prevents the identification of the areas most at risk of fraud and evasion; calls on the Commission to introduce a harmonised system for the measurement of the VAT gap that includes territorial and sectoral dimensions, thereby enabling the development of anti-fraud strategies that are more firmly grounded in evidence and more targeted;

29. Stresses that the fragmentation of IT systems among national tax administrations hinders the effectiveness of the fight against VAT fraud and limits the potential for synergies between national and EU authorities;

36.38. Notes that civil society organisations are an essential component of a vibrant democratic society, ensuring the broad coverage of diverse views in public debates; recognises that these organisations may receive Union funds to support their work in contributing to democratic dialogue and public engagement; notes that the EU is one of the largest global funders of civil society organisations; emphasises that transparency in stakeholder meetings is fundamental to democratic integrity and should apply equally to all entities engaging with EU institutions; stresses that clear documentation and disclosure of such interactions strengthens public trust and democratic accountability; stresses that lobbying should be transparent, with full disclosure of all parties involved; takes notes ofthat thethere have been allegations thatby some members of the CommissionBudgetary subsidisesControl NGOsCommittee tothat influencegrant Membersagreements ofconcluded by the EuropeanCommission Parliament;with stressesall that,types ifof theirbeneficiary existenceincluded isdetailed confirmed,lobbying suchactivities, practiceswhich could distortbe policyinterpreted discussionsas andpotentially contraveneinterfering thewith principleinternal ofdecision-making separationin ofthe powersUnion; andtakes shouldnote thereforeof bethe ended;recent callsECA special report on the ECAtransparency toof auditEU thefunding programmesgranted concernedto andNGOs, givewhich, itswhile recommendations;stating expectsthat the futureuse ECAof reportEU tofunding bringfor clarityNGO onadvocacy theseis issues;legal recallsand confirming that it is in line with the ECAEU’s asked,legal transparency requirements as laid down in specialthe reportEU 05/2024,Financial forRegulation, moreat effortsthe same time, points to the fact that more should be madedone to improve checksthe ontransparency theof ground;EU notesfunding withreceived concernby theall ECA’sbeneficiaries; observationcalls, thatin lobbyiststhis canregard, chooseon the Commission to whichimplement categorythe theyECA belong,recommendations regardlessregarding the screening of theirself-declarations legalin form,the toEU’s avoidFinancial disclosingTransparency financialSystem, information;as noteswell thatas theto EUproactively ismonitor onebeneficiaries’ ofrespect thefor largestEU globalfundamental fundersvalues ofand civilprinciples; societyrecalls, organisations;further, ECA special report 05/2024; underlines the need for the EU Transparency Register Secretariat to enhance its systematic checks of the self-declarations of entities declaring themselves to be ‘NGOs, platforms, networks and similar’; observes that such systematic checks could be based on a set of criteria, including non-profit status, objectives relating to public benefit, and independence, to strengthen the trust in all entities registered in the EU Transparency Register, and should be supported by robust requirements for accountability and transparency;