Sittings · Compare
What changed
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
P10_TA(2025)0128
on theImplementation implementationreport ofon the Recovery and Resilience Facility
(2024/2085(INI))
Committee on Budgets, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
PE768.025
European Parliament resolution of 18 June 2025 on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (2024/2085(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF Regulation),
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom)(EU) 2023/435 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/241 as regards REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) 2021/1060 and (EU) 2021/1755, and Directive 2003/87/EC (REPowerEU Regulation),
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),
E. whereas, due to the lack of progress in introducing new own resources in the EU and the need to ensure the sustainability of the EU’s repayment plan, a clear and reliable long-term funding strategy is essential to meet repayment obligations without forcing difficult trade-offs in the EU budget that could undermine future investments and policy priorities; whereas further discussions and concrete financial solutions will be necessary to secure the long-term viability of the EU’s debt repayment plan;
F. whereas the borrowing costs for NextGenerationEU (NGEU) have to be borne by the EU budget and the actual costs exceed the 2020 projections by far as a result of the high interest rates; whereas the total costs for NGEU capital and interest repayments are projected to be around EUR 25 to 30 billion per year from 2028, equivalent to 15-20 % of the 2025 annual budget; whereas Parliament has insisted that the refinancing costs be placed over and above the MFF ceilings; whereas a three-step ‘cascade mechanism’ including a new special EURI instrument was introduced during the 2024 MFF revision to cover the significant cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing linked to major changes in the market conditions; whereas an agreement was reached during the 2025 budgetary procedure to follow an annual 50/50 benchmark, namely to finance the overrun costs in equal shares by the special EURI instrument de-commitment compartment and the Flexibility Instrument;
G. whereas the bonds issued to finance the RRF are to be repaid in a manner that ensures the steady and predictable reduction of liabilities, by 2058 at the latest; whereas the Council has yet to adopt the adjusted basket of new own resources proposed by the Commission, which raises concerns about the viability of the repayment of the debt undertaken under NGEU;
J. whereas the RRF plays an important role in supporting investments and reforms in sustainable mobility, smart transport infrastructure, alternative fuels and digital mobility solutions, thus enhancing connectivity and efficiency across the EU; whereas it is regrettable that only a few Member States chose to use the RRF to support investments, particularly in high-speed railway and waterway infrastructure, aimed at developing European corridors, despite the encouragement of cross-border and multi-country projects; whereas it is crucial to increase investments in transport infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions, to improve connectivity, support regional cohesion and contribute to the green transition;
K. whereas by 31 December 2024, Member States had submitted 95 payment requests and the level of RRF disbursements including pre-financing stood at EUR 197.46197,46 billion in grants (55 % of the total grants envelope) and EUR 108.68108,68 billion in loans (37 % of the total loans envelope); whereas three Member States have already received their fifth payment, while one Member State has not received any RRF funding; whereas all Member States have revised their national recovery and resilience plans (NRRP) at least once; whereas 28 % of milestones and targets have been satisfactorily fulfilled and the Commission has made use of the possibility to partially suspend payments where some milestones and targets linked to a payment request were not found to be satisfactorily fulfilled; whereas delays in the execution of planned reforms and investments, particularly in social infrastructure and public services, could lead to the underutilisation of available resources, thereby reducing the expected impact on economic growth, employment and social cohesion;
L. whereas the ECA has revealed various shortcomings of the RRF, in particular in relation to its design, its transparency and reporting, the risk of double funding and the implementation of twin transition measures;
M. whereas robust audit and control systems are crucial to protect the financial interests of the EU throughout the life cycle of the RRF; whereas the milestones commonly known as ‘super milestones’, in particular related to the rule of law, had to be fulfilled prior to any RRF disbursements;
M. whereas according to the ECA, performance is a measure of the extent to which an EU-funded action, project or programme has met its objectives and provides value for money; whereas moreover, financing not linked to costs does not, in itself, make an instrument performance-based;
N. whereas the RRF Regulation refers to the RRF’s ‘performance-based nature’ but does not define ‘performance’; whereas RRF performance should be linked to sound financial management principles and should measure how well an EU-funded action, project or programme has met its objectives and provided value for money;
N. whereas robust audit and control systems are crucial to protect the financial interests of the EU throughout the life cycle of the RRF; whereas the milestones commonly known as ‘super milestones’, in particular related to the rule of law, had to be fulfilled prior to any RRF disbursements;
O. whereas effective democratic control and parliamentary scrutiny over the implementation of the RRF require the full involvement of Parliament and the consideration of all its recommendations at all stages;
O. whereas the RRF Regulation refers to the RRF’s ‘performance-based nature’ but does not define ‘performance’; whereas RRF performance should be linked to sound financial management principles and should measure how well an EU-funded action, project or programme has met its objectives and provided value for money;
P. whereas the Commission has to provide an independent ex post evaluation report on the implementation of the RRF by 31 December 2028, consisting of an assessment of the extent to which the objectives have been achieved, of the efficiency of the use of resources and of the European added value, as well as a global assessment of the RRF, and containing information on its impact in the long term;
P. whereas effective democratic control and parliamentary scrutiny over the implementation of the RRF require the full involvement of Parliament and the consideration of all its recommendations at all stages;
Q. whereas the purposeCommission ofhas thisto reportprovide isan toindependent monitorex post evaluation report on the implementation of the RRF,RRF inby accordance31 withDecember Parliament’s2028, roleconsisting asof laidan downassessment inof the RRFextent Regulation,to bywhich pointingthe toobjectives have been achieved, of the benefitsefficiency of the use of resources and shortcomingsof the European added value, as well as a global assessment of the RRF, whileand drawingcontaining information on theits lessonsimpact learntin duringthe itslong implementation;term;
R. whereas the purpose of this report is to monitor the implementation of the RRF, in accordance with Parliament’s role as laid down in the RRF Regulation, by pointing to the benefits and shortcomings of the RRF, while drawing on the lessons learnt during its implementation;
Strengthening Europe’s social and economic resilience
4. Recalls that the MFF and RRF combined amount to almost EUR 2 trillion for the 2021-2027 programming period, but points to the fact that the high inflation rates and the associated increases in the cost of goods and services have decreased the current value of European spending agreed in nominal terms;
5. Takes note of the Commission’s projection in 2024 concerning the potential of NGEU’s impact on the EU’s real gross domestic product (GDP) by 2026, which is significantly lower than its simulation in 2020 (1.4(1,4 % compared with 2.32,3 %), due in part to adverse economic and geopolitical conditions, and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.80,8 %; notes that the long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP will likely exceed the budgetary commitments undertaken by up to three to six times , depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment and the diligent implementation of reforms and investments;
6. Highlights the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as it takes time for the impact of reforms and investments to become clear; stresses the need for further independent evaluations to assess the effective impact of reforms and investments and for further improvements of the underlying methodology; notes the Commission’s finding that approximately half of the expected increase in public investment between 2019 and 2025 is related to investment financed by the EU budget, particularly by the RRF, but notes that some investments have not yet delivered measurable impact;
11. Highlights that prioritising RRF implementation, the lack of administrative capacity in many Member States and challenges posed by global supply chains have contributed to the delayed implementation of cohesion policy; calls on the Commission, in this context, to provide a comprehensive assessment of the RRF’s impact on other financial instruments and public investments, technical support, and the administrative and absorption capacities of the Member States;
12. Recalls that, in reaction to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the REPowerEU revision contributes to Europe’s energy security by reducing its dependence on fossil fuels, diversifying its energy supplies, investing in European resources and infrastructure, tackling energy poverty and investing in energy savings and efficiency in all sectors, including transport; emphasises that through REPowerEU, an additional EUR 20 billion in grants was made available in 2023, including EUR 8 billion generated from the front-loading of Emissions Trading System allowances and EUR 12 billion from the Innovation Fund; highlights Parliament’s successes in negotiations, in particular on the provisions on replenishing the Innovation Fund, the 30 % funding target for cross-border projects, the focus of investments on tackling energy poverty for vulnerable households, SMEs and micro-enterprises, and the flexible use of unspent cohesion funds from the 2014-2020 MFF and of up to 7.57,5 % of national allocations under the 2021-2027 MFF;
13. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border or multi-country measures, including high-speed railway and sustainable mobility infrastructure projects for dual use that are essential for completing the TEN-T network, and the related risk of re-nationalising funding; notes that the broad scope of the RRF objectives has contributed to this by allowing a wide variety of nationally focused projects to fall within its remit;
17. Stresses that the RRF is the first major performance-based instrument at EU level which is exclusively based on financing not linked to costs (FNLC); recalls that Article 8 of the RRF Regulation stipulates that the RRF must be implemented by the Commission in direct management in accordance with the relevant rules adopted pursuant to Article 322 TFEU, in particular the Financial Regulation and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; regrets that the Council did not agree to insert specific rules in the Financial Regulation to address the risks of this delivery model, such as double funding; considers that the rules of the Financial Regulation should be fully applicable to future instruments based on FNLC, including as regards fines, penalties and sanctions;
18. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8385,8 billion available will remain unused since this amount was not committed by the deadline of 31 December 2023; takes note of the fact that loans were attractive for Member States that faced higher borrowing costs on the financial markets or that sought to compensate for a reduction in RRF grants; points out that some Member States have made limited use of RRF loans, either due to strong fiscal positions or administrative considerations; calls on the Commission to analyse the reasons for the low uptake in some Member States and to consider these findings when designing future EU financial instruments; notes with concern that national financial instruments to implement the NRRPs have not been sufficiently publicised, leading to limited awareness and uptake by potential beneficiaries; considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets and urgent EU strategic priorities; calls for an assessment of how and under which conditions unused RRF funds could be redirected to boost Europe’s competitiveness, resilience, defence, and social, economic and territorial cohesion, particularly through investments in digital and green technologies aligned with the RRF’s original purpose;
19. Recalls the legal obligation to ensure full repayment of NGEU expenditure by 31 December 2058 at the latest; reminds the Council and the Commission of their legal commitment under the interinstitutional agreement concluded in 2020 to ensure a viable path to refinancing NGEU debt, including through sufficient proceeds from new own resources introduced after 2021 without any undue reduction in programme expenditure or investment instruments under the MFF; deplores the lack of progress made in this regard, which raises concerns regarding the viability of the repayment of the debt undertaken under NGEU, and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay and as a matter of urgency; urges the Commission, furthermore, to continue efforts to identify additional genuine new own resources beyond the IIA and linked to EU policies, in order to cover the high spending needs associated with the funding of new priorities and the repayment of NGEU debt;
20. Notes with concern the Commission’s estimation that the total cost for NGEU capital and interest repayments are projected to be around EUR 25 to 30 billion per year from 2028, equivalent to 15-20 % of the 2025 annual budget ; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; highlights that the significant increase in financing costs puts pressure on the future EU budget and limits the capacity to respond to future challenges;
21. Takes note of the Commission’s target to fund up to 30 % of NGEU costs by issuing greens bonds; notes that by 31 December 2024 the Commission had issued European green bonds amounting to EUR 68.2 billion;
Transparency, monitoring and control
45. Takes note of the fact that the Commission had planned to conduct 112 RRF audits in all Member States in 2024; reminds the Commission of its obligation, in accordance with Article 24(3)24(9) of the RRF Regulation, to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures;
46. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds; regrets that these methodologies were only developed two years after the start of the RRF implementation and without the consultation of Parliament;
47. Welcomes the extensive work of the ECA in relation to the RRF and deems it important to thoroughly assess its findings, in particular its findings that milestones and targets are often rather vague and output-oriented and are therefore not fit to measure results and impacts, and its findings regarding the risks of double funding resulting from overlaps with other policies; notes that the Commission has accepted many but not all of the ECA’s recommendations; stresses that weaknesses in financial controls, as highlighted by the ECA, must be urgently addressed to prevent double funding, cost inefficiencies, and mismanagement of EU funds; calls for enhanced transparency and for the full consideration of the ECA’s recommendations without adding unnecessary administrative burden;
48. Notes that the ECA’s audits revealed several cases in which funding had been disbursed but the requirements related to the fulfilment of corresponding milestones and targets had not been adequately met; further notes that the Commission framework for assessing the ‘satisfactory fulfilment’ of the relevant milestones and targets contains discretionary elements, such as ‘minimal deviation from a requirement’ or ‘proportional delays’, and that the methodology for the determination of partial payments does not provide an explanation for the values chosen as coefficients, thereby leaving room for interpretation; asks the Commission to provide Parliament with further clarification;
48. Notes that the ECA considers that the RRF focuses on progress on implementation rather than performance, particularly because RRF-funded measures focus on outputs rather than results, vary in ambition, sometimes lack clarity and do not always cover a measure’s key implementation stages, including completion;
49. Insists that, as a rule, measures already included in other national plans benefiting from EU funding (e.g. cohesion, agriculture, etc.) should not be included in NRRPs, even if they do not incur any costs; urges the Commission to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying any potential situation of double funding in particular in regard to the different implementation models of the RRF and other EU funding instruments;
49. Notes that the ECA’s audits revealed several cases in which funding had been disbursed but the requirements related to the fulfilment of corresponding milestones and targets had not been adequately met; further notes that the Commission framework for assessing the ‘satisfactory fulfilment’ of the relevant milestones and targets contains discretionary elements, such as ‘minimal deviation from a requirement’ or ‘proportional delays’, and that the methodology for the determination of partial payments does not provide an explanation for the values chosen as coefficients, thereby leaving room for interpretation; asks the Commission to provide Parliament with further clarification;
50. Regrets the lack of a proper RRF audit trail and the persistent lack of transparency despite the bi-annual reporting requirement for Member States on the 100 largest final recipients, which was introduced into REPowerEU upon Parliament’s request; regrets the delays in reporting by some Member States and the limited informative value of the information provided, which ultimately prevents compliance checks by the Commission or the ECA; reiterates its call for the lists of the largest final recipients for each Member State to be regularly updated and published on the RRF Scoreboard and to include information on the economic operators involved, including contractors and sub-contractors, and their beneficial owners, and not simply ministries or other government bodies or state companies; further regrets that the current definition of ‘final recipient’ leaves room for interpretation, resulting in different final beneficiaries for similar measures among Member States; calls on the Commission, in this context, to ensure a common understanding of what constitutes a ‘final recipient’ so that this can be applied consistently;
50. Insists that, as a rule, measures already included in other national plans benefiting from EU funding (e.g. cohesion, agriculture, etc.) should not be included in NRRPs, even if they do not incur any costs; urges the Commission to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying any potential situation of double funding in particular in regard to the different implementation models of the RRF and other EU funding instruments;
51. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure and due to the complexity of the audit and control procedures, which created uncertainty in the Member States and an overload of administrative procedures; calls on the Commission to provide assurance on whether Member States’ control systems function adequately and to check the compliance of RRF-funded investment projects with EU and national rules; calls for payments to be reduced and, where appropriate, amounts to be recovered in accordance with Article 22 of the RRF Regulation, should weaknesses persist in the national control systems; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations by recipients of EU funds in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, despite the existence of tools such as the Early Detection and Exclusion System and ARACHNE, whose use is currently not mandatory, thereby risking that expenditure is declared twice; recalls, in this regard, the reluctance of the Member States to make progress in developing the relevant IT tools in a timely manner;
51. Regrets the lack of a proper RRF audit trail and the persistent lack of transparency despite the bi-annual reporting requirement for Member States on the 100 largest final recipients, which was introduced into REPowerEU upon Parliament’s request; regrets the delays in reporting by some Member States and the limited informative value of the information provided, which ultimately prevents compliance checks by the Commission or the ECA; reiterates its call for the lists of the largest final recipients for each Member State to be regularly updated and published on the RRF Scoreboard and to include information on the economic operators involved, including contractors and sub-contractors, and their beneficial owners, and not simply ministries or other government bodies or state companies; further regrets that the current definition of ‘final recipient’ leaves room for interpretation, resulting in different final beneficiaries for similar measures among Member States; calls on the Commission, in this context, to ensure a common understanding of what constitutes a ‘final recipient’ so that this can be applied consistently;
52. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs; notes that having clear insights on costs also facilitates the work of control and oversight bodies, as well as the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and enables enhanced public scrutiny;
52. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure and due to the complexity of the audit and control procedures, which created uncertainty in the Member States and an overload of administrative procedures; calls on the Commission to provide assurance on whether Member States’ control systems function adequately and to check the compliance of RRF-funded investment projects with EU and national rules; calls for payments to be reduced and, where appropriate, amounts to be recovered in accordance with Article 22 of the RRF Regulation, should weaknesses persist in the national control systems; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations by recipients of EU funds in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, despite the existence of tools such as the Early Detection and Exclusion System and ARACHNE, whose use is currently not mandatory, thereby risking that expenditure is declared twice; recalls, in this regard, the reluctance of the Member States to make progress in developing the relevant IT tools in a timely manner;
53. Reiterates the role of the RRF Scoreboard in providing information for citizens on the overall progress in the implementation of NRRPs; underlines the importance of the Scoreboard in strengthening transparency and calls on the Commission to increase the level of transparency and data visualisation in the Scoreboard;
53. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs; notes that having clear insights on costs also facilitates the work of control and oversight bodies, as well as the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and enables enhanced public scrutiny;
54. RecallsReiterates thatthe role of the reportingRRF Scoreboard in providing information for citizens on the overall progress ofin the implementation inof NRRPs; underlines the RRFimportance of the Scoreboard isin basedstrengthening transparency and calls on informationthe providedCommission byto increase the Memberlevel Statesof ontransparency aand bi-annualdata basis;visualisation in the Scoreboard;
55. Highlights the important role of the EPPO and OLAF in protecting the EU’s financial interests; welcomes the fact that EPPO investigations into RRF-related fraud and corruption cases have led to several arrests, indictments and seizures of RRF funds; recalls that the EPPO was handling 307 active cases related to the RRF in 2024, corresponding to about 17 % of all expenditure fraud investigations and causing an estimated damage to the EU’s financial interests of EUR 2.8 billion; expects the number of investigations to grow as RRF implementation advances; calls on the Commission to look into the management declarations of the Member States in terms of their reporting of detected fraud and the remedial measures taken;
55. Recalls that the reporting on the progress of implementation in the RRF Scoreboard is based on information provided by the Member States on a bi-annual basis;
56. Highlights the important role of the EPPO and OLAF in protecting the EU’s financial interests; welcomes the fact that EPPO investigations into RRF-related fraud and corruption cases have led to several arrests, indictments and seizures of RRF funds; recalls that the EPPO was handling 307 active cases related to the RRF in 2024, corresponding to about 17 % of all expenditure fraud investigations and causing an estimated damage to the EU’s financial interests of EUR 2,8 billion; expects the number of investigations to grow as RRF implementation advances; calls on the Commission to look into the management declarations of the Member States in terms of their reporting of detected fraud and the remedial measures taken;
Role of the European Parliament
56.57. Reiterates the importance of Parliament’s role in scrutinising and monitoring the implementation of the RRF and in holding the Commission accountable; highlights Parliament’s input provided through various channels, in particular through various plenary debates, parliamentary resolutions, bi-monthly RRD meetings with the responsible Commissioners, over 30 meetings of the standing working group on the scrutiny of the RRF, numerous parliamentary questions, the annual discharge procedure of the Commission and the regular flow of information and ad hoc requests for information from the Commission; regrets that the model of using milestones and targets to trigger disbursement was not accompanied by adequate budgetary control mechanisms, resulting in a diminished role for Parliament compared to its scrutiny of MFF spending;
57.58. Recalls Parliament’s rights as laid down in Article 25 of the RRF Regulation, in particular the right to simultaneously receive from the Commission information that it transmits to the Council or any of its preparatory bodies in the context of the RRF Regulation or its implementation, as well as an overview of its preliminary findings concerning the satisfactory fulfilment of the relevant milestones and targets included in the NRRPs; encourages the sharing of relevant outcomes of discussions held in Council preparatory bodies with the competent parliamentary committees;
58.59. Recalls further the right of Parliament’s competent committees to invite the Commission to provide information on the state of play of the assessment of the NRRPs in the context of the RRD meetings;
59.60. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; criticises furthermore the fact that Parliament has not been provided with a clear and traceable overview of the implementation status of projects and payments; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions and to have an enhanced role in possible future instruments based on the RRF experience;
Stakeholder involvement
60.61. Regrets the insufficient involvement of local and regional authorities (LRAs), civil society organisations, social partners, national parliaments and other relevant stakeholders in the design, revision or implementation of NRRPs leading to worse policy outcomes, as well as limited ownership; regrets that in the design and implementation of the NRRPs, some Member States have clearly favoured some LRAs or stakeholders to the detriment of others; recalls that the participation of LRAs, national authorities and those responsible for developing these policies is crucial for the success of the RRF, as stated in Article 28 of the RRF Regulation; recalls that Parliament supported a binding provision in the RRF to establish a multilevel dialogue to engage relevant stakeholders and discuss the preparation and implementation of NRRPs with them, with a clear consultation period; calls, therefore, for the maximum possible stakeholder involvement in the implementation of NRRPs, in accordance with the national legal framework and based on clear and transparent principles;
61.62. Reiterates the need for regular interaction between national coordinating authorities and national stakeholders involved in the monitoring of the implementation of the NRRPs, in line with the principle of transparency and accountability; stresses that more regular and public communication from the national coordinating authorities is needed to ensure that updated information about the progress of the implementation of NRRPs is made available;
62.63. Stresses that decisions should be made at the level that is most appropriate; is convinced that the application of the partnership principle and a stronger involvement of LRAs could make project implementation more efficient, reduce disparities within Member States and result in more and better quality measures with a cross-border and multi-country dimension;
63.64. Believes that valuable lessons can be drawn from the RRF to be reflected in the design of performance-based instruments in the next MFF, in particular in the light of the EU’s competitiveness and simplification agendas;
Lessons for the future
64.65. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; highlights the importance of aligning any funding with the objectives of the instrument and disbursing it in line with the progress made towards them; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should not be lowered but should be commensurate with the RRF timeline to ensure their successful implementation;
65.66. Is convinced, as highlighted by the Draghi report, that boosting EU competitiveness, decarbonising the EU’s economy and making it more circular and resource-efficient, as well as closing the skills gap, creating quality jobs and enhancing the EU’s innovation capacity, will be central priorities beyond 2026; is concerned that a sizeable funding gap will arise after the RRF ceases to operate at the end of 2026, notably for public investment in common European priorities, since financial resources from national budgets vary significantly among Member States; highlights the need to use the lessons learned from the RRF to better leverage public and private investments with a view to addressing the financing gap in European objectives and transitions, which the Draghi report estimates at over EUR 800 billion annually, while ensuring seamless continuity of investments in common European goods;
66.67. Welcomes the enhanced use of financial instruments made possible by the option to channel RRF funds towards the Member States’ compartment of InvestEU;
67.68. Urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are well-targeted, aligned with the aim of financing European public goods and prioritising the addressing of clearly defined strategic challenges, economic sustainability and competitiveness; calls for it to be ensured that all future instruments are designed to measure not only inputs or short-term outputs and progress but also results in terms of long-term impacts backed by outcomes;
68. Calls on the Commission to conduct an independent evaluation and to report on the RRF impact on private investments at aggregate EU level, in particular on its potential crowding-out effect on private investments and its determinants; calls further for objective and clear analyses from the Commission on how the implementation of reforms and investments within the NRRPs affects the economies of the individual Member States, with special regard to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; urges the Commission to take the lessons learned from these analyses and from the ECA’s observations on the RRF implementation into account when drawing up its proposals for the next programming period;
69. Notes that, according to the ECA, it is essential that future performance-based instruments are not designed and implemented in a way that is detrimental to accountability and, in particular, that appropriate control systems are in place in the Member States and are checked by the Commission before implementation starts; notes that this would involve setting minimum requirements for the Member States’ controls and the Commission’s checks;
69. Underlines that all EU-funded investments and reforms should be coordinated and coherent with strategic planning at national level and should focus on projects with a clear European added value; underlines the need for a spending target for cross-border and multi-country investments; calls on the Commission to develop a credible methodology to assess the cross-border and multi-country dimensions of EU funded projects;
70. Calls on the Commission to conduct an independent evaluation and to report on the RRF impact on private investments at aggregate EU level, in particular on its potential crowding-out effect on private investments and its determinants; calls further for objective and clear analyses from the Commission on how the implementation of reforms and investments within the NRRPs affects the economies of the individual Member States, with special regard to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; urges the Commission to take the lessons learned from these analyses and from the ECA’s observations on the RRF implementation into account when drawing up its proposals for the next programming period;
70. Highlights that meaningful social and territorial dialogues with a high level of involvement of LRAs, social partners, civil society organisations and national parliaments within the national legal framework are essential for national ownership, successful implementation and democratic accountability; expresses concern over the insufficient involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the implementation and oversight of RRF-funded initiatives; stresses in particular that regions and city councils cannot be mere recipients of decisions, without being given the opportunity to have a say on reforms and investments that truly transform their territories;
71. Underlines that all EU-funded investments and reforms should be coordinated and coherent with strategic planning at national level and should focus on projects with a clear European added value; underlines the need for a spending target for cross-border and multi-country investments; calls on the Commission to develop a credible methodology to assess the cross-border and multi-country dimensions of EU funded projects;
71. Believes that it is essential to adopt differentiated strategies that recognise the cultural diversity of the various regions and enhance their economic and social cohesion instead of applying a homogeneous or one-size-fits-all approach that could be to the detriment of the less developed regions; calls, therefore, for dialogues with stakeholders to be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;
72. Highlights that meaningful social and territorial dialogues with a high level of involvement of LRAs, social partners, civil society organisations and national parliaments within the national legal framework are essential for national ownership, successful implementation and democratic accountability; expresses concern over the insufficient involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the implementation and oversight of RRF-funded initiatives; stresses in particular that regions and city councils cannot be mere recipients of decisions, without being given the opportunity to have a say on reforms and investments that truly transform their territories;
72. Underlines the requirement of the RRF Regulation to publicly display information about the origin of funding for projects funded by the EU to ensure buy-in from European citizens;
73. Believes that it is essential to adopt differentiated strategies that recognise the cultural diversity of the various regions and enhance their economic and social cohesion instead of applying a homogeneous or one-size-fits-all approach that could be to the detriment of the less developed regions; calls, therefore, for dialogues with stakeholders to be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;
73. Highlights that the RRD meetings have been an important tool in enhancing transparency and accountability, which are crucial for the optimal implementation of the RRF;
74. Underlines the requirement of the RRF Regulation to publicly display information about the origin of funding for projects funded by the EU to ensure buy-in from European citizens;
74. Reiterates that further efforts are required to improve the transparency and traceability of the use of EU funds; stresses the need to ensure that data that is relevant for performance measurement is available and that information on performance is presented in a better and more transparent manner; stresses that the feedback mechanism between performance information and programme design or adjustment should be enhanced;
75. Highlights that the RRD meetings have been an important tool in enhancing transparency and accountability, which are crucial for the optimal implementation of the RRF;
75. Considers that better training and capacity-building across all regions and authorities involved, in particular at national level, could have accelerated the RRF’s implementation and enabled the implementing authorities to better adapt to the performance-based nature of the RRF; considers that the Commission could have assisted Member States more at the planning stage and provided earlier implementation guidance, in particular with a view to strengthening their audit and control systems and the cross-border dimension of the RRF;
76. Reiterates that further efforts are required to improve the transparency and traceability of the use of EU funds; stresses the need to ensure that data that is relevant for performance measurement is available and that information on performance is presented in a better and more transparent manner; stresses that the feedback mechanism between performance information and programme design or adjustment should be enhanced;
76. Highlights the importance of mitigating the risk of double funding; suggests the deployment of an integrated and interoperable IT and data mining system and the development of clear standards for datasets to be applied across Member States, with a view to allowing comprehensive and automated expenditure tracking; calls for improved coordination mechanisms that define clear responsibilities among the bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes, while avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic complexity and ensuring an efficient allocation of funds; encourages the integration of advanced data analytics and AI tools to enhance performance tracking, evaluation and reporting to alleviate manual workload and to streamline reporting processes; underlines that such progress can only happen if there is also operational support to digitalise administrations;
77. Considers that better training and capacity-building across all regions and authorities involved, in particular at national level, could have accelerated the RRF’s implementation and enabled the implementing authorities to better adapt to the performance-based nature of the RRF; considers that the Commission could have assisted Member States more at the planning stage and provided earlier implementation guidance, in particular with a view to strengthening their audit and control systems and the cross-border dimension of the RRF;
77. Strongly urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that any type of EU FNLC or EU funding that is performance based complies with EU and national rules, ultimately protecting the financial interests of the EU; reiterates the accountability and responsibility of the Commission and the Member States to ensure the legality and the regularity of EU funding, as well as the respect of sound financial management principles;
78. Highlights the importance of mitigating the risk of double funding; suggests the deployment of an integrated and interoperable IT and data mining system and the development of clear standards for datasets to be applied across Member States, with a view to allowing comprehensive and automated expenditure tracking; calls for improved coordination mechanisms that define clear responsibilities among the bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes, while avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic complexity and ensuring an efficient allocation of funds; encourages the integration of advanced data analytics and AI tools to enhance performance tracking, evaluation and reporting to alleviate manual workload and to streamline reporting processes; underlines that such progress can only happen if there is also operational support to digitalise administrations;
78. Considers that the role of Parliament in the monitoring of the RRF should be further enhanced;
79. Strongly urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that any type of EU FNLC or EU funding that is performance based complies with EU and national rules, ultimately protecting the financial interests of the EU; reiterates the accountability and responsibility of the Commission and the Member States to ensure the legality and the regularity of EU funding, as well as the respect of sound financial management principles;
79. Calls for future performance-based instruments to have a single audit trail to trace budget contributions to the projects funded; underlines the need for project-level auditing to mitigate reputational risks in the eyes of the general public and to facilitate the recovery of funds in case measures are reversed; underlines the need to reduce administrative bottlenecks and burden;
80. Considers that the role of Parliament in the monitoring of the RRF should be further enhanced;
80. Demands that any possible future performance-based programmes make clearer links between the milestones and targets and the actual projects being implemented; stresses that there should be less of a delay between the fulfilment of milestones and the implementation of projects;
81. Calls for future performance-based instruments to have a single audit trail to trace budget contributions to the projects funded; underlines the need for project-level auditing to mitigate reputational risks in the eyes of the general public and to facilitate the recovery of funds in case measures are reversed; underlines the need to reduce administrative bottlenecks and burden;
81. Reiterates its call for an open platform which contains data on all projects, final recipients and the regional distribution of funding, thereby facilitating auditing and democratic oversight;
82. Demands that any possible future performance-based programmes make clearer links between the milestones and targets and the actual projects being implemented; stresses that there should be less of a delay between the fulfilment of milestones and the implementation of projects;
82. Stresses that any possible future budgetary decisions on EU borrowing should respect the unity of the budget and Parliament’s role as part of the budgetary authority; highlights the risks of cost overruns for the repayment of debt, resulting inter alia from volatile interest rates; deems it important to ensure from the outset that sufficient funding is available to cover these costs without presenting a detriment to other programmes or political priorities;
83. Reiterates its call for an open platform which contains data on all projects, final recipients and the regional distribution of funding, thereby facilitating auditing and democratic oversight;
83. Invites the Commission and the Member States to closely assess and learn from instruments and tools such as the RRF, in order to maximise the efficiency and impact of EU funding, investments and reforms, streamline policy objectives, improve the collaboration of the institutions and stakeholders at national and European level, and increase national ownership;
84. Stresses that any possible future budgetary decisions on EU borrowing should respect the unity of the budget and Parliament’s role as part of the budgetary authority; highlights the risks of cost overruns for the repayment of debt, resulting inter alia from volatile interest rates; deems it important to ensure from the outset that sufficient funding is available to cover these costs without presenting a detriment to other programmes or political priorities;
84. Notes the declared intention of the Commission to draw on the RRF experience when designing its proposals for the post-2027 EU funding programmes, due later this year; acknowledges that the independent ex post evaluation will come too late to feed into the process leading up to the next programming period, but expects the Commission and the co-legislators to take due account of the lessons learned from the RRF and of the recommendations of relevant stakeholders, in particular LRA, civil society organisations and social partners; believes that, as the EU plans for future economic resilience, there is also a need to further mobilise private investment, strengthen capital markets and ensure that public spending remains fiscally responsible and strategically targeted to make the EU more resilient and sovereign in an ever more conflictual geopolitical context;
85. Invites the Commission and the Member States to closely assess and learn from instruments and tools such as the RRF, in order to maximise the efficiency and impact of EU funding, investments and reforms, streamline policy objectives, improve the collaboration of the institutions and stakeholders at national and European level, and increase national ownership;
85. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
86. Notes the declared intention of the Commission to draw on the RRF experience when designing its proposals for the post-2027 EU funding programmes, due later this year; acknowledges that the independent ex post evaluation will come too late to feed into the process leading up to the next programming period, but expects the Commission and the co-legislators to take due account of the lessons learned from the RRF and of the recommendations of relevant stakeholders, in particular LRA, civil society organisations and social partners; believes that, as the EU plans for future economic resilience, there is also a need to further mobilise private investment, strengthen capital markets and ensure that public spending remains fiscally responsible and strategically targeted to make the EU more resilient and sovereign in an ever more conflictual geopolitical context;
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
°
Background
° °
The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which was set up in 2021 as part of the EU’s unprecedented recovery programme NextGenerationEU and is set to end in 2026, provides significant financial support to the Member States in exchange for pre-agreed public investments and reforms in line with European objectives, in particular the digital and green transitions. Since the start of RRF implementation, the European Parliament has been paying particular attention to the democratic oversight and monitoring of the RRF, with the aims of verifying that the RRF delivers results and ensuring greater transparency and accountability on the side of the Member States and the Commission.
87. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Aim and timing of the report
Since the RRF has entered the second half of its implementation period and over 40 % of the funds have been disbursed, it is an opportune moment for Parliament to assess the performance and the impact of the Facility, to propose improvements for the remainder of its implementation, and to draw lessons for the future, in particular in view of the forthcoming discussions on the post-2027 Multiannual Financial framework.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEURS HAVE RECEIVED INPUT
ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM RAPPORTEUR VICTOR NEGRESCU HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM RAPPORTEUR SIEGFRIED MUREŞAN HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
8.4.2025
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL
for the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
on the implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility
(2024/2085(INI))
Rapporteur for opinion: Carla Tavares
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Budgetary Control submits the following to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 3
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Amendment 4
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Amendment 5
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Amendment 6
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Amendment 7
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Amendment 8
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Amendment 9
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Amendment 10
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Amendment 11
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Amendment 12
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Amendment 13
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Amendment 14
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Amendment 15
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Amendment 16
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Amendment 17
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Amendment 18
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Amendment 19
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Amendment 20
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Amendment 21
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Amendment 22
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Amendment 23
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Amendment 24
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Amendment 25
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Amendment 26
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Amendment 27
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Amendment 28
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
Amendment 29
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Amendment 30
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Amendment 31
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Amendment 32
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Amendment 33
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Amendment 34
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
Amendment 35
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Amendment 36
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Amendment 37
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Amendment 38
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Amendment 39
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Amendment 40
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Amendment 41
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Amendment 42
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Amendment 43
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Amendment 44
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Amendment 45
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Amendment 46
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Amendment 47
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Amendment 48
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur for the opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
1.4.2025
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
for the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
on the implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility
(2024/2085(INI))
Rapporteur for opinion: MariePierre Vedrenne
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
Amendment 3
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 c (new)
Amendment 4
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 d (new)
Amendment 5
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 e (new)
Amendment 6
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Amendment 7
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 b (new)
Amendment 8
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Amendment 9
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 b (new)
Amendment 10
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 c (new)
Amendment 11
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Amendment 12
Motion for a resolution
Recital –A a (new)
Amendment 13
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Amendment 14
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 15
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Amendment 16
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Amendment 17
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 18
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Amendment 19
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Amendment 20
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Amendment 21
Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
Amendment 22
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Amendment 23
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 24
Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)
Amendment 25
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Amendment 26
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 27
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Amendment 28
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Amendment 29
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Amendment 30
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 31
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 32
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Amendment 33
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Amendment 34
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 35
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Amendment 36
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Amendment 37
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 38
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 39
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Amendment 40
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Amendment 41
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Amendment 42
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Amendment 43
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Amendment 44
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Amendment 45
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Amendment 46
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Amendment 47
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Amendment 48
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Amendment 49
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Amendment 50
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Amendment 51
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Amendment 52
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Amendment 53
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur for the opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
19.3.2025
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE AND FOOD SAFETY
for the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
on the implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility
(2024/2085(INI))
Rapporteur for opinion: Jonas Sjöstedt
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety submits the following to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Amendment 3
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 c (new)
Amendment 4
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 d (new)
Amendment 5
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Amendment 6
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 7
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Amendment 8
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Amendment 9
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Amendment 10
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 11
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Amendment 12
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Amendment 13
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Amendment 14
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 15
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Amendment 16
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Amendment 17
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Amendment 18
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Amendment 19
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Amendment 20
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Amendment 21
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Amendment 22
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Amendment 23
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Amendment 24
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Amendment 25
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Amendment 26
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Amendment 27
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Amendment 28
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Amendment 29
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Amendment 30
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Amendment 31
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Amendment 32
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Amendment 33
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Amendment 34
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Amendment 35
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur for opinion declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
11.4.2025
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM
for the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
on the implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility
(2024/2085(INI))
Rapporteur for opinion: Giuseppe Lupo
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Transport and Tourism submits the following to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Amendment 3
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 4
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Amendment 5
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 6
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Amendment 7
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Amendment 8
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Amendment 9
Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)
Amendment 10
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Amendment 11
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Amendment 12
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 13
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 14
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Amendment 15
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 16
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1 a (new)
Amendment 17
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Amendment 18
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Amendment 19
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Amendment 20
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Amendment 21
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Amendment 22
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Amendment 23
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 24
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Amendment 25
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Amendment 26
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Amendment 27
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Amendment 28
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Amendment 29
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Amendment 30
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Amendment 31
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Amendment 32
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Amendment 33
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Amendment 34
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Amendment 35
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Amendment 36
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)
Amendment 37
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Amendment 38
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Amendment 39
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Amendment 40
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Amendment 41
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Amendment 42
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for the opinion received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for the opinion declares that he has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE