Skip to content
BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT (COM(2025)0140 – C100060/2025 – 2025/0073(COD))

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/691 as regards support to workers affected by imminent job displacement in enterprises undergoing restructuring

BUDG-AD-774408

Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Johan Van Overtveldt

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull textProcedure & committee votes
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 4 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on Budgets assesses the proposal to broaden the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) to cover imminent job displacement. It finds the proposal budget-neutral but rejects changes to the mobilisation procedure that reduce Parliament's oversight role.

Committee position. The Committee on Budgets rejects the proposed change to the mobilisation procedure and proposes maintaining case-by-case mobilisation, stressing that Parliament's role as budgetary authority must be fully preserved.

Key points

  1. The proposal is compatible with the MFF Regulation and the enlargement of scope will be covered within the maximum amount set for this special instrument.
  2. The maximum annual amount for the EGF was reduced from EUR 186 million to EUR 30 million in the mid-term review; broadening criteria risks exhausting this amount and creating a backlog.
  3. The proposed tripling of the maximum amount for technical assistance further limits funds for active labour market measures; focus should be on simplifying processes, not expanding administrative resources.
  4. The proposal requires additional human resources of EUR 1 431 000 per year in 2025, 2026 and 2027, covered by redeployment.
  5. The change to the mobilisation procedure could reduce time between application and decision, but the eligibility period would become shorter; the current six-week deadline is not detrimental.
  6. The Commission frequently takes more than 50 working days to complete its analysis; it should simplify internal processes, but not at the expense of institutional balance.
  7. The proposal is compatible with the IIA, but the drastic simplification runs counter to improving interinstitutional cooperation and changes the EGF's nature.
  8. There is a contradiction between the recent decrease of the maximum annual amount and the proposed broadening of scope, in terms of sound financial management.
  9. Rejects the proposed change to the mobilisation procedure, especially the single request based on estimates; proposes maintaining case-by-case mobilisation and preserving Parliament's role.
  10. Additional reporting requirements on estimates of assistance needed constitute an unnecessary administrative burden for Member States.
  11. Requests the Commission to coordinate measures to avoid duplication between the EGF and the European Social Fund Plus and ensure the additional nature of EGF support.
  12. Regrets that the EGF remains administratively burdensome, discouraging some Member States; 16 Member States consider the procedure lengthy and complex.

Who is affected

  • Workers affected by imminent job displacement in enterprises undergoing restructuring, as the proposal extends EGF support to them.
  • Member States, which would face additional reporting requirements and may be discouraged by administrative burden.
  • The Commission, which would need additional human resources and must coordinate support instruments.
  • The European Parliament, whose oversight role as budgetary authority would be undermined by the proposed mobilisation procedure changes.

Figures and deadlines

  • EUR 186 million to EUR 30 million: reduction of the maximum annual amount for the EGF in the mid-term review.
  • 63 %: average take-up rate of the EGF between 2021 and 2024.
  • EUR 1 431 000 per year in 2025, 2026 and 2027: additional human resources required.
  • Six establishment plan posts and three external staff: additional human resources needed.
  • 50 working days: time the Commission has to complete its analysis under Article 8(6).
  • 16 Member States: consider the EU-level procedure lengthy and complex.