Skip to content
DRAFT BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT (COM(2025)0123 – C100063/2025 – 2025/0084(COD))

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1058 and (EU) 2021/1056 as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges in the context of the mid-term review

BUDG-PA-773419

Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Danuše Nerudová

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ 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.

This draft opinion from the Committee on Budgets assesses a proposal to amend cohesion policy regulations for the mid-term review. It finds the proposal budget-neutral but notes frontloading of payments and risks to policy objectives. It recommends safeguards against double financing, rule-of-law circumvention, and excessive reallocation thresholds, and calls for timely reporting to the budgetary authority.

Committee position. The Committee on Budgets provides a budgetary assessment and submits one amendment adding a recital that the budgetary assessment forms part of Parliament's negotiating mandate.

Key points

  1. The proposal is compatible with the MFF Regulation and does not top up initial allocations; measures are voluntary.
  2. Pre-financing paid in 2026 will count as 2025 payments for decommitment calculations, which may affect budget implementation.
  3. The Commission expects no budget implications for 2025; it should update payment needs for 2026 and inform Parliament about mid-term review progress.
  4. The proposal offers flexibility and incentives to redirect resources to new priorities like defence and competitiveness, but risks undermining cohesion policy's long-term objectives and lacks an impact assessment.
  5. The next MFF should have sufficient reserves for new challenges; the combined effect of 15% reallocation and lifting the 20% ceiling for STEP may harm target achievement.
  6. Low early payments in cohesion programmes increase later payment needs; frontloading towards 2026 could ease pressure on payment ceilings.
  7. There is uncertainty about 2026 payment claims; 100% co-financing without extra resources reduces total financial support.
  8. The Commission should provide timely, traceable reports on transfers to make the mid-term review's impact identifiable.
  9. The proposal could allow release of funds blocked for rule-of-law breaches; the Commission should reject reallocations that circumvent conditionality.
  10. The 15% reallocation threshold may be too high given the MFF's advanced stage; its effectiveness should be reassessed.
  11. Member States and the Commission must prevent double financing, ensuring new investments complement other Union programmes like EDF, EDIP, and SAFE.

Who is affected

  • Member States managing cohesion policy programmes, particularly those reallocating funds to new priorities.
  • The Commission, which must report on transfers and maintain conditionality.
  • Beneficiaries of cohesion funds, as 100% co-financing may reduce total support.

Figures and deadlines

  • 30% pre-financing and 100% co-financing on new EU priorities.
  • Additional pre-financing of 4.5% (9.5% for NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus, or Ukraine).
  • Reallocation of at least 15% of resources to new priorities.
  • Frontloading of EUR 3.6 billion in 2026.
  • Lifting of the 20% ceiling for transfers towards STEP objectives.