Sittings · Document

Draft report (2024/2085(INI)) 2025-02-26

Implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility

Committee on Budgets Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Amendment 1

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 5 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources,

Or. en

Amendment 2

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2106 of 28 September 2021 on supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility by setting out the common indicators and the detailed elements of the recovery and resilience scoreboard,

Or. en

Amendment 3

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Commission Communication No 640/2019 of December 2019 ‘The European Green Deal’

Or. en

Amendment 4

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2105 of 28 September 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility by defining a methodology for reporting social expenditure,

Or. en

Amendment 5

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal

Or. en

Amendment 6

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Commission Notices of 18 February 2021 and of 11 October 2023 entitled ‘Technical guidance on the application of ‘do no significant harm’ under the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation’,

Or. en

Amendment 7

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 entitled 'A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (COM/2020/98),

Or. en

Amendment 8

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Citation 6 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2021 on the New Circular Economy Action Plan,

Or. en

Amendment 9

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
– having regard to special report 13/2024 of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) of 2 September 2024 entitled ‘Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility – Progressing with delays and risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of RRF objectives’, special report 14/2024 of the ECA of 11 September 2024 entitled ‘Green transition – Unclear contribution from the Recovery and Resilience Facility’, and special report 14/2024 of the ECA of 21 October 2024 entitled ‘Double funding from the EU budget – Control systems lack essential elements to mitigate the increased risk resulting from the RRF model of financing not linked to costs’,	– having regard to the report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) of 10 October 2024 entitled ‘Annual report on the implementation of the EU budget for the 2023 financial year’, special report 13/2024 of the ECA of 2 September 2024 entitled ‘Absorption of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility – Progressing with delays and risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of RRF objectives’, special report 14/2024 of the ECA of 11 September 2024 entitled ‘Green transition – Unclear contribution from the Recovery and Resilience Facility’, and special report 14/2024 of the ECA of 21 October 2024 entitled ‘Double funding from the EU budget – Control systems lack essential elements to mitigate the increased risk resulting from the RRF model of financing not linked to costs’,

Or. en

Amendment 10

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Citation 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the EPPO Annual Report 2023, published on 1 March 2024,

Or. fr

Amendment 11

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Citation 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to the Commission staff working document on NGEU Green Bonds Allocation and Impact report 2024 (SWD(2024)275),

Or. en

Amendment 12

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Citation 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to its research services’ analyses and briefings on the RRF,

Or. en

Amendment 13

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Citation 16 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	– having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2024 on the situation in Hungary and frozen EU funds (2024/2512),

Or. en

Amendment 14

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Recital -A (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-A. whereas the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is the main instrument of NextGenerationEU (NGEU) and was created to help EU societies and economies recover and emerge stronger, more sustainable and more resilient from the COVID-19 crisis;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Recital -A (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-A. whereas the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is a temporary and one-off instrument addressing the negative economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and later, the Russia - Ukraine war;

Or. en

Amendment 16

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Recital -A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-A a. whereas RRF funding supports key policy areas such as the green transition, digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, economic, social and territorial cohesion, gender policies, health, institutional resilience and crisis preparedness, as well as children and the youth, including education and skills;

Or. en

Amendment 17

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas reforms and investments under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) help to make the EU more resilient and less dependent by diversifying key supply chains and thereby strengthening the strategic autonomy of the EU; whereas reforms and investments under the RRF also generate European added value;	A. whereas reforms and investments under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) in principle help to make the EU more resilient and less dependent by diversifying key supply chains and thereby strengthening the strategic autonomy of the EU; whereas reforms and investments under the RRF should also generate European added value;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
A. whereas reforms and investments under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) help to make the EU more resilient and less dependent by diversifying key supply chains and thereby strengthening the strategic autonomy of the EU; whereas reforms and investments under the RRF also generate European added value;	A. whereas reforms and investments under the RRF help to make the EU more resilient and less dependent by diversifying key supply chains and thereby strengthening the strategic autonomy of the EU; whereas reforms and investments under the RRF also generate European added value;

Or. en

Amendment 19

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas the RRF is unprecedented for its unparalleled scale which greatly enhances the EU’s spending capacity beyond what is set in its Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF); whereas it stands out for including both loans and grants expanding the scope and scale of EU-level borrowing to finance investments;

Or. en

Amendment 20

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas the breach of planetary boundaries, dependence on imported raw materials and critical minerals as well as climate change are Europe’s essential challenges and need to be solved urgently so they do not become a threat to our economies;

Or. en

Amendment 21

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	A a. whereas RRF support should not, unless in duly justified cases, substitute recurring national budgetary expenditure and should respect the principle of additionality of Union funding as well as the principle of ‘do no significant harm’;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that they do not form part of the budgetary procedure;	B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament states that the European Union does not have the competence to issue common debts under the Treaties and thus may not be assigned to do so in future;

Or. en

Amendment 23

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that they do not form part of the budgetary procedure;	B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue;

Or. it

Amendment 24

Auke Zijlstra

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that they do not form part of the budgetary procedure;	B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that the EU has violated the no-debt clause of Article 311 TFEU, which prohibits debt-financing;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that they do not form part of the budgetary procedure;	B. whereas RRF expenditure falls outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and borrowing proceeds constitute external assigned revenue; whereas Parliament regrets that they do not form part of the budgetary procedure and are not subject to strict monitoring by Parliament, making it impossible to ensure transparent and responsible management of the funds;

Or. fr

Amendment 26

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Recital B a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	B a. whereas the lack of progress in implementing 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;

Or. en

Amendment 27

Auke Zijlstra, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. 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 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;	C. whereas the borrowing costs for NextGenerationEU (NGEU) have to be borne by the EU budget and the actual costs exceed the 2020 projections of 0.55% and 1.15% by far, compared to the 3% in 2023, as a result of severe miscalculation of interest rates evolutions; 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 28

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. 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 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;	C. 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 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;

Or. en

Amendment 29

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. 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 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;	C. 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 decided by the European Central Bank; 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;

Or. pt

Amendment 30

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
C. 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 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; 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;	C. 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 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 in the context of the 2024 MFF revision to cover cost overruns resulting from NGEU borrowing; whereas an agreement was reached during the 2025 budgetary procedure – to the detriment of European taxpayers – 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;

Or. fr

Amendment 31

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Recital C a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	C a. whereas to this day, still no repayment plan was made to deal with the common European debt;

Or. en

Amendment 32

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Recital C b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	C b. whereas the ECA, in its annual report on budgetary and financial management for 2023, warned that increasing European debt is placing growing pressure on the Union's budget;

Or. en

Amendment 33

Ruggero Razza, Denis Nesci

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
D. whereas by 31 December 2024, Member States had submitted 95 payment requests and the level of RRF disbursements including pre-financing stood at EUR 197.46 billion in grants (55 % of the total grants envelope) and EUR 108.68 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;	D. whereas by 31 December 2024, Member States had submitted 95 payment requests and the level of RRF disbursements including pre-financing stood at EUR 197.46 billion in grants (55 % of the total grants envelope) and EUR 108.68 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 this year Member States should proceed, where possible, with further reprogramming to achieve the spending targets. whereas, in line with the objectives of boosting the EU's competitiveness, as stated by the European Commission in the Competitiveness Compass, 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;

Or. it

Amendment 34

Irene Tinagli

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
D. whereas by 31 December 2024, Member States had submitted 95 payment requests and the level of RRF disbursements including pre-financing stood at EUR 197.46 billion in grants (55 % of the total grants envelope) and EUR 108.68 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;	D. whereas by 31 December 2024, Member States had submitted 95 payment requests and the level of RRF disbursements including pre-financing stood at EUR 197.46 billion in grants (55 % of the total grants envelope) and EUR 108.68 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 an underutilisation of available resources, thereby reducing the expected impact on economic growth, employment, and social cohesion;

Or. en

Amendment 35

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Recital D a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	D a. whereas the ECA has expressed concerns regarding the absorption rates of the RRF funds, the actual contribution of measures to RRF objectives and the risks of double funding and substitution of recurring national budgetary expenditure;

Or. en

Amendment 36

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Recital D a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Da. whereas the Member States have achieved different levels of progress in implementing their national recovery and resilience plans (NRRPs);

Or. pt

Amendment 37

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Recital D b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Db. whereas the projects set out in the NRRPs have suffered setbacks as a result of public procurement challenges, tenders without bids, problems affecting the construction sector, raw material shortages and market price fluctuations;

Or. pt

Amendment 38

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Recital D c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	Dc. whereas European Court of Auditors’ special report 13/2024 found that Member States were struggling to absorb the full amount of allocated funds by 31 August 2026, with projects at serious risk of completion delays;

Or. pt

Amendment 39

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. 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;	E. 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; whereas, in some cases, the Commission considered these super-milestones as fulfilled without tangible proof and only based on political promises;

Or. en

Amendment 40

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
E. 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;	E. whereas robust audit and control systems are crucial to protect the financial interests of the EU throughout the life cycle of the RRF;

Or. fr

Amendment 41

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Recital E a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	E a. whereas the RRF Regulation refers to the RRF’s ‘performance-based nature’ without defining what performance means; whereas performance is linked to sound financial management principles and is a measure of how well an EU-funded action, project or programme has met its objectives and provides value for money;

Or. en

Amendment 42

Siegfried Mureşan

Motion for a resolution

Recital E a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	E a. whereas some Member States have relied on the same bodies for the design and implementation of cohesion policy and the RRF, while others put in place new governance models for the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
F. 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;	deleted

Or. it

Amendment 44

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
F. 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;	F. 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; whereas such recommendations from the Parliament should stay within the EU competences and refrain from using double standards;

Or. en

Amendment 45

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	F a. whereas based on the Financial Regulation's transparency principle citizens should know where and for what purpose funds are spent by the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Recital G

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
G. whereas the Commission has to provide an independent ex post evaluation report on the implementation of the RRF by 31 December 2028, consisting of a global assessment of the RRF and containing information on its impact in the long term;	G. whereas the Commission has to provide an independent ex post evaluation report on the implementation of the RRF by 31 December 2028, consisting of a global assessment of the RRF and containing information on its impact in the long term and on the cases of fraud identified, the mechanisms used, and a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the measures taken by the Commission to verify that RRF funds are being used properly;

Or. fr

Amendment 47

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Recital G

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
G. whereas the Commission has to provide an independent ex post evaluation report on the implementation of the RRF by 31 December 2028, consisting of a global assessment of the RRF and containing information on its impact in the long term;	G. 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 to which extent the objectives have been achieved, the efficiency of the use of the resources and the European added value, as well as a global assessment of the RRF and containing information on its impact in the long term;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas the ECA’s special report 14/2024 revealed shortcomings in the design of the RRF and the implementation of green transition measures, wheareas the ECA interpreted climate coefficients in a manner that led to a conclusion of overestimations of amounts allocated to climate action and demonstrated shortcomings in terms of transparency and reporting that need to be addressed;

Or. en

Amendment 49

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas EU funding, particularly through the RRF, has proven to be a vital instrument for ensuring macroeconomic stabilisation at the EU level in the face of multiple crises since 2019, enhancing internal and external resilience, and supporting Member States in financing essential and strategic investments within the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 50

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. whereas the purpose of this report is to monitor the implementation of the RRF, according to EP's role as laid down in the RRF Regulation, pointing to the benefits and shortcomings, while drawing on the lessons of the RRF implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 51

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	G a. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 52

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Strengthening Europe’s social and economic resilience	Strengthening Europe’s social, environmental and economic resilience

Or. en

Amendment 53

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph -1 (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-1. Calls on the Commission to submit, within three months, a proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2021/241 that incorporates an extension to the period for implementing the RRF until 31 August 2028;

Or. pt

Amendment 54

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph -1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	-1a. Takes the view that, in several cases, the objectives and conditions set in Regulation (EU) 2021/241 are out of step with the structural and investment needs of Member States, and therefore calls for such cases to be taken into account in the proposed revision;

Or. pt

Amendment 55

Angéline Furet, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 56

Auke Zijlstra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the lack of conclusive data on its effectiveness; expresses concern that its perceived benefits, namely mitigating negative economic and social consequences and supporting governments budgets does not fall under the scope or the goals of the RRF, which is to support economic recovery, boosting resilience, and fostering sustainable growth; underlines that economic growth in the EU lags far behind growth of other developed market economies;

Or. en

Amendment 57

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Notes that the RRF is an unprecedented temporary instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates, to a certain extent, short term negative economic and social consequences and supports citizens and businesses; highlights that the RRF served as an assurance to the financial markets in turbulent times;

Or. en

Amendment 58

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented crisis instrument to give solidarity in the light of a pandemic situation and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and promoting competitiveness and innovation;

Or. en

Amendment 59

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments;

Or. en

Amendment 60

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic and social uncertainty, as it helps mitigate negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; notes that the creation of the RRF and the level of its funding were agreed to address the multiple consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, even though it has since been called upon to address further crises and needs;

Or. en

Amendment 61

Irene Tinagli

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; welcomes the lessons learned from the EU’s response to recent crises, highlighting the shift from the restrictive fiscal measures undertaken during the sovereign debt crisis to the more balanced and investment-oriented approach adopted after the COVID-19 pandemic; stresses that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has played a pivotal role in safeguarding employment, sustaining economic activity, and mitigating social fallout, demonstrating the value of a coordinated European strategy that combines reforms with targeted investments to foster resilience and long-term growth;

Or. en

Amendment 62

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; highlights that the introduction of the RRF provided significant macroeconomic stabilisation by reducing borrowing costs for high-debt countries, lowering yield spreads, and improving investor confidence in a Union that structurally lacks permanent common automatic stabilisers, making it vulnerable to shocks and economic divergences between Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 63

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented and exceptional instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; notes that the RRF was designed as a targeted and time-limited instrument, responding to specific crisis conditions, and emphasises the importance of drawing lessons from its implementation for future EU financial planning;

Or. en

Amendment 64

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; praises the fact that the RRF has been designed to support the deployment of the twin transition, green and digital, in order to allow our economy to cope with the pandemic and the war of aggression in Ukraine and to build it back on a more resilient and more competitive basis;

Or. en

Amendment 65

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;	1. Highlights the fact that the RRF is an unprecedented, temporary and one-off instrument of solidarity in the light of two unprecedented crises and a cornerstone of the NGEU instrument, ending in 2026; highlights the stabilising effect of the RRF for Member States at a time of great economic uncertainty, as it mitigates negative economic and social consequences and supports governments by contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights;

Or. en

Amendment 66

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	1 a. Highlights that the RRF played an instrumental role in preventing the fragmentation of the internal market and the further deepening of macroeconomic divergence, and in fostering social and territorial cohesion

Or. en

Amendment 67

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 68

Auke Zijlstra, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Takes note of the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and doubts whether it has contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space, given the significant rise in both public deficits and widening spreads; sincerely doubts the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU, since investments were mostly driven by continuous interest rate cuts by the ECB over the last quarters; doubts the Commission's expectations that the RRF will have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given renewed assertive industrial and trade policies in the United States and in the light of ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and an increased reliance on weather dependent energy sources;

Or. en

Amendment 69

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Notes that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic; notes the Commission assessment that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 70

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Notes that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. fr

Amendment 71

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the containment of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds; stresses that significant divergences continue to exist among Member States with regard to economic, social, budgetary and institutional resilience, which impact their recovery dynamics;

Or. en

Amendment 72

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided a one-off additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 73

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; further welcomes that the agreement to issue common EU bonds to finance NGEU and the RRF led to the narrowing of EU sovereign bonds spreads, further contributing to reducing fiscal pressure on the Member States and promoting the financial stability of the EU as a whole; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 74

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds; notes that lessons on transparency, reporting and coherent measurement of deliverables must be applied in future use of innovative funding tools;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; encourages Member States to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact in order to ensure sufficient fiscal space for future crises; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 76

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;	2. Welcomes the fact that the RRF has provided temporary additional fiscal space since the pandemic and contributed to the prevention of harsh economic and social divergences between Member States with diverse fiscal space; notes the Commission finding that the RRF has led to a sustained increase in investments across the EU and that the Commission expects the RRF to have a lasting impact across the EU beyond 2026 given its synergies with other EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 77

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Is concerned that the RRF will expire by the end of 2026, posing a significant risk of a substantial decline in public investment in common European priorities, especially considering that financial resources from national budgets vary significantly among Member States; highlights the crucial role the RRF currently plays in boosting investment across the EU by maintaining increased levels of investment, thereby mitigating contractionary effects at a time when Member States are tightening public budgets through fiscal consolidation measures; urges therefore the self-proclaimed 'Investment Commission' to present a strategy to address the huge demand for public investment beyond 2026 without compromising budgetary resources in other critical areas;

Or. en

Amendment 78

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Is convinced, as highlighted by Mario Draghi in his report on the future of European competitiveness, that boosting competitiveness, decarbonising the economy, making it more circular and resource-efficient, and enhancing the Union’s innovation capacity are central priorities beyond 2026; underlines, in this respect, that the end of RRF will result in a sizeable funding gap notably for financing climate, biodiversity action, the digital transition and socio-economic cohesion-related investments across the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 a. Recalls that the RRF is falling short in transforming the European economy and boosting aggregate public and private investments, given the significant additional investments needed by the EU, as outlined in the Draghi Report on the future of European competitiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 80

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	2 b. Recalls that the current MFF and RRF amount to almost EUR 2 trillion for the current period and that the high inflation rates and the related heightened cost of goods and services have decreased the current value of European spending agreed in nominal terms in 2020;

Or. en

Amendment 81

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 82

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that the RRF will have significant long-term benefits on GDP, certainly outstripping the size of the budgetary commitments made; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;

Or. it

Amendment 83

Auke Zijlstra, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes that the repayment of the debt issuances and increased borrowing costs will have to be repaid with larger contributions from the Member States, new own resources or more borrowing, which will come at the expense of Member States' fiscal space to boost employment and economic growth; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 84

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment and a diligent implementation of reforms; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 85

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay;

Or. fr

Amendment 86

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; notes, furthermore, that the actual effectiveness and additionality of the RRF depends largely on the way funds are being used by the Member States and underlines that the Member States should channel the RRF funding to the benefit of the real economy and the whole society; 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; recalls that the RRF funding should not, unless in duly justified cases, substitute recurring national budgetary expenditure;

Or. en

Amendment 87

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; stresses the need for further independent evaluations to assess the real economic impact of reforms; 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; notes with concern that some investments have not yet delivered measurable productivity gains;

Or. en

Amendment 88

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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; stresses, nevertheless, the need for further improvements of the methodology to quantify the overall impact of the reforms and investments;

Or. en

Amendment 89

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;	3. 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 % compared with 2.3 %) due to adverse economic and geopolitical conditions and inflation, and of the estimation that NGEU could lead to a sizeable, short-run increase in EU employment by up to 0.8 %; notes with satisfaction that long-term benefits of the RRF on GDP could be three to six times bigger than the NGEU budget disbursed, depending on the productivity effects of RRF investment; highlights, however, the difficulty of quantifying the precise social and economic impact of the RRF, as the impact of reforms only becomes clear following a delay; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 90

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	3 a. Notes the European Central Bank's assessment1a that 70% of total RRF expenditure in the euro area consists of government spending and capital transfers with relatively high fiscal multipliers; welcomes the fact that, in most countries, RRF-funded expenditure, the bulk of which is expected to be spent by 2026, represents a real addition to GDP rather than a mere substitute for projects that would have been funded nationally; regrets, at the same time, that several factors, such as a lack of resources in local or regional administrative level, have weakened the economic and transformative impact of RRF-related investments and reforms;
	_________________
	1a Bańkowski, K. et al. 2024. Four years into NextGenerationEU: What impact on the euro area economy? Occasional paper series, no. 362. European Central Bank.

Or. en

Amendment 91

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that there is no clear evidence that the RRF would be a catalyst for reforms included in the country-specific recommendations as it is difficult to see any significant difference in the implementation progress between the periods of 2011-2018 and 2019-202211a, also notes that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;
	_________________
	11a In depth analysis of the Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit of 23 January 2025 entitled ‘Economic Dialogue with the European Commission on the launch of the 2025 European Semester'

Or. en

Amendment 92

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including economic cohesion, jobs, productivity, competitiveness, research, development and innovation, and a well-functioning internal market with strong SMEs, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience with the aim of, inter alia, increasing crisis preparedness and crisis response capacity, and policies for the next generation, children and the youth, such as education and skills;

Or. en

Amendment 93

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education; underlines the qualitative leap forward that the use of the RRF Scoreboard has triggered in terms of monitoring by the Commission the implementation and the issuance of ‘European Green Bonds’ to finance the share of climate-relevant expenditure in the RRF, and in terms of governance of investments by Member States; is of the opinion that the methods used with the RRF Scoreboard could be a source of inspiration for the management of other EU funds, including the MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 94

Ruggero Razza, Denis Nesci

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education; expresses its concern at the delay in work to meet health objectives, given that the entire system was designed during the pandemic emergency, during which obvious shortcomings arose in the Member States' investment capacity in the health-care sector;

Or. it

Amendment 95

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education; highlights that the rate of ‘fully implemented’ country-specific recommendations has nevertheless dropped from 18.1% in the period 2011-2018 to 13.9% in the period 2019-2023;

Or. en

Amendment 96

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education; highlights, however, that the overall uptake of country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester still remains low;

Or. en

Amendment 97

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education;	4. Notes that the RRF has incentivised the implementation of some reforms included in the country-specific recommendations made in the context of the European Semester and that the RRF Scoreboard is used to monitor the progress made towards achieving milestones and targets, as well as compliance with horizontal principles, and in particular the six pillars, namely the green transition, the digital transformation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, social and territorial cohesion, health, economic, social and institutional resilience, and policies for the next generation, children and young people, including education; highlights that economic reforms are a precondition to receiving funds from the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 98

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Highlights that in the context of the new economic governance framework, the set of reforms and investments underpinning an extension of the adjustment period should be consistent with the commitments included in the approved NRRPs during the period of operation of the RRF and the Partnership Agreement under the Common Provisions Regulation11 ; observes that the five Member States that requested an extension of the adjustment period by 31 December 2024 relied on the reforms and investments already approved under the RRF to justify the extension; takes note of the fact that most Member States have included information on whether the reforms and investments listed in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans are linked to the RRF;	5. Highlights that in the context of the new economic governance framework, the set of reforms and investments underpinning an extension of the adjustment period should be consistent with the commitments included in the approved NRRPs during the period of operation of the RRF and the Partnership Agreement under the Common Provisions Regulation11 ; observes that the five Member States that requested an extension of the adjustment period by 31 December 2024 relied on the reforms and investments already approved under the RRF to justify the extension; takes note of the fact that most Member States have included information on whether the reforms and investments listed in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans are linked to the RRF; recalls that some important elements of the country specific recommendations remained unaddressed in the NRRPs across the Member States largely related to recurring structural challenges Member States have been facing for years;
_________________	_________________
11 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj).	11 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 99

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
5. Highlights that in the context of the new economic governance framework, the set of reforms and investments underpinning an extension of the adjustment period should be consistent with the commitments included in the approved NRRPs during the period of operation of the RRF and the Partnership Agreement under the Common Provisions Regulation11 ; observes that the five Member States that requested an extension of the adjustment period by 31 December 2024 relied on the reforms and investments already approved under the RRF to justify the extension; takes note of the fact that most Member States have included information on whether the reforms and investments listed in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans are linked to the RRF;	5. Highlights that in the context of the new economic governance framework, the set of reforms and investments underpinning an extension of the adjustment period should be consistent with the commitments included in the approved NRRPs during the period of operation of the RRF and the Partnership Agreement under the Common Provisions Regulation11 ; observes that the five Member States that requested an extension of the adjustment period by 31 December 2024 relied partly on the reforms and investments already approved under the RRF to justify the extension; takes note of the fact that most Member States have included information on whether the reforms and investments listed in the medium-term fiscal-structural plans are linked to the RRF;
_________________	_________________
11 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj).	11 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 100

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Acknowledges that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but stresses the need for a strategic focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and measurable outcomes; notes with concern that the limited timeframe for the remaining RRF implementation poses challenges to the completion of key reforms and large-scale investments, and calls for a prioritisation of projects that deliver long-term economic benefits, enhance competitiveness, and ensure fiscal sustainability;

Or. en

Amendment 101

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; draws attention to the delays in the disbursement of funds and implementation of projects;

Or. en

Amendment 102

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Notes that the RRF aims to provide support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments, in particular because many important reforms and investments are to be finalised towards the end of the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Notes that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;

Or. fr

Amendment 104

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; acknowledges the challenges faced by the Member States but calls on them to step up their efforts in implementing their NRRPs; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments; calls on the Commission to address this risk through appropriate and timely measures;

Or. en

Amendment 105

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments impacted by the war in Ukraine and disruptions in the value chain; believes that the sustainability transformation needs to be speed up and the investment gap to be tackled, as Europe is dependent on critical resources; considers that especially the riskier investments into sustainable technologies and decarbonisation need additional time for their implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 106

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments; calls on the Commission, where appropriate, to make use of the possibility to recover funds if projects are not implemented according to schedule;

Or. en

Amendment 107

Enikő Győri, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments; calls on, therefore, the Commission to explore and come forward with possible solutions to extend the implementation deadline of the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 108

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments; encourages Member States to implement a strategic and comprehensive approach in order to fully implement the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 109

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments and of the remaining 72% milestones and targets not fulfilled;

Or. en

Amendment 110

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments;	6. Welcomes the fact that the RRF provides support for both reforms and investments in the Member States, but notes that a lot still remains to be done; is concerned that the short period for the remaining RRF implementation will not allow for the implementation of several planned important reforms and large investments, with the exception of duly justified extensions;

Or. it

Amendment 111

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. Is of the opinion that the RRF implementation is behind schedule; underlines that the delays caused by the revisions of the NRRPs came in addition to existing ones, as shown by the significant differences between the foreseen calendar of payments requests and the actual transmission of these requests by the Member States to the Commission; recalls that the second half of the RRF’s implementation period is more challenging with an increase in the number of milestones and targets, a shift from reforms to investments and more advanced stages of implementation, and a high proportion of measures to be completed in the last year;

Or. en

Amendment 112

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	6 a. Recalls that RRF expenditure should not substitute recurring national budgetary expenditure, unless duly justified, and should respect the principle of additionality of Union funding; underlines the usefulness of limiting investments to non-recurring spending while noting that unfortunately the exception has been used; insists that the firm implementation of non-recurrence together with the targeting of European political priorities in reforms and investments is key to ensure additionality and the long-lasting effect of additional European funds;

Or. en

Amendment 113

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. Regrets that prioritising RRF implementation, the lack of administrative capacity in many Member States and challenges posed by global supply chains have contributed to the significantly delayed implementation of cohesion policy thus hindering its fundamental objectives; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 114

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. 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, thereby hindering its role in regional development across the EU; recalls the need to uphold the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments, as cohesion policy remains essential for long-term, sustainable territorial cohesion and convergence;

Or. en

Amendment 115

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. Highlights that prioritising RRF implementation, the lack of administrative capacity in many Member States, reinforced by the lack of digitalisation of public administration in certain Member States, and challenges posed by global supply chains have contributed to the delayed implementation of cohesion policy; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments; considers that when the final recipients of RRF funds are large undertakings and business groups, the additionality principle may be put into question as the size and financial capacity of such entities allows for the "self-financing" of their investments, without having to resort to the Fund’s financial support;

Or. en

Amendment 116

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments; calls, in this context, for a comprehensive assessment of the RRF non-isolating other financial instruments and public investments, technical support, administrative capacities and absorption capacities of Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 117

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. 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 to manage the funds itself, to assume full responsibility for its policies and to refrain from offloading them onto the Member States, some of which are clearly not in a position to absorb this workload, thereby establishing a two-tier RRF; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;

Or. fr

Amendment 118

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
7. 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; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;	7. 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; highlights that this illustrates the limits of instruments such as the RRF; recalls the need to respect the additionality principle and appeals against the crowding out or replacement of cohesion policy by the RRF or other temporary instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 119

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. 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, tackling energy poverty and investing in energy savings; 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, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro-enterprises, and the flexible use of unspent cohesion funds from the 2014-2020 MFF and of up to 7.5 % of national allocations under the 2021-2027 MFF;	8. 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, tackling energy poverty and investing in energy savings; 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, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro-enterprises, and the flexible use of unspent cohesion funds from the 2014-2020 MFF and of up to 7.5 % of national allocations under the 2021-2027 MFF; emphasises that sustainable investments should not be limited only to energy efficiency and networks or mobility as a new competitive economy is built on circular and low-carbon solutions;

Or. en

Amendment 120

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
8. 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, tackling energy poverty and investing in energy savings; 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, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro-enterprises, and the flexible use of unspent cohesion funds from the 2014-2020 MFF and of up to 7.5 % of national allocations under the 2021-2027 MFF;	8. 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 our own indigenous resources and infrastructure, tackling energy poverty and investing in energy savings; 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, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro-enterprises, and the flexible use of unspent cohesion funds from the 2014-2020 MFF and of up to 7.5 % of national allocations under the 2021-2027 MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 121

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 122

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recognises the importance of cross-border projects, but recalls that, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have the best understanding on what challenges their economies are facing and as a consequence, what kind of investments and reforms have to be implemented in the framework of their respective NRRPs;

Or. en

Amendment 123

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects;

Or. it

Amendment 124

Siegfried Mureşan

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. 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 and the related risk of re-nationalising funding; recalls the modification of the RRF Regulation through the inclusion of REPowerEU chapters, which significantly strengthened the cross-border and multi-country measures.

Or. en

Amendment 125

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding despite Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2023/435 stating that Member States should strive to ensure that cross-border measures account for an amount that represents at least 30 % of the estimated costs of the measures in the REPowerEU chapter; also regrets the very broad application of the definition of cross-border in NRRPs;

Or. en

Amendment 126

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding; deplores that this is due to the fact that investment bottlenecks have emerged linked to the long time for the state aid notification process and the lack of clarity in terms of processes, timeline, responsibilities, the requirement criteria for project selection and the definition of additional benefits or spillovers;

Or. en

Amendment 127

Ruggero Razza, Denis Nesci

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding; considers that the Member States should propose, as part of the procedure for amending their national plan, also using resources earmarked for energy supply for cross-border cooperation projects with Mediterranean countries, with a view to guaranteeing the EU's energy autonomy.

Or. it

Amendment 128

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;	9. Recalls its call to focus RRF interventions on measures with European added value and therefore severely regrets the shortage of viable cross-border projects and the related risk of re-nationalising funding;

Or. en

Amendment 129

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	9 a. Notes with surprise that practically all RePowerEU chapters have surpassed the threshold of measures having a cross-border or multi-country dimension; is concerned by the extremely broad interpretation adopted by the Commission allowing any reduction in (national) energy demand to make a case for a cross-border effect; considers that such an approach is not aligned with the perceived need to take action to ensure real cross-border projects;

Or. en

Amendment 130

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Welcomes the possibility of using RRF funding to contribute to the objectives of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) by supporting investments in critical technologies in the EU in order to boost its industrial competitiveness;	10. Notes the possibility of using RRF funding to contribute to the objectives of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) by supporting investments in critical technologies in the EU in order to boost its industrial competitiveness; highlights that STEP is an instrument introduced under specific circumstances with very limited fresh money available;

Or. en

Amendment 131

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
10. Welcomes the possibility of using RRF funding to contribute to the objectives of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) by supporting investments in critical technologies in the EU in order to boost its industrial competitiveness;	10. Welcomes the possibility of using RRF funding to contribute to the objectives of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) by supporting investments in critical technologies in the EU in order to boost its industrial competitiveness; notes that no Member States has made use so far, of the possibility to revise its NRRP to include an additional cash contribution from the RRP to STEP objectives via the MS compartment of InvestEU; recalls that Member States can still amend their national plans in that regard; expects the revision processes not to be burdensome, slow and complex, especially considering the final deadline of 2026; recognises that the EU’s economic and strategic resilience also depends on its ability to address security threats;

Or. en

Amendment 132

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	10a. Hopes to recover any unused resources in projects to help Member States bolster their resilience to natural disasters and extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, especially in rural and island regions of the EU and regions hindered by geographical factors;

Or. it

Amendment 133

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 134

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 135

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Calls for the rigorous enforcement of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF; agrees with the ECA finding that the targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities risks the RRF’s effectiveness towards the green transition, as there is a trade-off between the objective to secure energy supply on the one hand, and environmental and climate concerns on the other;

Or. en

Amendment 136

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Stresses the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities especially in environmental targets such as biodiversity, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme; encourages Member States to conduct proper impact assessments for projects and investments as well as to share best practices from implementing the DNSH principle so that no RRF funds are used in environmentally destructive investments;

Or. en

Amendment 137

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Stresses the obligatory application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for every reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; is concerned by the ECA’s findings that the Commission’s DNSH guidance resulted in a different application of the principle across Member States, ranging from substantive assessments to opting for the simplified approach even for measures with higher risks of affecting one or more of the DNSH objectives; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;

Or. en

Amendment 138

Enikő Győri, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities;

Or. en

Amendment 139

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission, in light of the targeted derogation under REPowerEU, to assess the need for a change in the DNSH principle in order to facilitate the transition to lower carbon intensity for all economic activities in the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 140

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme;	11. Recalls the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle for all reforms and investments supported by the RRF, with a targeted derogation under REPowerEU for energy infrastructure and facilities needed to meet immediate security of supply needs; encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme and the need to assess the proportionality of administrative burden to ensure efficient implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 141

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	11 a. Encourages the Commission to assess the feasibility of a more uniform interpretation of the DNSH principle between the RRF and the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities, while taking into account the specificities of the RRF as a public expenditure programme; calls for the DNSH assessments to be made public, in particular as regards any required mitigating measures;

Or. en

Amendment 142

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	11 b. Recalls that the NRRPs need to be consistent with the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and their updates thereof; calls on the Commission to assess the contribution of the investments earmarked for the green transition under the NRRPs to the achievement of the new 2030 climate and energy targets set out in the respective revised NECPs;

Or. en

Amendment 143

Enikő Győri, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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);

Or. en

Amendment 144

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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); reminds that Article 8 of the RRF Regulation stipulates that the RRF shall 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 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092;

Or. en

Amendment 145

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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); 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; or RRF funding being used simply to replace national recurring costs or the national budget without any European added value; criticises that the RRF leads to a strong re-nationalisation with low levels of indirect effects to the European economy;

Or. en

Amendment 146

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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); 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 the unclear link between disbursed funds and implemented measures, the transparency and control issues or the issues related to the increased risk of double funding;

Or. en

Amendment 147

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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); 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 or overestimations regarding the actual contribution of the measures included in the NRRPs to the RRF objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 148

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
12. 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); 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;	12. 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); 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, corruption and conflicts of interest;

Or. fr

Amendment 149

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 12 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	12 a. Recommends the Commission to fully apply the horizontal financial rules laid down in the Financial Regulation in order to facilitate the implementation of the RRF; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 150

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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;

Or. en

Amendment 151

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; regrets the common debt with long-term debt payment as a consequence;

Or. en

Amendment 152

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; considers that a political discussion is obligatory on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets and the amounts at stake;

Or. fr

Amendment 153

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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, while others have made limited use of the RRF, 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 consider these findings when designing future EU financial instruments; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and 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, including defence and security; calls for an assessment of how and under which conditions unused RRF funds could be redirected to reinforce Europe’s defence capabilities, particularly through investments in dual-use technologies and critical defence infrastructure, while remaining aligned with the RRF’s original purpose; stresses that any reallocation of RRF funds must be accompanied by enhanced oversight and strict financial controls to prevent waste, ensure efficient spending, and align investments with strategic EU objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 154

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and 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, including its competitiveness; calls for an assessment of how and under which conditions unused RRF funds could be redirected to reboost Europe's competitiveness and resilience, particularly through investments in digital and green technologies aligned with the RRF's original purpose;

Or. en

Amendment 155

Ruggero Razza, Denis Nesci

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets; identifies, to this end, the enhancement of cohesion policy-financed projects concerning economic growth in depressed and inland areas as the main objective for the use of unused resources;

Or. it

Amendment 156

Danuše Nerudová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets; believes in this sense that the EU should consider using unused recovery funds for defence investments in order to increase the Union's ability to protect its citizens and strenghten its geopolitical role in the world;

Or. en

Amendment 157

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets; calls for unspent funds to be used a priori for repayment of outstanding debts, aiming to decrease EU indebtness and subsequent interest payments;

Or. en

Amendment 158

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 billion available will remain unused since this amount was not committed by the deadline of 31 December 2023; reminds in this regard, the risks and inefficiencies of joint borrowing; takes note of the fact that loans were only attractive for Member States that faced higher borrowing costs on the financial markets or that sought to compensate for a reduction in RRF grants; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;

Or. en

Amendment 159

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is needed on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;	13. Notes that only 13 Member States have requested loans and that EUR 92 billion of the EUR 385.8 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; recalls that Parliament had advocated for a higher share of grants than loans and considers that a political discussion is necessary and unavoidable on the use of unspent funds in the light of tight public budgets;

Or. it

Amendment 160

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	13 a. Notes with concern that national financial instruments under the RRF have been subject to significant delays and remain insufficiently publicised, leading to limited awareness and uptake by potential beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 161

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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;

Or. fr

Amendment 162

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 163

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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; stresses that refinancing efforts should avoid increasing Member States' contributions and instead focus on alternative financing mechanisms that do not burden national budgets;

Or. en

Amendment 164

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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;

Or. it

Amendment 165

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 166

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. Recalls the legal obligation to ensure full repayment of NGEU expenditure by 31 December 2058 at the latest; emphasises the need for a transparent and fiscally responsible strategy to achieve this without imposing additional burdens on taxpayers or Member States; 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, while ensuring strict budgetary discipline and avoiding undue reliance on uncertain future revenues; expresses concern over the lack of progress made in this regard and calls for a prudent and sustainable approach to new own resources that safeguards national contributions and fiscal sovereignty;

Or. en

Amendment 167

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. Recalls the legal obligation to ensure full repayment of NGEU expenditure by 31 December 2058 at the latest and greatly regrets the absence of a clear repayment plan; 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 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources;

Or. en

Amendment 168

Ľudovít Ódor, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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 and urges both the Council and the Commission, as well as the Parliament itself to speed up the endeavour to respond to the common necessity to identify potential new own resources without delay;

Or. en

Amendment 169

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay; proposes that such new revenues can come from a progressive wealth tax on ultra-rich individuals, a corporate profit levy as proposed by the Commission and financial transaction taxes; proposes also a tax on new digital intangible assets and cryptocurrency transactions due to their increasingly heavy environmental impacts in terms of water and energy consumption; states that these own resources are needed to manage the repayment without crowding out other budget priorities;

Or. en

Amendment 170

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay as a matter of urgency; points, furthermore, to the need to explore additional innovative and genuine new own resources, linked to EU policies, in order to cover the higher spending needs, both in terms of funding new priorities, but also in order to ensure the repayment of the debt;

Or. en

Amendment 171

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay; notes that the RRF as an innovative blueprint for financing the twin transitions provides a base model for future financial instruments; stresses that improvements on transparency, reporting and coherence in measuring results must be applied;

Or. en

Amendment 172

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
14. 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay;	14. 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 (IIA) 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 and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay; urges, moreover, the Commission to continue the efforts to identify fresh, new and preferably genuine own resources and other revenue sources for the Union budget;

Or. en

Amendment 173

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Is very concerned that after 2026 and the end of RRF payments, available funding for the green and digital transition in the EU will face a drastic decrease; is all the more concerned by the fact that the cumulative priorities of the EU call for additional investments as underpinned by the Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness; calls therefore for short-term solutions to avoid that the repayment of the RRF encumbers the available public funds under the MFF for instance by rolling-over the RRF debt as proposed by the Draghi report, and for medium-term solutions to attain the level of public and private investments suggested by the Draghi report;

Or. en

Amendment 174

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Believes that the revenue side of the Union budget should be used strategically to strengthen the Union’s competitiveness and sustainability, and to promote innovation in the EU, as well as social, fiscal and environmental justice; underlines that current own resources should be complemented by new tax-based own resources from the financial sector, as well as from the wealthiest individuals and households, taking into account sufficiency, social and economic equality, fiscal equivalence and overall distributional fairness among Member States and sectors;

Or. en

Amendment 175

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 a. Believes that the revenue side of the Union budget should be used strategically to strengthen the Union’s competitiveness and sustainability, and to promote innovation in the EU, as well as social, fiscal and environmental justice; underlines that green own resources should be complemented by new tax-based own resources from the corporate sector, as well as from the wealthiest individuals for reasons of taking into account sufficiency, social and economic equality, fiscal equivalence and overall distributional fairness among Member States and sectors;

Or. en

Amendment 176

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	14 b. Notes that loans under the RRF have been underused; calls on the Commission to propose a reuse of these funds in order to recycle them in other initiatives with similar objectives, in particular the Clean Industrial Deal;

Or. en

Amendment 177

Auke Zijlstra, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Condemns the Commission for severely misprojecting borrowing costs for NGEU between 0.55% and 1.15%, while, by early 2023, these rates had surged to over 3%, leading to a substantial increase in debt servicing costs; expresses deep concern about the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; regrets that this unacceptable miscalculation did not trigger any dismissals of executives in the Commission's DG BUDG;

Or. en

Amendment 178

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Underlines the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs, to the detriment of European taxpayers;

Or. fr

Amendment 179

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls furthermore that, given the estimated financial burden, flexible mechanisms must be brought in for the adjustment of expenses and simplification of reporting by means of interoperable IT tools and simplified administrative procedures;

Or. it

Amendment 180

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; regrets that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; recalls that this situation could have been avoided if the Council had accepted Parliament’s position to place all EURI repayment costs over and above the MFF ceilings;

Or. en

Amendment 181

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; highlights that the debt raised for financing the RRF grants, the lack of agreement to finance the repayment and the significant increase in financing costs put enormous pressure on the future Union budget;

Or. en

Amendment 182

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; calls for the Commission to include the borrowing costs in the EU budget without new own resources nor further increasing debt;

Or. en

Amendment 183

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs; stresses that such uncertainty is inherent to the issuing of common debt instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 184

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
15. Notes the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;	15. Notes with concern the Commission’s estimation that between 2024 and 2027, NGEU borrowing costs will exceed expectations by EUR 17 billion to EUR 27 billion; recalls that recourse to special instruments had to be made in the last three budgetary procedures to cover EURI instrument costs;

Or. en

Amendment 185

Auke Zijlstra

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Underlines that the higher interest rates have increased the annual repayment costs, which may require the Commission to divert funds from other EU programmes and initiatives, and to delay or scale back planned investments, which negatively affects institutional certainty for investors and undertakings; warns that these escalating costs could affect the EU's ability to manage its debt sustainably, which may put political pressure on the allegedly independent ECB to keep interest rates low for political purposes;

Or. en

Amendment 186

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 a. Considers that the introduction of fresh genuine revenue sources is indispensable to cover the additional budgetary burden arising from NextGenerationEU borrowing as well as the new political priorities; is deeply concerned by the complete absence of progress on the reform of the system of own resources in the Council in particular, in view of increasing needs and budgetary demands;

Or. en

Amendment 187

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	15 b. Urges, therefore, the Commission to maximise pressure on the Member States to find a swift agreement on the new own resources package and calls on the Council to adopt this proposal as a matter of urgency without further delay; urges the Commission to continue the efforts to identify fresh, new and preferably genuine own resources and other revenue sources for the EU budget beyond the IIA;

Or. en

Amendment 188

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. 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;	16. Calls for the Commission’s target to fund up to 30 % of NGEU costs by issuing greens bonds to be abolished; notes that by 31 December 2024 the Commission had issued European green bonds amounting to EUR 68.2 billion;

Or. en

Amendment 189

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. 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;	16. Welcomes 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;

Or. en

Amendment 190

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
16. 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;	16. 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; calls on the Commission to enhance the efforts for sustainable finance through the issuance of NGEU green bonds, channel funds into a wide array of green projects and set a high standard in the green bond market, thus encouraging the flow of capital towards environmentally positive investments;

Or. en

Amendment 191

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16 a. Is concerned that the Union's debt continues to rise, due to the temporary recovery instrument NGEU; is concerned that the increased debt and the associated higher interest costs will have long-term consequences on the EU's fiscal stability, potentially leading to greater financial strain and a reduced capacity to respond to future challenges or invest in key strategic areas;

Or. en

Amendment 192

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	16a. Considers that cutting the interest rate for loans granted under NextGenerationEU by means of joint financing instruments could significantly reduce the overall financial burden and make the Recovery and Resilience Facility more sustainable; calls on the Commission and the Council to look into the possibility of negotiating more advantageous financing conditions, since such an approach would promote more efficient debt management, thereby fostering a balanced sharing of risk among Member States, and would help to ease the burden on national budgets, improve financial stability and strengthen the economic resilience of the Union's territories;

Or. it

Amendment 193

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023;	17. Notes that only 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023; underlines that there are numerous cases of irregularities and investments exposed to risks of non-compliance, including projects that are technically mature but could be marred by illegal working conditions, conflicts of interest or artificial cost overruns, as well as cases of irregularities that are the subject of OLAF and EPPO investigations; calls on the Commission to carry out a systematic impact assessment of the projects financed to ensure that they comply fully not just with the technical specifications, but also with the social standards;

Or. fr

Amendment 194

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023;	17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023; calls on the Commission to ensure a regular update of the list of the 100 final recipients receiving the highest amount of funding for the implementation of measures under the RRF per Member State, in line with the provision under REPowerEU that requests Member States to report this information to be made public under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard;

Or. en

Amendment 195

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023;	17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023; questions whether the other half of disbursed funds may have been used either to substitute recurring budgetary expenditure or generate profit to Member States from the increased interest rates;

Or. en

Amendment 196

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023;	17. Notes that 47 % of the available RRF funds had been disbursed by 31 December 2024, with grants reaching 55 % and loans 37 %; is concerned, however, about the ECA’s finding that only 50 % of disbursed funds had reached final beneficiaries in 15 out of 22 Member States by October 2023; calls on Member States to step up their efforts so that RRF funding can actually reach the people and the real economy;

Or. en

Amendment 197

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 17 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	17 a. Recalls that RRF funds shall not be used to replace recurring budgetary expenditure, unless in duly justified case; and is preoccupied by the Court’s findings that some milestones and targets that were a substitution of recurring national budgetary expenditure were not adequately justified in the NRRPs;

Or. en

Amendment 198

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;	18. Emphasises that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;

Or. fr

Amendment 199

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;	18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; is concerned, however, by the fact that the ECA has revealed shortcomings on how the implementation of RRF measures has actually contributed to the green transition, has calculated possible overestimations of EUR 34.5 billion of the RRF climate contribution and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF; calls on the Commission to effectively address these deficiencies and to reflect better the recommendations by the ECA;

Or. en

Amendment 200

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;	18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF; calls on the Commission to take duly into account the criticisms of the ECA in order to improve the future functioning of any performance-based instruments similar to the RRF, in particular in the context of a more targeted MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 201

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;	18. Welcomes the fact that all Member States have surpassed the targets for the green (37 %) and the digital transitions (20 %), with average expenditure towards climate and digital objectives of the RRF as a whole standing at 42 % and 26 % respectively; emphasises that the green transition should cover a wide range of different projects and investments with harmonised indicators, and notes that the ECA has cast doubt on how the implementation of RRF measures has contributed to the green transition and has recommended improvements to the methodologies used to estimate the climate impact; highlights the fact that the same methodological deficiencies exist across all pillars of the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 202

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	18 a. Regrets that the application of the DNSH principle was confronted with notable shortcomings at the stage of the implementation; underlines that as the Commission did not quantify the nature and scale of the impact of potentially harmful measures, it remains unclear whether the explanations provided and the mitigating measures suggested were sufficient to ensure compliance with the DNSH principle; is further alarmed that where mitigating measures were needed to grant a positive DNSH assessment, such measures have not systematically been included in the form of milestones or targets in the NRRPs preventing their fulfilment to become a payment condition and to create a legal basis to follow-up their implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 203

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	18 b. Recalls that, under NGEU, at least 37% of spending in NRRPs will be used for sustainable investments and reforms in areas such as green infrastructure and renewable energy and that proceeds from NGEU Green Bonds are used to finance these investments; welcomes the impact reporting for the bonds and stresses that the full implementation of all measurable climate-relevant actions can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 44 million tonnes per annum, which is equivalent to 1.2% of aggregate EU greenhouse gas emissions in 2022; is of the opinion that the bond premium together with the clearer impact reporting of the investment is an excellent model for any future borrowing;

Or. en

Amendment 204

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 205

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind;

Or. en

Amendment 206

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the potential impact that the RRF may have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; underlines that such spending must be results-oriented, ensuring measurable economic and social benefits; stresses the need to redirect resources towards initiatives that enhance long-term economic resilience, particularly in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection, skills-based workforce integration, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, to ensure that funded projects deliver concrete outcomes, avoid inefficiencies, and are aligned with broader fiscal and economic sustainability goals;

Or. en

Amendment 207

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, health, social protection, gender policies, children care and protection, and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment as well as investments for the full implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, where expenditure is lagging behind; recalls its concern that the delegated acts on social expenditure and on the recovery and resilience scoreboard are not sufficient to track and report on the social and gender dimensions and impact of the RRF; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF; calls furthermore on the Commission to better reflect the tracking of the implementation of the 20 principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights through complementary social and gender indicators in the thematic analysis of the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard;

Or. en

Amendment 208

Irene Tinagli

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF; regrets that delays in the implementation of key social infrastructure investments, including early childhood education and care facilities, have been observed in certain Member States; stresses that these delays, in some cases linked to shifting budgetary priorities and revised national implementation timelines, risk undermining the achievement of the Facility’s social cohesion objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 209

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF; recalls the fact that education is a competence of Member States; calls for the Commission to abstain from any violation of the Treaty by infringing on national competences;

Or. en

Amendment 210

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; notes the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; however, stresses that the RRF should not be used to boost existing funding for Cohesion policy and programmes, but to generate o real added-value; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 211

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of the EU's rural island and remote areas, which are hindered by socio-economic and geographic factors, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;

Or. it

Amendment 212

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, productivity growth, R&D, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 213

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;	19. Notes the tangible impact that the RRF could have on social objectives, with Member States planning to spend around EUR 163 billion; stresses the need to accelerate investments in the development of rural and remote areas, affordable housing, social protection and the integration of vulnerable groups, and youth employment, where expenditure is lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the projects and reforms related to education and young people implemented by Member States under the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 214

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19 a. Observes that a large majority of NRRPs include a specific section explaining how the plan addresses gender-related concerns and challenges; deeply regrets, however, that some NRRPs do not include such sections and calls on the concerned Member States to provide elements and information on how their NRRPs contribute to gender equality without delay;

Or. en

Amendment 215

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19 a. Regrets that Parliament’s position to include targets for education (10 %) and for cultural activities (2 %) was not included in the RRF Regulation and encourages the Commission to consider these targets as a benchmark in its assessment of education policy in NRRPs, through the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard;

Or. en

Amendment 216

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada, Sandra Gómez López

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	19 a. Highlights the fact that RRF could help mitigating the effects of the current Union-wide housing crisis; regrets that some Member States did not make use of this opportunity and stresses, in this regard, that Member States could still adjust their NRRPS to include investment on housing;

Or. en

Amendment 217

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Acknowledges the contributions made under the smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth pillar, particularly in enhancing competitiveness and supporting SMEs; stresses that such efforts must prioritise market-driven solutions, entrepreneurship, and economic self-sufficiency; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation and enterprise support, while ensuring that regulatory changes foster innovation, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and enhance global competitiveness rather than imposing unnecessary constraints;

Or. en

Amendment 218

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments to tackle the persistent investment gap in order to create a new sustainable and competitive economy in Europe, while paying attention to transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

Or. en

Amendment 219

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind; calls for an in-depth evaluation by the Commission, under the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, of the amounts allocated to SMEs for investments related to policies under the green, digital and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillars under the RRF, as well as energy measures under the REPowerEU; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure a more effective and timely disbursement of funds, particularly for SMEs, and to streamline application procedures to enhance accessibility;

Or. en

Amendment 220

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind; stresses that the success of EU investments depends on well-functioning capital markets and calls for further progress in completing the Capital Markets Union (CMU) to mobilise private investment, reduce dependence on public funding, and enhance the competitiveness of European businesses;

Or. en

Amendment 221

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in boosting the green and digital transitions of enterprises, transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, improving access to finance for SMEs and young entrepreneurs and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;

Or. en

Amendment 222

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for competitive enterprises leading innovative projects while respecting competition policy, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;

Or. en

Amendment 223

Siegfried Mureşan

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
20. Welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;	20. Notes the impact that the RRF could have on the digital transformation objective, with EUR 166 billion allocated to corresponding plans; welcomes the contributions made under the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth pillar, in particular to competitiveness and support for SMEs; notes the need for an acceleration of investments in transnational cooperation, support for enterprises, and regulatory changes for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which are lagging behind;

Or. en

Amendment 224

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20a. Stresses, furthermore, the importance of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and calls for specific measures – such as tax incentives, easier access to credit, and technical training programmes – to provide targeted support to help them play a more prominent role in the process of smart and inclusive growth;

Or. it

Amendment 225

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20 a. Highlights the uneven situation regarding the implementation and absorption rates of RRF funds across Member States ranging between 0% and 76.6% as of 9 January 2025;

Or. en

Amendment 226

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20 b. Reminds the Commission of ECA’s recommendation to provide additional support and guidance, where necessary, to address any remaining uncertainties in the areas identified by Member States to facilitate disbursements;

Or. en

Amendment 227

Enikő Győri, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	20 c. Expresses its concern, that the existing scattered absorption rates and disparities among Member States accessing the RRF funds will lead to distortion of fair competition among companies in the EU, as over 72% of the disbursed RRF funds were received by only four Member States and only less than 4% of the funds were disbursed to 15 Member States as of 9 January 2025, causing significant tensions in the Single Market;

Or. en

Amendment 228

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Deplores that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; highlights that the RRF will only unfold its long-term potential if the reform component is properly implemented; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;

Or. en

Amendment 229

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Regrets that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;

Or. en

Amendment 230

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; observes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but significant delays remain, affecting key reforms and investments, which have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures; calls on the Commission to ensure that remaining disbursements are tied to demonstrable progress on structural reforms and that administrative bottlenecks are urgently addressed;

Or. en

Amendment 231

Irene Tinagli

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures; notes that the postponement of key implementation deadlines by some governments to 2026 raises concerns about the capacity of some Member States to fully absorb the allocated funds within the timeframe of the RRF; stresses the importance of maintaining a realistic and effective implementation schedule to prevent the risk of incomplete projects and missed opportunities for structural improvements;

Or. en

Amendment 232

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the inefficient and discretionary mechanism of the RRF as a whole, revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;

Or. en

Amendment 233

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;	21. Notes that the achievement of milestones and targets lags behind the indicative timetable provided in the NRRPs, and that the pace of progress is uneven across Member States; welcomes the fact that, following a slow start, RRF implementation has picked up since the second half of 2023 but delays still persist and have been attributed to various factors, including the revisions linked to the inclusion of REPowerEU, mounting inflation, the insufficient administrative capacity of Member States, in particular the small ones, uncertainties regarding specific RRF implementation rules, high energy costs, supply shortages and an underestimation of the time needed to implement measures;

Or. en

Amendment 234

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	21 a. Doubts whether the RRF can fulfil its mandate in light of the existing significant differences in absorption rates and present difficulties to access funds, and whether it will strengthen and widen the already existing imbalances and differences among Member States instead of making them more sustainable, resilient and better prepared for new challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 235

Enikő Győri, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Recalls the modification of the RRF Regulation through the inclusion of the REPowerEU chapter; stresses the importance of the REPowerEU chapters in NRRPs and calls on the Member States to prioritise mature projects and implement their NRRPs more quickly, both in terms of reforms and investments, in order to respond to challenges stemming from geopolitical events and to tackle current realities on the ground, without undermining the overall balance and level of ambition of the NRRPs and in line with the RRF’s objectives;	22. Recalls the modification of the RRF Regulation through the inclusion of the REPowerEU chapter; stresses the importance of the REPowerEU chapters in NRRPs and reiterates its call on the Commission to actively explore the extension of the implementation deadline in order to allow Member States to respond to challenges stemming from geopolitical events and to tackle current realities on the ground, without undermining the overall balance and level of ambition of the NRRPs and in line with the RRF’s objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 236

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
22. Recalls the modification of the RRF Regulation through the inclusion of the REPowerEU chapter; stresses the importance of the REPowerEU chapters in NRRPs and calls on the Member States to prioritise mature projects and implement their NRRPs more quickly, both in terms of reforms and investments, in order to respond to challenges stemming from geopolitical events and to tackle current realities on the ground, without undermining the overall balance and level of ambition of the NRRPs and in line with the RRF’s objectives;	22. Recalls the modification of the RRF Regulation through the inclusion of the REPowerEU chapter; stresses the importance of the REPowerEU chapters in NRRPs and calls on the Member States to prioritise mature projects and to adjust and implement their NRRPs more quickly, both in terms of reforms and investments, in order to respond to challenges stemming from geopolitical events and to tackle current realities on the ground, without undermining the overall balance and level of ambition of the NRRPs and in line with the RRF’s objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 237

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against rule of law deficiencies; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;	23. Recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;

Or. fr

Amendment 238

Enikő Győri, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against rule of law deficiencies; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;	23. Highlights that the Commission’s assessment on the fulfilment of milestones is not transparent and rather political without objective and clear standards and deadlines; recalls in this regard the discretionary power of the Commission; regrets that, as a result, it is possible to use super milestones as a political blackmailing tool;

Or. en

Amendment 239

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against rule of law deficiencies; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;	23. Highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against the rule of law deficiencies and ensure the full implementation of the requirements under Article 22 of the RRF Regulation; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF; recalls that any measures that would lead to backtracking on the ‘super milestones’ or measures linked to Article 22 should result, where relevant, in an immediate suspension of payments and recoveries;

Or. en

Amendment 240

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
23. Highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against rule of law deficiencies; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;	23. Recalls that compliance with the rule of law and Article 2 TFEU are prerequisites to gain access to RRF funding and that the rule of law conditionality mechanism is fully applicable to the RRF; highlights the role of ‘super milestones’ in protecting the EU’s financial interests against rule of law deficiencies; welcomes the fact that all but one Member State have satisfactorily fulfilled their ‘super milestones’; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 241

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Regrets the time lag between the fulfilment of milestones and targets and the actual implementation of projects; regrets also the thematic disconnect between the milestones and targets and the actual projects implemented; urges the Commission for the future to clearly link milestones and targets to ensure a clear traceability on the real performance;

Or. en

Amendment 242

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 23 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	23 a. Calls on the Commission to provide equal access to RRF funds to every Member State and not to withhold funds for political reasons; recalls in this regard that the Commission has to respect the equality of all Member States as it is laid down in the Treaties;

Or. en

Amendment 243

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;	24. Stresses that the RRF implementation has meant considerable efforts at national level to comply with the requirement of the performance-based system; notes that the demand-driven Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs;

Or. en

Amendment 244

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;	24. Regrets the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;

Or. en

Amendment 245

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;	24. Regrets the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;

Or. fr

Amendment 246

Siegfried Mureşan

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;	24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by at least 25 %, and by at least 35% for SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 247

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %;	24. Notes the high administrative burden and complexity brought by the RRF; stresses the considerable efforts required at national level to implement the RRF in parallel with structural funds; notes that between 2021 and 2024 the Technical Support Instrument supported more than 500 RRF-related reforms in the Member States, directly or indirectly related to the preparation, amendment, revision and implementation of the NRRPs; takes note of the Commission guidance of July 2024 with simplifications and clarifications to streamline RRF implementation but expects the Commission to act swiftly on its promise to cut the administrative burden by 25 %; urges the Commission to give clear targeted technical support to Member states to develop efficient administrative capacity to implement the milestones and targets, subsidised by European tax payers money; calls for decreasing the level of complexity of tender procedures and increasing the threshold for European tenders, so that not every small regional project requires a European tender;

Or. en

Amendment 248

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24 a. Expresses concern over the complexity of application procedures for RRF funding, particularly for SMEs and NGOs, which require external consultancy services even for small grants; emphasises that such bureaucratic obstacles contradict the original objectives of the RRF, which aimed to provide rapid and direct financial support; calls for urgent simplification of application and reporting requirements, particularly for smaller beneficiaries, to maximise the absorption and impact of funds;

Or. en

Amendment 249

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	24a. Calls on the Member States to make efforts, particularly as regards resource allocation, planning, operational management and execution, to ensure full use of the allocated funds by 31 August 2028;

Or. pt

Amendment 250

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 25

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
25. Believes that implementation delays underscore the risk that measures for which RRF funding has been paid will not be completed by the 2026 payment deadline; recalls the Commission’s statement at the Recovery and Resilience Dialogue (RRD) of 16 September 2024 that it will not reimburse non-implemented projects but considers it a shortcoming that RRF funds paid for milestones and targets assessed as fulfilled cannot be recovered if related measures are not eventually completed;	25. Believes that implementation delays underscore the risk that measures for which RRF funding has been paid will not be completed by the 2026 payment deadline; welcomes the Commission’s statement at the Recovery and Resilience Dialogue (RRD) of 16 September 2024 that it will not reimburse non-implemented projects but considers it a shortcoming that RRF funds paid for milestones and targets assessed as fulfilled cannot be recovered if related measures are not eventually completed;

Or. en

Amendment 251

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects;	26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects; criticises that the RRF is a seven-year plan, which makes it inflexible and impossible to react to new crisis situations or changes of the economic, security, environmental or social situations; urges the Commission to guarantee a better and fair distributions of funds in the future as the RRF shows that, already two years after its start, the challenges facing Member States changed fundamentally; urges the Commission to create programmes that are flexible enough to give proper answers on changing circumstances and at the same time guarantee a certain predictability;

Or. en

Amendment 252

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects;	26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects; encourages the Commission to take into account the ECA's recommendations related to this and, in cooperation with Member States, assess the measures most at risk of not being completed by 31 August 2026; stresses the importance of monitoring these measures, facilitating timely follow-up, and working towards solutions to overcome delays;

Or. en

Amendment 253

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects;	26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects, watering down the overall ambitions while risking an inefficient spending of the public money;

Or. en

Amendment 254

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on commitments or lower quality projects;	26. Notes that some milestones and targets may be no longer achievable because of objective circumstances; stresses that any NRRP revisions should be made in accordance with the RRF Regulation, including of the applicable deadlines, and should not entail backtracking on reforms, commitments or lower quality projects;

Or. en

Amendment 255

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 27

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
27. Highlights that the duration of the Commission’s assessment of payment requests by Member States differs considerably among the Member States and stresses the need for more transparency from the Commission; urges the Commission to accelerate its assessments and to ensure the equal treatment of the Member States;	27. Highlights that the duration of the Commission’s assessment of payment requests by Member States differs considerably among the Member States and stresses the need for more transparency from the Commission; urges the Commission to accelerate its assessments and to ensure the equal treatment of the Member States; highlights the need to ensure a level playing field across the EU for measures and indicators which are used to assess all RRF projects;

Or. en

Amendment 256

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 27 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	27 a. Emphasises that major beneficiaries, such as Italy and Spain, have faced considerable pressure to efficiently distribute their substantial shares of the funds; notes that this challenge has also been associated with absorption difficulties in several Member States due to limited administrative capacity and heavy bureaucratic burden; stresses that domestic governments and public administrations have often lacked sufficient resources to manage the “administrative congestion” caused by the rapid influx of such large amounts of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 257

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 258

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion;

Or. en

Amendment 259

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline;

Or. en

Amendment 260

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges Member States to streamline administrative procedures, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and ensure effective resource allocation to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline; emphasises the importance of fair regional distribution while ensuring that RRF funds are allocated based on economic impact, feasibility, and long-term benefits; supports an extension of up to 12 months for projects demonstrating significant progress and clear economic or social benefits, rather than an automatic extension; welcomes the possibility of a targeted and performance-based prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline to finalise high-impact projects through existing funding mechanisms, such as the European Investment Fund, while ensuring fiscal prudence in any potential new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 261

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Invites the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 262

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for a possible extension of 24 months for projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 263

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 75 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 264

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 40 % before the 2026 deadline; emphasises the need for an evaluation based on objective parameters for the purposes of assessing possible extensions for all projects below this implementation rate; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. it

Amendment 265

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 30 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 266

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; calls on the Commission to halt disbursements in case the relevant milestones and targets are not met after any extension; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund; calls for an evaluation of how this framework could enable targeted investments in EU defence supply chains, strategic stockpiles, and defence innovation, ensuring alignment with broader European security objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 267

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; notes with concern that the RRF Regulation is ill-suited for innovative projects, as its timeframe is too restrictive; further notes that innovative projects, by definition, are more difficult to plan and more likely to encounter obstacles during implementation, making them unsuited to the RRF’s strict deadlines;calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 268

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline, address the country-specific recommendations, enhance the future resilience of the Member States and the Union as a whole, and have been assessed as such by the relevant services of the Commission and the Council; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 269

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;	28. Urges the Member States to increase their efforts to address administrative bottlenecks and provide sufficient administrative capacity to accelerate RRF implementation in view of the 2026 deadline and to avoid concentrating RRF projects in more developed regions and capitals by enabling RRF funds to flow into projects in the most vulnerable regions and for the most vulnerable populations, thereby serving the RRF’s objective to enhance the EU’s social, territorial and economic cohesion; calls for the automatic 12-month extension of projects that have an implementation rate of at least 20 % before the 2026 deadline; welcomes the possibility to establish a prioritisation and transfer system after the 2026 deadline in order to allow for the finalisation of ongoing projects through other funding schemes, including the European Investment Fund and a possible new European competitiveness fund;

Or. en

Amendment 270

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	28 a. 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, as their inclusion raises doubts about the added value of the RRF; underlines that due to their different implementation models, double funding between RRF and other EU funding instruments might be more difficult to identify; urges the Commission to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying any potential situation of double funding;

Or. en

Amendment 271

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	28 a. Recalls that one of the main goals of the Recovery and Resilience Facility is the arrival of these resources to the productive sectors to facilitate economic recovery, job creation and greater competitive capacity of our private companies, with special attention to SMEs, who are having serious difficulties in accessing EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 272

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	28 b. Regrets the rigidity of the NRRPs, as it fails to accommodate shifting priorities following a change in government;

Or. en

Amendment 273

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	28 c. Is concerned that some Member States might choose to forego parts of the amounts or entire amounts associated with their last payment request, thus avoiding the fulfilment of the last milestones and targets and jeopardising the overall implementation of the NRRPs; is extremely concerned about the additional risks of measures being reversed after the RRF lifetime, and urges the Commission to ensure that such situations will not occur when making the final payments;

Or. en

Amendment 274

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	28 d. Is concerned about the Commission's uneven assessment of NRRPs, which has led to double standards in the application of the Regulation; is further concerned about the uneven and different definition of milestones and targets from one NRRP to the other, as consistently reported by ECA;

Or. en

Amendment 275

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
29. 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 to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures;	29. 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 to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements;

Or. it

Amendment 276

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
29. 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 to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures;	29. 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 to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures, and to adopt provisions to ensure that the funding is not allocated to other projects or used for other purposes;

Or. fr

Amendment 277

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
29. 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 to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures;	29. 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) of the RRF Regulation, to recover funding in case of incorrect disbursements or reversals of measures;

Or. en

Amendment 278

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	29 a. Considers that reforms may have a monetary value in the payment schedule, that does not necessarily correspond with the associated costs of the reform and that therefore the link between costs and payments is weak; considers, however, that under the RRF, as repeatedly stated by the Commission, the monetary value of each payment, based on achieved reforms and investments, eventually results in investments, as the value of all investments equals or surpasses the value of all payments;

Or. en

Amendment 279

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	29 a. Notes that the ex-post evaluation of the long-term impact of the RRF is reserved to the Commission; stresses that such evaluation will take place in 2028, that is only two years after the completion of investments, which is too soon to establish impacts; requests the Commission to openly discuss the parameters and the statistical and econometric methods that will be used to evaluate such impacts;

Or. en

Amendment 280

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds;	30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds; notes that the framework for assessing milestones and targets lacks explanations, including on why the verification mechanism as described in the operational arrangement should not be considered for the assessment; notes that definitions of ‘satisfactory fulfilment’ of the relevant milestones and targets are defined through terms that lack a clear definition and contain 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; asks that further clarifications be given;

Or. en

Amendment 281

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds;	30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds; regrets that the Commission provided the methodology for the determination of payment suspensions two years after the start of the RRF implementation period and that it leaves room for interpretation;

Or. en

Amendment 282

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds;	30. Notes that the Commission relies on its own methodologies when calculating partial payments and suspensions of funds; regrets the lack of sufficient consultation with the Parliament for the determination of these methodologies;

Or. en

Amendment 283

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	30 a. Notes that the ECA audits revealed that in several cases requirements related to the fulfilment of milestones and targets were not adequately met and that the Commission still made the corresponding payments;

Or. en

Amendment 284

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	30 b. Is concerned that in several cases the audits of the ECA revealed that certain investments included in the NRRPs were either programmed before the eligibility period of the RRF or that various phases of the respective investments started before the eligibility period;

Or. en

Amendment 285

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 30 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	30 c. Notes the discussions under the RRF concerning the insufficient insight into the costs of proposed milestones and targets and the use of so-called ‘zero-cost measures’; considers that the limited information on the costs of measures has severely hampered the work of the discharge authority, as repeatedly mentioned in the discharge resolutions; notes that having clear insights on costs also facilitates the work of control and oversight bodies such as the EPPO and OLAF and can increase public scrutiny;

Or. en

Amendment 286

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 31

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
31. 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;	31. 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; stresses that the Commission has accepted many but not all of the ECA’s recommendations; regrets, given the amounts at stake, that the Commission is taking a passive approach and is content to wait for the ECA's findings;

Or. fr

Amendment 287

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 31

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
31. 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;	31. 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 misuse of EU funds; calls for enhanced transparency and for the full implementation of all of the ECA’s recommendations, particularly those related to the prevention of double funding and to ensuring that all RRF-expenditures adhere to strict financial oversight and performance-based benchmarks;

Or. en

Amendment 288

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 31

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
31. 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;	31. 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, the risks of substituting recurring national budgetary expenditure and the actual contribution of RRF measures to the green transition; notes that the Commission has at least partially accepted many but not all of the ECA’s recommendations;

Or. en

Amendment 289

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners;	32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners; is particularly concerned by the interpretation of the Commission of what constitutes a final recipient, which is not in line with the RRF Regulation, and maintains that ministries, public authorities or other contracting authorities cannot be listed as final recipients of RRF funding; insists that Member States should publish all final recipients of RRF funding;

Or. en

Amendment 290

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners;	32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners; recalls that the Commission should ensure that Member States have a common understanding of what constitutes a 'final recipient' and apply it consistently; recalls that the purpose of this requirement was not to have a list of public institutions but genuine final recipients, including contractors and sub-contractors;

Or. en

Amendment 291

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners;	32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners, and not simply ministries or government bodies or state companies, which is the case in the list of final beneficiaries for almost every Member State; calls for clearer project descriptions in the Member States’ lists of final beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 292

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners;	32. Regrets the lack of a proper RRF audit trail and the persistent lack of transparency and accountability 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 include information on the economic operators involved, including contractors and sub-contractors, and their beneficial owners; calls on the Member States to provide this information and to improve compliance with their reporting obligations for the sake of public trust, transparency and accountability;

Or. en

Amendment 293

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners;	32. 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 include information on the economic operators involved and their beneficial owners; further regrets that the current definition of 'final recipient' leaves room for interpretation, which results in different final beneficiaries for similar measures among Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 294

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about weaknesses in some national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;

Or. it

Amendment 295

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure but also to the lack of administrative capacity, affecting the capacity to detect fraud, corruption, conflict of interests and ineligible expenditure, and to ensure compliance with the RRF requirements; points also to specific concerns related to individual bodies within Member States, such as the lack of coordination and supervision, data collection issues, incomplete anti-fraud strategies and fraud risk assessments, and necessary improvements regarding the ex-ante controls; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail various risks, including the risk that expenditure is declared twice;

Or. en

Amendment 296

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; recalls that non-compliance with the rules on public procurement or state aid is a major source of error in Cohesion and other EU programmes; calls, therefore, 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; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;

Or. en

Amendment 297

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards despite the existence of tools such as EDES and ARACHNE, whose use is not mandatory, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice and that information on final recipients is not available for transparency purposes and final recipients cannot be audited; recalls, in this regard, the reluctance of Member States to make progress on the relevant IT tools in a timely manner;

Or. en

Amendment 298

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice; requests, for all these reasons, that Member States provide the list of the 100 largest final recipients excluding other public institutions or intermediate organisations and publish the final execution data in case they have so far refused to do so;

Or. en

Amendment 299

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. 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 to the complexity of the audit and control procedures for the new performance-based instrument, which created uncertainty in Member States and an overload of administrative procedures; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;

Or. en

Amendment 300

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice; believes that payments should be immediately suspended and, where appropriate, amounts recovered, if weaknesses persist in the national control systems;

Or. en

Amendment 301

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
33. Is concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;	33. 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 double funding; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice;

Or. en

Amendment 302

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Julien Sanchez

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	33 a. Stresses the importance to use of integrated and interoperable IT systems and data mining tools, and to support and incentivise Member States to set up and systematically use integrated and interoperable IT systems like ARACHNE and connect it with other Commission databases of EU-funded projects and their beneficiaries to increase its potential, as requested by the ECA in Special Report 22/2024;

Or. en

Amendment 303

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
34. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs;	deleted

Or. en

Amendment 304

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
34. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs;	34. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs; is concerned about the ongoing weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, exacerbated by the discrepancies in national anti-fraud systems and the fact that Member States are not required to report irregularities systematically; stresses that the 233 investigations opened by the EPPO into RRF measures reveal a lack of proactive coordination and prevention; calls on the Commission to make it compulsory to use Arachne, the existing cohesion policy tool that analyses the risk of double funding, to strengthen fraud detection and harmonise surveillance practices across the Member States;

Or. fr

Amendment 305

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
34. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs;	34. Shares the view of the ECA that the FNLC model does not preclude reporting on actual costs; calls on the Member States to report thoroughly on the actual expenditure disbursed and on the Commission to make use of this information for reporting purposes, including for the calculation of the actual contribution of the measures included in the NRRPs to the RRF objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 306

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	34 a. Recalls that the reporting on the progress of implementation in the RRF Scoreboard is based on estimates as the Commission does not collect information on actual costs; highlights that lack of information on actual costs makes it impossible to assess the efficiency of the use of RRF resources and limits significantly the transparency of the use of RRF funding;

Or. en

Amendment 307

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
35. Highlights the important role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (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 and expects the number of investigations (233 cases in 2024) to grow as RRF implementation advances;	35. Highlights the important role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and OLAF in protecting the EU’s financial interests in the RRF, despite their lack of human resources, given the historic amounts at stake; welcomes the fact that EPPO investigations into RRF-related fraud and corruption cases have led to several arrests, indictments and seizures of RRF funds and expects the number of investigations (233 cases in 2024) to grow as RRF implementation advances; is concerned that the fraud cases uncovered include document forgery, manipulation of invitations to tender and misappropriation of funds via shell companies; stresses that such fraud undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the RRF; calls on the Commission to ensure direct access to the invoices and supporting documents of the projects financed, rather than relying solely on the declarations of the Member States, so as to make it easier to detect conflicts of interest and prevent the risk of double funding;

Or. fr

Amendment 308

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
35. Highlights the important role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (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 and expects the number of investigations (233 cases in 2024) to grow as RRF implementation advances;	35. Highlights the important role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (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 and expects the number of investigations (233 cases in 2024) to grow as RRF implementation advances; stresses that the figures concerning the amounts involved presented by the EPPO confirm that the risk of fraud is present in the RRF and that they call into question the reliability of Member State management declarations in terms of reporting detected fraud and the remedial measures taken;

Or. en

Amendment 309

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	35 a. Reiterates the role of the Recovery and Resilience 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;

Or. en

Amendment 310

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	35 b. 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 transmitts 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; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 311

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 36

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
36. 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, and the regular flow of information and ad hoc requests for information from the Commission;	36. 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 the yearly discharge procedure, 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 regular flow of information and ad hoc requests for information from the Commission, and the role of Parliament's committee on Budgetary Control in RRF scrutiny during the annual discharge procedure of the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 312

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
37. Reiterates that information on the implementation of the RRF transmitted by the Commission to the Council should simultaneously be made available to Parliament; encourages the sharing of relevant outcomes of discussions held in Council preparatory bodies with the competent parliamentary committees;	37. Reiterates that information on the implementation of the RRF transmitted by the Commission to the Council should simultaneously be made available to Parliament in accordance with Article 25(2) of the RRF Regulation; encourages the sharing of relevant outcomes of discussions held in Council preparatory bodies with the competent parliamentary committees;

Or. en

Amendment 313

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	37 a. Invites the Commission to follow an open, transparent and constructive approach during the Recovery and Resilience Dialogues and to respect Article 26(1) of the RRF Regulation as regards regular interactions with Parliament; recalls that the interinstitutional cooperation established through the RRF should become a minimum standard in all funding programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 314

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;

Or. en

Amendment 315

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Criticises the fact that the Commission and Member states' governments designed the RRF in a way that the Parliament was excluded from the design of the NRRPs; criticises furthermore that the information provided to the Parliament has not given a clear and traceable overview of the real implementation status of projects and payments; regrets that the Parliament is never consulted on payment requests; expects to be properly informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;

Or. en

Amendment 316

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Reminds of the fact that Parliament’s role is settled in Articles 25 and 26 of the RRF Regulation; reiterates that based on this Regulation, Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; emphasises, in this regard, that Parliament always has to act within the remit of its competences;

Or. en

Amendment 317

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; is of the opinion that that would have prevented many of the mistakes made by the Commission without any consultation; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions; regrets that Parliament does not have a more active role in detecting and exposing RRF-related fraud; calls for mechanisms to be put in place to involve Parliament more fully in these processes with a view to ensuring greater transparency and optimum use of EU funds;

Or. fr

Amendment 318

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Takes note of the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;

Or. it

Amendment 319

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to have an enhanced role in possible future instruments based on the RRF experience;

Or. en

Amendment 320

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 38

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
38. Regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;	38. Regrets the fact that Parliament is not consulted on payment requests through active participation of representatives of its competent committees in existing platforms of the Council; expects to be informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions;

Or. en

Amendment 321

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. Notes that Member States should involve local and regional authorities (LRAs), civil society organisations, social partners, national parliaments and other relevant stakeholders in the design, revision or implementation of NRRPs in line with their constitutional traditions; 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; calls 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;

Or. en

Amendment 322

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. Takes note of the marginal 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; 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;

Or. it

Amendment 323

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. Regrets the lack of collaboration with local and regional authorities (LRAs), civil society organisations, social partners, national parliaments and other relevant stakeholders in the design, revision or implementation of NRRPs; 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;

Or. fr

Amendment 324

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. Regrets the insufficient involvement of local and regional authorities (LRAs), with particular attention to areas Europe's least-developed regions, and calls for the establishment of permanent discussion forums that guarantee direct dialogue with communities, thus enabling specific characteristic if each region – including those of the most economically and socially fragile areas – to be taken on board in the drafting and implementation of the NRRPs; 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;

Or. it

Amendment 325

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. 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; 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, and for the national ownership of the NRRPs; recalls that Parliament supported a binding provision in the RRF to establish a multilevel dialogue to engage relevant stakeholders and discuss the preparation, revision and implementation of NRRPs with them, with a clear consultation period; calls, therefore, for the maximum possible stakeholder involvement in the implementation and monitoring of NRRPs, in accordance with the national legal framework and based on clear and transparent principles;

Or. en

Amendment 326

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. 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; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 327

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
39. 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; 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;	39. 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 in some Member States; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 328

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	39 a. Reiterates the necessity 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 in order to ensure updated information about the progress of the implementation of NRRPs;

Or. en

Amendment 329

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 39 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	39 a. Regrets that in the design and implementation of NRRPs , some Member States have clearly favoured some LRAs to the detriment based on political considerations;

Or. en

Amendment 330

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
40. 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 bring about more viable cross-border projects;	40. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 331

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
40. 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 bring about more viable cross-border projects;	40. 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, bring about more viable cross-border projects and ensure that the decision made matches the practical, logistical and most pressing needs of the region in question;

Or. en

Amendment 332

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	40 a. Underlines that the RRF replaced the proposals for the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC) and the reform support programme (RSP) which partly aimed at establishing the Eurozone Budget; believes that the future MFF needs a permanent fiscal stabilisation tool that can channel investments based on dynamic developments of indicators, such as GDP and unemployment; calls for the introduction of a mechanism financed through an NGEU-like structure to address common or country-specific shocks that are too large to be offset through the stabilising impact of monetary policy or the automatic stabilisers in national budgets, as well as to provide for the earmarking of government investments for a more efficient provision of European public goods;

Or. en

Amendment 333

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	40 a. Highlights that the unified and effective European response to the COVID-19 crisis, particularly through the RRF, has successfully mitigated its social and economic impact while simultaneously fostering investments in common European priorities and promoting counter-cyclical policies; calls for the creation of a permanent long-term investment instrument of substantial scale based on European solidarity and financed by common European debt and new own resources to seamlessly succeed the RRF, thus ensuring the continuity of investments in common European goods and preventing potential bottlenecks; considers that such an instrument should encompass both investment and stabilisation functions;

Or. en

Amendment 334

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	40 a. Recognises the strong added value of common, modern and effective EU mechanisms that can be mobilised quickly to cope with crises and new challenges and promote the implementation of EU objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 335

Costas Mavrides, Francisco Assis, Carla Tavares, Claire Fita, Jonás Fernández, Thomas Bajada

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 40 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	40 b. Underlines that the Union is surrounded by geopolitical uncertainties and risks that could have negative economic, social and security implications for the Union, exposing its vulnerabilities; underscores that the strength and resilience of the Union, both internally and externally, rely heavily on a coordinated and common European approach; emphasises that the economic governance framework must be adequately equipped to address current and future challenges, enhance resilience, and meet the urgent investment needs in common European priorities and strategic objectives; believes that the framework should be strengthened through permanent instruments and tools, building on the success of mechanisms such as the RRF and the European instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE);

Or. en

Amendment 336

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 337

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; encourages the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;

Or. fr

Amendment 338

Enikő Győri, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Calls on the Commission to come up with objective and clear analyses on how the implementation of reforms and investments within the NRRPs affects the economies of the individual Member States, with special regard to GDP growth, competitiveness and poverty; believes that in order to objectively judge the real efficiency of the combination of reforms and investments, such analyses are essential;

Or. en

Amendment 339

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Recognises that the combination of reforms and investments has shown potential but requires stronger conditionality and structural alignment to maximise long-term benefits; stresses the need for a more explicit and results-driven link between investments and structural reforms; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline and underpinned by clear fiscal responsibility and efficiency criteria to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments prioritise economic sustainability, competitiveness, and fiscal discipline, with a focus on measurable long-term results rather than short-term outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 340

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; recalls that deep economic reforms entail transition costs and that future performance-based instruments should take these costs into account to allowing for the financing of the transition expenses associated with the reforms; further recalls that any future joint instruments should be aligned with the aim of financing European public goods; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed mainly based on results and impacts, rather than on mere outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 341

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results to be identified in terms of impacts backed by outcomes and not inputs or outputs, to ensure the availability of data relevant for performance measurement with greater transparency and better presentation of performance information as well as enhanced feedback mechanisms between performance information and programme design or adjustment;

Or. en

Amendment 342

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; highlights the importance that any funding should be aligned with the objectives of the instrument and disbursed in line with the progress made towards them; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure not only outputs and progress but also results and impacts in implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 343

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should not be lowered due to the limited time remaining; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 344

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful ; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 345

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs; notes the importance of ensuring that future EU financial instruments remain well-targeted, time-limited, and focused on addressing clearly defined economic and strategic challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 346

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that future performance-based instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts and not only outputs;	41. Believes that the combination of reforms and investments has proved successful but that a clearer link is needed between the two; insists that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned and the ECA’s observations, and to ensure that any future performance-based or other instruments are designed also to measure results and impacts, and not only outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 347

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	41 a. Reminds that drawing lessons without measuring the concrete effects of reforms and investments would be premature; believes that the level of ambition of NRRPs should be commensurate with the RRF timeline in order to ensure their successful implementation; urges the Commission to apply the lessons learned from these measurements and the ECA’s observations on the implementation of the RRF so far, and in prevision for the future;

Or. en

Amendment 348

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	41 a. Highlights the need to underline the European character of the funds by focusing on clear European public goods; underlines the need for a European container (fixed envelope) in the allocation of common funds towards cross-border projects; calls on the Commission to develop a credible methodology to assess the cross-border dimension of EU funded projects;

Or. en

Amendment 349

Ľudovít Ódor, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	41 a. Considers that principles of merit commensurate with resourceful incentives, in accordance with country-specific recommendations while fulfilling all the existing or potential conditionalities, might be supplementary to the lessons learned from the RRF and in future design of financial instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 350

Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	41 a. Urges the Commission to immediately conduct an independent evaluation and report on the impact of the RRF on the aggregate level of private investments in the EU, and specifically its potential crowding-out effect on private investments and its determinants;

Or. en

Amendment 351

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 41 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	41 b. Highlights that all EU-funded investments and reforms should be in coherence with national economic and social policies and embedded within a framework of coordinated and coherent strategic planning instead of financing isolated business investment choices;

Or. en

Amendment 352

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;	42. 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; believes, to that end, that differentiated strategies are needed that recognise and value the economic, social and cultural diversity of the various regions, avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches that can penalise less developed areas, strengthening future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;

Or. it

Amendment 353

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;	42. Highlights that meaningful social and territorial dialogues with a high level of involvement of LRAs and national parliaments within the national legal framework are essential for national ownership, successful implementation and democratic accountability; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed;

Or. en

Amendment 354

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;	42. 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 stakeholders in the implementation and oversight of RRF-funded initiatives; calls for such dialogues to be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 355

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;	42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States; stresses that regions and city councils cannot continue to be mere recipients of decisions already made without participating in the design and addendums of plans, and investments and without being given the opportunity to choose investments that truly transform their territories;

Or. en

Amendment 356

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States;	42. 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; believes that such dialogues should be strengthened and more diligently employed as they could inspire future initiatives and mechanisms in the EU and its Member States; underlines the necessity of publicly marking projects financed by EU funds to ensure buy-in by European citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 357

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	42 a. Believes that, considering the EU's competitiveness and simplification agendas, valuable lessons can be drawn from the RRF to facilitate the implementation of current funds or similar future instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 358

Siegfried Mureşan, Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	42 a. Highlights the importance of the Recovery and Resilience Dialogues to ensure greater transparency and accountability, which are crucial for the optimal implementation of the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 359

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	42 a. Highlights the need for greater transparency and traceability of the use of EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 360

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 42 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	42 b. Highlights the need to use the RRF as a lesson to better leverage public and private investments in the future, in order to address the financing gap in European objectives and transitions, which Mario Draghi estimates at over EUR 800 billion annually;

Or. en

Amendment 361

Victor Negrescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
43. 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; 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;	43. 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 could have 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;

Or. en

Amendment 362

Sirpa Pietikäinen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 43 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	43 a. Stresses that RRF funding needs to bring true additionality and must not replace Member States' commitments into green and sustainable funding and investments; emphasises that the Member States must continue to invest into a green and socially sustainable transition;

Or. en

Amendment 363

Joachim Streit, Engin Eroglu, Anouk Van Brug

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. Highlights the importance of preventing inefficiencies and ensuring strict safeguards against 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 EU and national bodies while avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic complexity and ensuring efficient fund allocation;

Or. en

Amendment 364

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. Highlights the importance of eliminating the risk of double funding, corruption, conflicts of interest and illegal working conditions; 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. fr

Amendment 365

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. Highlights the importance of eliminating 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 366

Marco Falcone, Fulvio Martusciello

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. Highlights the importance of mitigating the risk of double funding; suggests the deployment of an integrated and interoperable IT and data mining system, with a view to allowing comprehensive and automated expenditure tracking; calls for greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. it

Amendment 367

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Jorge Martín Frías

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. 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; encourages greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 368

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. Highlights the importance of mitigating the risk of double funding; suggests the deployment of more 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 369

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 370

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
44. 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 greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;	44. 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, in this regard, for the potential use of AI and for greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 371

Karlo Ressler

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	44 a. strongly urges the Commission and Member States to ensure compliance of any type of EU funding (i.e.“financing not linked to cost” or “performance-based”) with EU and national rules, ultimately protecting the financial interest 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 respect of sound financial management principles;

Or. en

Amendment 372

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 44 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	44 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States that have not yet set up their portals containing data on the 100 final recipients receiving the highest amount of funding for the implementation of RRF measures do so as soon as possible; believes that the Commission should encourage the Member States to use this portal to include all recipients to ensure meaningful accountability for the funds spent;

Or. en

Amendment 373

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 45

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
45. Considers that its role in the monitoring of the RRF should be further enhanced;	45. Considers that the role of the Commission and the European Parliament in the monitoring of the RRF should be further enhanced;

Or. en

Amendment 374

Damian Boeselager, Rasmus Andresen

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 45 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	45 a. Calls for future performance-based instruments to be complemented by 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; highlights the added benefit of publicly marking EU funded projects; underlines the need to reduce increasing administrative bottlenecks and administrative burden; underscores that reimbursements can be based on indicative costing, if transparency and auditing standards for actual expenditures are publicly available ex-post; highlights the need to link reforms and investments to achieve long-term structural changes; requests a clear methodology for the partial fulfillment of milestones and sub-level milestones;

Or. en

Amendment 375

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet, Enikő Győri

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
46. 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;	46. Reiterates its call for a public, centralised platform identifying all the final recipients of EU and RRF funds in order to ensure that funding is transparent and traceable; regrets that the absence of a public list of beneficiaries reduces the opportunities for democratic oversight and auditing for European taxpayers; calls on the Commission to put in place a harmonised system to identify high-risk recipients and prevent shell entities from getting their hands on EU funds;

Or. fr

Amendment 376

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
46. 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;	46. Reiterates its call for an open platform which contains data on all projects, final recipients, including contractors and sub-contractors, and the regional distribution of funding, thereby facilitating auditing and democratic oversight;

Or. en

Amendment 377

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	46 a. Invites the Commission to take the principles of NGEU as a basis for a revamped common European fiscal architecture; considers NGEU to be a valuable and reliable blueprint for the European growth strategy for the next years and calls for a budgetary capacity dedicated to European strategic investment aligned with EU priorities with a macroeconomic stabilisation function;

Or. en

Amendment 378

Rasmus Andresen, Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	46 a. Praises the enhanced use of financial instruments thanks to the possibility to channel RRF funds towards the Member States' compartment of InvestEU;

Or. en

Amendment 379

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 46 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	46 b. Invites the Commission and the Member States to draw conclusions from the RRF and improve the mechanisms driving the economic governance framework, especially as regards establishing a more transparent and democratic coordination process, defining underlying political guidelines, cooperating between European institutions as well as with national governments and stakeholders, and increased national ownership of policy design by providing positive incentives for productive investment and reforms, developing the national development and reform programmes and implementing socially balanced and sustainable structural reforms;

Or. en

Amendment 380

Enikő Győri, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 381

Dirk Gotink

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that the RRF should not be renewed and that the EU should not engage again in collective borrowing; 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; is deeply concerned about the longevity of common European debt and the lack of a clear repayment plan; urges the Commission to come up with a clear path to repay the common debt caused by the RRF;

Or. en

Amendment 382

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that any future budgetary decisions 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;

Or. en

Amendment 383

Fernand Kartheiser

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. stresses, while underlining its general opposition to EU borrowing, that any possible future 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;

Or. en

Amendment 384

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that any possible future 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 prudent budgeting so that volatility in interest rates can be addressed without resorting to additional funding requests; underlines the importance of ensuring that any future financial instruments are designed to complement national efforts rather than replace them, maintaining a prudent approach to EU-level debt financing;

Or. en

Amendment 385

Sandra Gómez López, Jonás Fernández, Jean-Marc Germain

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that any possible future 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 a viable funding plan is available to cover these costs without presenting a detriment to other programmes or political priorities;

Or. en

Amendment 386

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that any possible future 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; believes, to this end, that repayment costs of future EU mechanisms based on common EU borrowing should be set from the beginning over and above the MFF ceilings in their entirety;

Or. en

Amendment 387

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 47

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
47. Stresses that any possible future 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;	47. Stresses that any possible future 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; urges that clear and financially sound repayment plans be designed and formulated from the outset;

Or. en

Amendment 388

Julien Sanchez, Angéline Furet

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. 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;

Or. fr

Amendment 389

Pascal Canfin, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. Welcomes 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; notes that this should include the continued application of the “do no significant harm principle”; 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; notes that the priority of the 2024-2029 term should be to mobilise public investments and unlock private investment to make the EU more resilient and sovereign in an ever more conflictual geopolitical context and that the next MFF should be designed from that perspective;

Or. en

Amendment 390

Enikő Győri, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. Considers the declared intention of the Commission to draw on the RRF experience when designing its proposals for the post-2027 EU funding programmes premature; 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;

Or. en

Amendment 391

Markus Ferber

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. 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;

Or. en

Amendment 392

João Oliveira

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. 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; stresses that, in several cases, the objectives set and the constraints imposed by the RRF are out of step with the Member States’ structural and investment needs, and therefore considers that opting to reproduce this model in the post-2027 MFF would be ill advised;

Or. pt

Amendment 393

Anouk Van Brug, Joachim Streit, Ľudovít Ódor

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
48. 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;	48. 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 shift towards mobilising private investment, strengthening capital markets, and ensuring that public spending remains fiscally responsible and strategically targeted;

Or. en

Amendment 394

Denis Nesci, Ruggero Razza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 a. Stresses that the green transition must be pursued in a manner that does not compromise the competitiveness of European businesses, with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs). To that end, dedicated measures need to be taken to help SMEs to adapt to the new environmental requirements, by means of targeted tax incentives, easier access to credit, technical training programmes and enhanced operational and technical support. Such efforts must be covered by a clear and flexible regulatory framework that values specific local characteristics and promotes a form of smart, inclusive growth able to meet the challenges of decarbonisation, while ensuring competitiveness on the global market.

Or. it

Amendment 395

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 a. Urges the Commission to guarantee that future performance-based facilities put a much stronger emphasis on the European added value of projects, provide a clear definition what constitutes a cross-border project, and support a higher percentage of cross-border and trans-European projects; urges that Member States are required to repay European tax payers' money in case the minimum percentage of cross-border and trans-European projects is not met;

Or. en

Amendment 396

Nikolas Farantouris

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 a. Believes that a permanent central fiscal capacity aimed at addressing longer-term challenges and promoting EU objectives would represent a concrete step forward in the EU integration process;

Or. en

Amendment 397

Jussi Saramo, Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 a. Stresses the importance of establishing a permanent EU investment fund by building on the experiences on NGEU and RRF to enhance investments needed to face current challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 398

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 b. Urges that for possible future performance-based facilities and programs, more clarity is ensured if funds have been spent on projects if milestones are reversed after their implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 399

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 c. Urges that any possible future performance-based programmes should make clearer links between the milestones and targets and the actual projects being implemented; urges that there should be less time delay between the fulfilment of milestones and the implementation of projects;

Or. en

Amendment 400

Monika Hohlmeier

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 48 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
	48 d. Emphasises that funds in a facility should be allocated realistically, taking the administrative capacities and capabilities of Member States into account, in order to avoid problems with absorption, increased errors, and national authorities becoming overwhelmed;

Or. en