Sittings · Document
OPINION (2024/2085(INI)) 2025-04-08
On the implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility
Committee on Budgetary Control · Rapporteur: Carla Tavares
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Budgetary Control submits the following to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committees responsible:
Amendment 1
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
| 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) 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 the aim of reforms and investments under the RRF is also to generate European added value; |
Amendment 2
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| Ca. whereas to this day, no repayment plan has been made to deal with the common European debt; |
Amendment 3
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| Cb. whereas the ECA, in its annual report on budgetary and financial management for 2023, warned that increasing European debt was placing growing pressure on the Union’s budget; |
Amendment 4
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; |
Amendment 5
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; |
Amendment 6
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, despite the positive statistical assessments, 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; recalls the importance of improving and simplifying the methodology to enable the performance and impact of the reforms introduced and investments made to be properly quantified, particularly in view of the challenges ahead; |
Amendment 7
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 nevertheless dropped from 18.1 % in the period 2011-2018 to 13.9 % in the period 2019-2023; |
Amendment 8
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 the fact 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; |
Amendment 9
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 persistent 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; fears that some Members States could see such a replacement as a good opportunity to access funds more easily due to the fact that cohesion policy is managed under shared management while the RRF is managed under direct management; |
Amendment 10
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 where relevant, ensuring that funded projects contribute meaningfully to climate adaptation; calls for stricter ex ante and ex post assessments to prevent greenwashing and ensure compliance; recalls that the ECA has highlighted1a a lack of key performance indicators and a lack of real environmental results; |
| _________________ | |
| 1a Special Report 15/2024: Climate adaptation in the EU – Action not keeping up with ambition. |
Amendment 11
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, transparency and control issues or the issues related to the increased risk of double funding; regrets that the obligation for Member States to disclose the name of the largest final beneficiaries has not been correctly implemented, and that there has been no obligation to use Arachne or to inform the Commission about irregularities; regrets that the model of using milestones and targets to trigger disbursement has not been accompanied by adequate budgetary control mechanisms, resulting in a diminished role for Parliament compared to its scrutiny of MFF spending; notes that this affects the ECA’s ability to provide reasonable assurance on the protection of financial interests, particularly concerning the eligibility of costs; regrets that the current system fails to provide the necessary data to inform decision-making and take corrective measures from a cost-benefit perspective; |
Amendment 12
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 a detailed, long-term NGEU repayment plan in the post-2027 MFF; |
Amendment 13
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; greatly regrets the lack of progress made in this regard, which raises serious concerns about the viability of the repayment of the debt incurred under NGEU, and urges the Council to adopt new own resources without delay as a matter of urgency; urges the Commission, furthermore, to continue efforts to identify and implement additional genuine new own resources beyond those currently outlined in the interinstitutional agreement and in line with EU policy priorities, in order to ensure a sustainable approach to financing key EU objectives and to cover the high spending needs, both in terms of funding new priorities, but also in order to ensure the repayment of the debt; |
Amendment 14
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; |
Amendment 15
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; notes that the implementation of investments is contingent upon the completion of necessary reforms; expects the second half of the RRF’s implementation period to be more challenging for Member States because of a shift from reforms to investments and the high proportion of measures to be completed in the last year; is of the opinion that the significant differences between the scheduled calendar of payment requests and the actual transmission of these requests by the Member States to the Commission shows that RRF implementation is behind schedule; |
Amendment 16
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 17a. Recalls that RRF funds must not be used to replace recurring budgetary expenditure apart from in duly justified cases; is preoccupied, furthermore, by the ECA’s findings that some milestones and targets that substituted recurring national budgetary expenditure have not been adequately justified in the NRRPs; |
Amendment 17
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; underlines with concern 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; regrets the ECA’s findings that some investments monitored, such as some in the ‘water scarcity’ sector, were not in line with the EU adaptation strategy and increased vulnerabilities instead of reducing them; |
Amendment 18
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; |
Amendment 19
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 rule of law deficiencies; notes the fact that one Member State has still not satisfactorily fulfilled its ‘super milestones’; further notes with regret that the Commission has in the past prematurely released funds blocked under the RRF and Common Provisions Regulation before the necessary reforms had entered into force, thereby not fulfilling the conditions linked to the release of these funds; warns that this premature release undermines the credibility of the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties and might set a dangerous precedent that should not be repeated in future cases; recalls that the Commission must recover any pre-financing that has not been netted against regular payment requests by the end of the RRF; |
Amendment 20
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 %; |
Amendment 21
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; 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; underlines the importance of the EU having funds available to enable it to invest in its priorities; |
Amendment 22
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; recalls the necessity that Member States have the same understanding of the concept of ‘final beneficiary’ and apply it in a uniform way; |
Amendment 23
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 28a. Is concerned that some Member States might choose to forgo 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 end of the RRF lifetime and urges the Commission to ensure that such situations do not occur when making the final payments; |
Amendment 24
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 28b. Is concerned by the Commission’s uneven evaluation of the NRRPs, which has led to double standards in the application of the RRF Regulation; is further concerned about the uneven and differing definition of milestones and targets from one NRRP to another, consistently reported by the ECA; |
Amendment 25
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 28c. Considers that reforms may have a monetary value in the payment schedule which 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 reforms achieved and investments made, eventually results in investments, as the value of all investments equals or surpasses the value of all payments; |
Amendment 26
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 according to ECA audits, in several cases, requirements related to the fulfilment of milestones and targets had not adequately been met and that the Commission still made the corresponding payments; notes that the framework for assessing milestones and targets lacks explanations, including regarding 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 established 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; notes with concern that, as stated by the Commission in its mid-term evaluation of the RRF of 21 February 2024, a majority of Member States consider the payment suspension methodology still to be unclear when it comes to reforms because of the discretion given to the Commission in applying the methodology, which provides for arbitrary decisions and leaves the Member States in confusion regarding the paths they need to take to unlock the suspended funds; urges the Commission to revise this methodology in order to avoid any double standards in its application; |
Amendment 27
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 30a. Is concerned that in several cases the ECA audits 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; |
Amendment 28
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 30b. Notes the discussions on the RRF concerning insufficient details of the costs of achieving proposed milestones and targets and the use of ‘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 details of costs also facilitates the work of control and oversight bodies such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and OLAF and can increase public scrutiny; |
Amendment 29
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; recalls the importance of setting up and systematically using integrated and interoperable IT systems within the Member States for all funding programmes and instruments and the necessity to use the Arachne system with all the Commission databases of EU-funded projects and their beneficiaries; |
Amendment 30
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; expresses concern over the interpretation of the concept of ‘final recipient’ under the RRF, as often these are listed only at ministry level, and that the descriptions provided by Member States are vague; reiterates its call that the list of the 100 largest final recipients for each Member State provide the actual natural person or entity that is the last in the chain of money transfers; is concerned that, otherwise, it will be problematic to measure the impact and guarantee the visibility of the RRF funds for citizens; stresses the need for harmonised reporting standards and fully interoperable digital tracking tools; |
Amendment 31
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 deeply concerned about persistent weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms, due in part to absorption pressure affecting the capacity to detect ineligible expenditure; considers that these pose risks to the availability of complete and accurate data underlying payment requests, access to these requests for control purposes, and the effective functioning of Member State control systems to protect the Union’s financial interests; regrets the reliance on manual cross-checks and self-declarations by recipients of EU funds in the absence of interoperable IT tools and harmonised standards, which entail the risk that expenditure is declared twice; stresses that, in this respect, a centralised, interoperable data collection and mining system would facilitate efficient data collection and reporting, while fragmented systems underscore the need for streamlined approaches; recalls the importance of giving the ECA full access to the Fenix system; believes that payments should, where appropriate, be suspended and, where appropriate, amounts recovered if weaknesses persist in the national control systems; |
Amendment 32
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 33a. Underlines that, owing to the fact that the support which the RRF may provide can be additional to support provided under other Union programmes and instruments, and given the differences in the model of implementation and the different types of beneficiaries and recipients under the RRF compared to most other Union funds, double funding between the RRF and other EU financing instruments might not be easy to identify; urges the Commission to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying any potential double funding, and, furthermore, to issue further guidance in order to facilitate the implementation of the RRF in a consistent way; considers that, as a rule, measures already included in other national plans benefiting from EU funding (e.g. cohesion and agriculture) should not be included in NRRPs, even if they do not incur any costs, as their inclusion raises doubts about the RRF’s adequate implementation; |
Amendment 33
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 33b. Welcomes the fact that the recast Financial Regulation establishes horizontal measures for a centralised website (Financial Transparency System) at Union level, covering all recipients of EU funding, and notes that this website is designed to overcome the current fragmentation, enhance transparency and facilitate public scrutiny of recipients; stresses, furthermore, that all Member States will have an obligation to provide the Commission with access to these data, which are to be fed into Arachne by automated means; regrets that the use of Arachne by the Member States is not compulsory; |
Amendment 34
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 33c. Expresses concern about the ECA’s findings that the reporting of fraud involving RRF expenditure still lacks a standardised approach with strong coordination and cooperation between Member States; regrets that there are no clear guidelines about when suspected fraud should be reported, whether there is a reporting threshold, what standard information should be reported and what remedial measures should be taken; |
Amendment 35
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 Commission to introduce mandatory cost reporting mechanisms and cross-checking with cohesion funds to prevent double funding and financial mismanagement; emphasises the need for increased involvement of the EPPO in investigating financial irregularities in RRF implementation; |
Amendment 36
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 these figures call into question the reliability of Member State management declarations in terms of reporting detected fraud and the remedial measures taken; |
Amendment 37
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; encourages the systematic sharing of relevant outcomes of discussions held in Council preparatory bodies with the competent parliamentary committees; |
Amendment 38
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. Strongly regrets the fact that Parliament has no role in the design of NRRPs and is not consulted on payment requests; insists on being informed about the context of NRRP revisions in order to make its own assessment of the revisions, while applying key performance indicators for the evaluation of the added value of these revisions; |
Amendment 39
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. Strongly condemns 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; |
Amendment 40
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 success of the RRF can only be ensured through a clear link between reforms and investments; 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; insists on the urgent implementation of the ECA’s recommendation to establish more specific key performance indicators, ensuring that investments align with the objectives of the RRF instrument and deliver clear EU added value; |
Amendment 41
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 42a. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor the continued fulfilment of milestones and targets, in particular those related to auditing, monitoring and control, and to proactively keep Parliament duly informed; |
Amendment 42
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; 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; underlines that artificial intelligence (AI) is a useful support tool for Member States to carry out audits and controls; |
Amendment 43
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 and of double counting; suggests the harmonisation of data collection and reporting through the deployment of a unified, integrated, interoperable and binding data mining and reporting system and the development of clear standards, including standard definitions and a harmonised methodology for datasets to be applied across Member States, with a view to allowing comprehensive and automated expenditure tracking in order to avoid overlapping projects; calls for greater coordination of the different bodies involved in the implementation of the various EU and national programmes; |
Amendment 44
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 its role in the monitoring of the RRF should be further enhanced; reiterates the importance of using all new technologies, such as AI, for monitoring; |
Amendment 45
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
| 45a. Urges the Commission to strengthen the design of any future performance-based instruments by developing adequate governance that allows Parliament to act as budgetary authority and provides a structured framework for strategic alignment between all EU funds at both the programming and implementation stages; calls on the Commission to strengthen, in a timely manner, the administrative capacity, within Member States, of authorities involved in managing EU funds; recalls that administrative capacity is considered critical for achieving performance targets, fund absorption and compliance with audit and control requirements; |
Amendment 46
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, actual final recipients and the regional distribution of funding, thereby facilitating auditing and democratic oversight; |
Amendment 47
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 was a one-time crisis mechanism and as such cannot be renewed; insists 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; 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 repaying the common debt generated by the RRF; |
Amendment 48
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 to take all the corrective measures recommended by the ECA and the recommendations of relevant stakeholders, in particular LRA, civil society organisations and social partners; |
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur for the opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
| Date adopted | 8.4.2025 | |
| Result of final vote | +: –: 0: | 22 4 1 |
| Members present for the final vote | Georgios Aftias, Arno Bausemer, Gilles Boyer, José Cepeda, Olivier Chastel, Caterina Chinnici, Dick Erixon, Daniel Freund, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Esteban González Pons, Niclas Herbst, Monika Hohlmeier, Virginie Joron, Kinga Kollár, Marit Maij, Csaba Molnár, Fidias Panayiotou, Jacek Protas, Julien Sanchez, Jonas Sjöstedt, Carla Tavares, Tomáš Zdechovský | |
| Substitutes present for the final vote | Erik Marquardt, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Annamária Vicsek | |
| Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote | Raffaele Topo |