Sittings · Document

Draft report (2025/2032(INI)) 2025-12-16

Control, transparency and traceability of performance-based instruments

Committee on Budgetary Control

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

AM_Com_NonLegReport

Amendment 1

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Citation 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

— having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget3(the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),

deleted

_________________

3 3 OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj.

Or. fr

Amendment 2

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Citation 8

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 resources7(the IIA),

deleted

_________________

7 7 OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2020/1222/oj.

Or. fr

Amendment 3

Dick Erixon, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

A. whereas sound financial management, as defined in the Financial Regulation, requires that Union funds be implemented in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring that resources are used in a cost-effective manner, that objectives are achieved in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality, and at the best price, and that the intended results and impacts are delivered;

Or. en

Amendment 4

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

A a. whereas the expanding range of political priorities in the Union is placing additional pressure on the EU budget, making responsible use of available financial resources more imperative than ever and calling for reinforced vigilance with regard to sound financial management;

Or. en

Amendment 5

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

B. whereas, when Union financing takes the form of support not linked to the reimbursement of eligible costs but to results, outputs or other performance indicators, payments depend on the achievement of predefined milestones or targets, which must be verified before any disbursement is made;

B. whereas, when Union financing takes the form of support not linked to the reimbursement of eligible costs but to results, outputs or other performance indicators, payments should depend on the achievement of clearly and precisely predefined milestones or targets that are completely unambiguous, and which must have been verified ex ante at the time of submission and systematically before any disbursement is made;

Or. fr

Amendment 6

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

B. whereas, if Union financing takes the form of support not linked to the reimbursement of eligible costs but to results, outputs or other performance indicators, payments depend on the achievement of predefined milestones or targets, which must be verified before any disbursement is made;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

C. whereas this approach, by decoupling disbursements from actual expenditure, severely limits the availability of data on actual costs and therefore limits the ability to assess economy, efficiency and effectiveness; points out that this lack of cost data also prevents systematic identification of irregularities, fraud risks and double funding and limits the Union’s capacity to deploy early-warning mechanisms and data-driven, risk-scoring tools;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

C. Regrets that this irrational and imprudent approach, by decoupling disbursements from actual expenditure, severely limits the availability and reliability of data on actual costs and therefore limits the ability to assess economy, efficiency and effectiveness;

Or. fr

Amendment 9

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Recital C

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

C. whereas this approach, by decoupling disbursements from actual expenditure, can have consequences on the existing data regarding the actual costs and therefore limits the ability to assess economy, efficiency and effectiveness;

Or. en

Amendment 10

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Recital D

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

D. whereas the absence of expenditure verification increases the risk of inflated or unrealistic cost estimates, undermining sound financial management, transparency and accountability; whereas the ECA has repeatedly warned of shortcomings in cost assessments, variability in national audit standards, and weaknesses in Commission oversight capacity;

D. whereas the absence of expenditure verification increases the risk of error on the cost estimates, undermining sound financial management, transparency and accountability; whereas the ECA has repeatedly warned of shortcomings in cost assessments, variability in national audit standards, and weaknesses in Commission oversight capacity;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

E. whereas wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment of Member States;

E. whereas a too wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment of Member States by the European Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 12

Marit Maij, Carla Tavares, Eero Heinäluoma

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

E. whereas wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment of Member States;

E. whereas wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment of Member States or result in release of funds when the conditions for disbursement are not met;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital E

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

E. whereas wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment of Member States;

E. whereas wide discretion in assessing whether milestones and targets have been fulfilled may lead to inconsistent treatment between Member States;

Or. fr

Amendment 14

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

F. whereas the ECA has identified numerous weaknesses in the design of the Recovery and Resilience Facility’s control system, including over-reliance on national bodies, incomplete audit trails, systemic failures and risks of inconsistent application across Member States; notes that these weaknesses are further aggravated by the fragmentation and incompatibility of national data systems, which hinders interoperability, timely risk detection and the effective protection of personal data in audit and control operations;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

F. whereas the ECA has identified numerous weaknesses in the design of the Recovery and Resilience Facility’s control system, including over-reliance on national bodies, incomplete audit trails, systemic failures and risks of inconsistent application across Member States resulting from ‘flexibility’, and therefore ultimately from the limited supervision deliberately sought by the Commission when drawing up the RRF;

Or. fr

Amendment 16

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Recital F

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

F. whereas the ECA has identified weaknesses in the design of the Recovery and Resilience Facility’s control system, including over-reliance on national bodies, incomplete audit trails, failures and risks of inconsistent application across Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 17

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

F a. whereas performance-based budgeting relies on national authorities for credible monitoring; whereas rule of law deficiencies amplify risk to the of EU financial interests since their protection relies on independent judiciary, autonomous anti-fraud bodies, media freedom and functioning procurement controls;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Fa. whereas Parliament’s role is being flouted, as it does not even have access to the exhaustive list of final recipients by Member State, which is a democratic anomaly;

Or. fr

Amendment 19

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Recital G

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

G. whereas democratic accountability requires that Parliament’s role as legislator and budgetary and discharge authority be safeguarded, with strict accountability mechanisms and full transparency on the final recipients of Union funds, and whereas Member States and other national authorities should not be considered final recipients of Union funding;

G. whereas democratic accountability requires that Parliament’s role as legislator and budgetary and discharge authority be safeguarded, with strict accountability mechanisms and full transparency on the final recipients of Union funds, which is manifestly not the case in this instance; whereas Member States and other national authorities should not be considered final recipients of Union funding;

Or. fr

Amendment 20

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1. Reaffirms that performance-based instruments must respect the principles of legality, regularity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness and that simplification should never come at the expense of sound financial management; stresses that, when properly designed, such instruments can enhance the focus on results, reforms and competitiveness; believes that controls should be risk-based and proportionate and that indicators should capture real-world impacts and Union added value rather than administrative outputs;

Or. en

Amendment 21

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

1. Stresses that performance-based instruments must respect the principles of legality, regularity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness, as foreseen by the EU Financial Regulation, and that simplification should never come at the expense of sound financial management;

Or. en

Amendment 22

Julien Sanchez, Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 1

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 23

Julien Sanchez, Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2. Notes that the Recovery and Resilience Facility is the first major performance-based instrument at EU level that is exclusively based on financing not linked to costs (FNLC); further notes that the RRF model has been replicated in other financial instruments such as the Ukraine Facility and the Western Balkans Facility; takes note of the proposals of the Commission to use a similar model in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for most EU financing programmes;

2. Notes that the Recovery and Resilience Facility is the first major performance-based instrument at EU level that is exclusively based on financing not linked to costs (FNLC); further notes that the RRF model has been replicated in other financial instruments such as the Ukraine Facility and the Western Balkans Facility; is extremely concerned by the proposals of the Commission to use a similar model in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for most EU financing programmes in view of the serious shortcomings and findings at odds with the principles of sound financial management regularly raised by the ECA;

Or. fr

Amendment 24

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2. Notes that the Recovery and Resilience Facility is the first major performance-based instrument at EU level that is exclusively based on financing not linked to costs (FNLC), but that performance-based approach has been tested previously in other Union’s investment instruments, including cohesion policy; further notes that the RRF model has been replicated in other financial instruments such as the Ukraine Facility and the Western Balkans Facility; takes note of the proposals of the Commission to use a similar model in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for most EU financing programmes particularly heading 1, National and Regional Partnership Plans;

Or. en

Amendment 25

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

2 a. Stresses that despite some difficulties, the RRF, with its focus on performance and links between milestones and targets and investments and budgetary support, has helped to drive national investments and reforms that would not otherwise have taken place;

Or. en

Amendment 26

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. Reiterates its concern that the centralised, performance-based delivery model of the Recovery and Resilience Facility has revealed critical weaknesses, acknowledged by the Commission, including reduced accountability and limited EU-level oversight of compliance with rules and regulations; underlines that transparency regarding final recipients remains insufficient, and that the added value for the EU has been weakened by the limited number of cross-border projects and the inadequate decision-making power of subnational entities, in particular local and regional authorities, in the design and implementation of the facility;

3. Stresses the importance of drawing lessons from the critical weaknesses revealed by the centralised performance-based delivery model of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, as acknowledged by the Commission, including reduced accountability and limited EU-level oversight of compliance with rules and regulations; underlines that further efforts to improve transparency regarding final recipients will strengthen citizens’ trust and considers and that the added value for the EU can be consolidated through a number of cross-border projects and by ensuring more adequate decision-making power of subnational entities, in particular local and regional authorities, in the design and implementation of the facility;

Or. en

Amendment 27

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. However, reiterates its concern that the centralised, performance-based delivery model of the Recovery and Resilience Facility has revealed critical weaknesses, with some areas of improvements acknowledged by the Commission, including reduced accountability, monitoring and fund disbursement mechanism and limited EU-level oversight of compliance with rules and regulations; underlines that transparency regarding final recipients remains insufficient and shall be ensured through a uniform, interoperable EU-wide reporting systems accessible to the Commission, ECA, EPPO and the Parliament, and that the added value for the EU has been weakened by the limited number of cross-border projects and the inadequate decision-making power of subnational entities, in particular local and regional authorities, in the design and implementation of the facility;

Or. en

Amendment 28

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. Reiterates its concern that the centralised, performance-based delivery model of the Recovery and Resilience Facility has revealed critical weaknesses, acknowledged by the Commission, including reduced accountability and limited EU-level oversight of compliance with rules and regulations; underlines that transparency regarding final recipients remains insufficient, and that the added value for the EU may have been weakened by the limited number of cross-border projects and the inadequate decision-making power of subnational entities, in particular local and regional authorities, in the design and implementation of the facility;

Or. en

Amendment 29

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3. Reiterates its concern that the centralised, performance-based delivery model of the Recovery and Resilience Facility has revealed critical weaknesses, acknowledged by the Commission, including reduced accountability and limited EU-level oversight of compliance with rules and regulations; underlines that transparency regarding final recipients is absent, and that the added value for the EU has been weakened by the limited number of cross-border projects and the inadequate decision-making power of subnational entities, in particular local and regional authorities, in the design and implementation of the facility;

Or. fr

Amendment 30

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 3 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

3 a. Considers the introduction of an ex-post evaluation system based on the employment targets achieved by each instrument as measured by their performance indicators;

Or. en

Amendment 31

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4. Considers that, although the RRF is intended to be a performance-based instrument, its financing is often not linked to performance since it focuses more on outputs than on results; believes that future performance-based instruments should establish more specific key performance indicators, ensuring that investments align with the objectives of the instrument and deliver clear added value for the EU; underlines that investments should be assessed not only from a financial perspective but also through performance-based criteria reflecting improvements in connectivity; emphasises that such investments should demonstrate measurable progress in West–East and South-North connectivity, reduced logistics costs, shorter transit times and enhanced access to global markets; stresses that the development of modern, fully functional multimodal corridors must be anchored in clear, outcome-oriented indicators in order to reinforce the EU’s industrial competitiveness, economic cohesion and trade resilience;

Or. en

Amendment 32

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4. Considers that, although the RRF was built as a performance-based instrument, the vaguely defined milestones and targets and the common indicators focusing primarily on inputs and outputs rather than results potentially undermined the achievement of the RRF objectives; its financing is often not linked to performance since it focuses more on outputs than on results; believes that future performance-based instruments should establish more specific key performance indicators, ensuring that investments align with the objectives of the instrument and deliver clear added value for the EU;

Or. en

Amendment 33

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4. Considers that, although the RRF is intended to be a performance-based instrument, its financing is often not linked to performance since it focuses more on outputs than on results; believes that future EU instruments should no longer be performance-based and that if a majority were to decide otherwise these instruments should be combined with more specific and easily measurable key performance indicators in order to be objectively quantifiable, ensuring that investments align with the objectives of the instrument and deliver clear added value for the EU;

Or. fr

Amendment 34

Dick Erixon, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 35

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 4 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

4 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that future performance-based instruments are comparable across Member States and stable over time;

Or. en

Amendment 36

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Stresses that reliance on ex ante cost estimates without verification of actual expenditure creates a structural accountability gap, limits the possibility of assessing value for money, and thus risks creating challenges in ensuring the protection of the EU’s financial interests; undermining the principles of economy and efficiency in the implementation of EU funds; calls on the Commission to systematically integrate data-mining and cross-checking tools to compensate for the absence of expenditure verification and to support early detection of anomalies, risks of corruption and conflicts of interest in future performance-based instruments;

Or. en

Amendment 37

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Stresses that reliance on ex ante cost estimates without verification of actual expenditure creates a structural accountability gap, limits the possibility of assessing value for money, and thus risks undermining the principles of economy and efficiency in the implementation of EU funds and Member States’ fiscal sustainability objectives; underlines, that such verification should be strictly based on risk and materiality with clear thresholds for when verification is required;

Or. en

Amendment 38

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 5

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

5. Stresses that reliance on ex ante cost estimates without verification of actual expenditure could create a structural accountability gap, limits the possibility of assessing value for money, and thus risks undermining the principles of economy and efficiency in the implementation of EU funds;

Or. en

Amendment 39

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Is extremely concerned by the Commission’s proposals to make generalised use of FNLC in the next MFF, without adequate safeguards to ensure sound financial management in the implementation of Union funding; stresses its concern about such a major shift towards a new model of budget implementation without adequately addressing the shortcomings identified in previous or existing performance-based instruments and without a comprehensive evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility; considers that at a time when some are calling for new own resources (which will place a further financial burden on citizens), it is astonishing that the Commission is considering promoting as a model the irresponsibility of performance-based instruments, which increase the risks of mismanagement;

Or. fr

Amendment 40

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6. Notes with caution by the Commission’s proposals to make generalised use of FNLC in the next MFF, and underlines the importance of ensuring adequate safeguards to ensure sound financial management in the implementation of Union funding; highlights the need to carefully assess such a significant shift towards a new model of budget implementation taking into account the shortcomings identified in previous or existing performance-based instruments and stresses the importance of conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility;

Or. en

Amendment 41

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 42

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6 a. Expresses deep concern regarding the EU's growing debt burden and borrowing costs; notes that, according to the 2024 Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors, outstanding loans borrowed by the EU could exceed EUR 900 billion by 2027, which is almost ten times the level from 2020 before the introduction of the NGEU recovery package; warns that rising borrowing costs pose a risk to future budgets and reduce the fiscal space for new priorities, thereby necessitating absolute rigour in ensuring that performance-based instruments deliver tangible economic returns;

Or. en

Amendment 43

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC could increase the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; Stresses that Parliament must ensure that its role of scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget, as well as its function as discharge authority, is duly respected; underlines that any extension of FNLC must be fully compatible with the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 44

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

7. Asserts that FNLC has the potential to lower administrative burdens, but also can lead to increased risk to budgetary control and to the protection of financial interests; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

Or. en

Amendment 45

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that a lack of link to costs may lead to market distortions and the financing of non-viable projects selected purely to meet artificial bureaucratic milestones, rather than value for money; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

Or. en

Amendment 46

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 7

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that this could ultimately hinder Parliament’s scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine its role as discharge authority;

7. Asserts that the generalised use of FNLC increases the risk of irregularities, double funding and fraud, thereby reducing transparency and traceability of EU funds; stresses that this could ultimately hinder parliamentary scrutiny over the implementation of the EU budget and undermine Parliament’s role as discharge authority;

Or. en

Amendment 47

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Notes with concern that, at the end of 2024, the EPPO was handling 311 active cases related to NextGenerationEU, all but four of which concerned the RRF, representing approximately 17 % of all active expenditure fraud investigations; notes further that the estimated damage to the EU’s financial interests amounts to EUR 2.8 billion, representing 30 % (2023: 25 %) of the total estimated damage resulting from all EU expenditure fraud; is worried that reporting of cases from EU institutions, including the Commission, accounts for not even 3 % raising further concerns on the Commission's ability to oversight the RRF; is also alarmed that since the RRF implementation is less than halfway through, EPPO expects the number of cases will continue to grow;

Or. en

Amendment 48

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

8. Notes with concern that, at the end of 2024, the EPPO was handling 311 active cases related to NextGenerationEU, all but four of which concerned the RRF, representing approximately 17 % of all active expenditure fraud investigations; further notes an increase of 51 % in NGEU-related caseload in 2024 when compared to 2023; notes further that the estimated damage to the EU’s financial interests amounts to EUR 2.8 billion, representing 30 % (2023: 25 %) of the total estimated damage resulting from all EU expenditure fraud; recalls that out of the 27 EU Member States, 24 currently participate in the EPPO;

Or. en

Amendment 49

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 8

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 50

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

9. Expresses concern that performance-based instruments using FNLC focus more on system audits rather than controls on actual expenditure incurred; warns that such system audits may not reveal underlying issues which can spill over and seriously undermine the sound financial management of the Union budget and the protection of the financial interest of the Union; believes that even under the current financial architecture and model of implementation for EU funding, control systems of several Member States have shown systemic weaknesses, resulting in a failure to detect and prevent fraud or other irregularities, such as for the OPEKEPE case in Greece or the cases involving rural development funds in Slovakia; calls therefore on the Commission to take decisive corrective measures, strengthen audit and accreditation procedures, and ensure that similar systemic failures cannot recur, while respecting the principle of proportionality regarding reporting and documentation duties;

9. Expresses concern that performance-based instruments using FNLC focus more on system audits rather than controls on actual expenditure incurred; warns that such system audits may not reveal underlying issues which can spill over and seriously undermine the sound financial management of the Union budget and the protection of the financial interest of the Union; believes that even under the current financial architecture and model of implementation for EU funding, control systems of several Member States have shown systemic weaknesses, resulting in a failure to detect and prevent fraud or other irregularities, such as for the OPEKEPE case in Greece or the cases involving rural development funds in Slovakia, as well as recent cases involving procurement manipulation and politically exposed beneficiaries in several Member States, demonstrating the need for stronger EU oversight; calls therefore on the Commission to take decisive corrective measures, strengthen audit and accreditation procedures, and ensure that similar systemic failures cannot recur, while respecting the principle of proportionality regarding reporting and documentation duties;

Or. en

Amendment 51

Marit Maij, Eero Heinäluoma, Carla Tavares

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 10 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

10 a. Takes note of the aspects related to the rule of law in the Commission proposal for the MFF for 2028-2034 and deplores the overlaps with the conditionality mechanism introduced; calls for a unified, coherent and comprehensive framework across all EU funding programmes under the umbrella of the Conditionality Regulation and requests that the Commission consolidate all rule of law tools into a single framework;

Or. en

Amendment 52

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 11

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

11. Underlines that the generalised use of FNLC requires the European Court of Auditors and national audit authorities to significantly adapt their activities and move towards a different auditing approach; warns that such a shift, without ensuring the readiness of audit authorities, will pose significant challenges and could create a structural gap in the audit trail with serious consequences for both the sound financial management of the Union budget and the discharge procedure;

11. Underlines that the generalised use of FNLC requires the European Court of Auditors and national audit authorities to significantly adapt their activities and move towards a different auditing and budgetary control approach; emphasises that such a shift should ensure the readiness of audit authorities, through EU-funded trainings and resources to strengthen the administrative capacity within the Member States, notably for authorities involved in managing FNLC-based instruments; stresses that audit authorities must be structurally independent from political influence and adequately resourced to perform performance audits based on recognised standards;

Or. en

Amendment 53

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Emphasises that heavy reliance on national authorities and external auditors, without strong safeguards and detailed Commission guidance, technical assistance and dedicated training on performance audit methodology, risks variability in quality and independence of controls;

Or. en

Amendment 54

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Emphasises that ensuring strong safeguards and detailed Commission guidance, technical assistance and dedicated training on performance audit methodology, will support national authorities and external auditors, and will contribute to greater consistency in quality and independence of controls;

Or. en

Amendment 55

Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13. Emphasises that quality and independence of controls must be ensured through cooperation of the Commission with national authorities and external auditors based on detailed guidance, technical assistance and dedicated training on performance audit methodology to be developed by the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 56

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 13 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

13 a. Underlines that a performance-based instrument is successful when and if funds are disbursed on the basis of the achievement of milestones and targets; notes therefore, that absorption of overall funds or disbursements are not by definition an indicator of success; regrets that in the latest amendments of the RRF NRRPs absorption focus has led to a lowering of previously committed standards, specifically in the realm of reform commitments;

Or. en

Amendment 57

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 14

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

14. Insists that audit bodies in Member States comply with internationally accepted audit standards; warns that failure to do so undermines the reliability of their work and poses risks to the Single Audit approach; notes the ECA’s repeated findings of certain national audit authorities’ shortcomings in terms of scope, quality, documentation and reporting; stresses the need for a clear framework of responsibilities to guarantee quality and consistency;

14. Recalls that audit bodies in Member States have to comply with internationally accepted audit standards; warns that failure to do so undermines the reliability of their work and poses risks to the Single Audit approach; notes the ECA’s repeated findings of certain national audit authorities’ shortcomings in terms of scope, quality, documentation and reporting; stresses the need for a clear framework of responsibilities to guarantee quality and consistency;

Or. en

Amendment 58

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

15. Emphasises that fragmented IT and data systems across Member States increase the risk of errors, irregularities, double funding, delays and inconsistent reporting; recalls that, in order to ensure full traceability of EU funds, Parliament has repeatedly called for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool, building on – but not limited to – existing tools and databases in the context of the recast of the Financial Regulation; regrets, however, the refusal of Member States to make the use of such a system compulsory from the beginning of the next MFF; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing effort to develop such an interoperable system, building on the ARACHNE tool and urges all Member States to make full use of this system; stresses that the effectiveness of any new funding model depends on the reliability and consistency of the underlying data and monitoring tools; underlines that such a system must provide accurate and timely information, minimise false positives, and function in a stable and dependable manner;

Or. en

Amendment 59

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

15. Emphasises that data systems across Member States increase the risk of errors, irregularities, double funding, delays and inconsistent reporting; recalls that, in order to ensure full traceability of EU funds, Parliament has repeatedly called for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool, building on – but not limited to – existing tools and databases in the context of the recast of the Financial Regulation; regrets, however, the refusal of Member States to make the use of such a system compulsory from the beginning of the next MFF; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing effort to develop such an interoperable system, building on the ARACHNE tool and urges all Member States to make full use of this system; stresses that the effectiveness of any new funding model depends on the reliability and consistency of the underlying data and monitoring tools;

Or. en

Amendment 60

Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 15

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

15. Emphasises that fragmented IT and data systems across Member States increase the risk of errors, irregularities, double funding, delays and inconsistent reporting; recalls that, in order to ensure full traceability of EU funds, Parliament has repeatedly called for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool, building on – but not limited to – existing tools and databases in the context of the recast of the Financial Regulation; takes note of the refusal of Member States to make the use of such a system compulsory from the beginning of the next MFF; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing effort to develop such an interoperable system, building on the ARACHNE tool and urges all Member States to make full use of this system; stresses that the effectiveness of any new funding model depends on the reliability and consistency of the underlying data and monitoring tools; underlines that such a system must provide accurate and timely information, minimise false positives, and function in a stable and dependable manner;

Or. en

Amendment 61

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 16

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

16. Stresses that shared management in the next MFF must involve regional and local authorities and stakeholders including in the case of performance-based instruments, both in the decision making and planning phase and in the implementation phase, to ensure the added value for the EU of cross-border projects and to focus on measurable results rather than outputs;

16. Stresses that shared management in the next MFF must involve regional and local authorities and stakeholders including in the case of performance-based instruments, both in the design, decision making and planning phase and in the implementation and delivery phase through a place-based and multi-level governance approach, to ensure the added value for the EU of cross-border projects, develop a clear methodology for milestones, targets and disbursements, and to focus on measurable results and impacts rather than outputs, ensuring single audit trail, safeguarding Parliament’s role as legislator, budgetary and discharge authority and in holding the executive to account;

Or. en

Amendment 62

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

18. Points out that performance-based monitoring does not necessarily reduce administrative burdens, but that, on the contrary, weak verification systems may create hidden costs without ensuring stronger assurance; considers that any shift to the use of performance-based delivery models requires capacity building at the EU level and in Member States as the monitoring, control and audit needs in the case of performance-based delivery models differ from those of instruments based on the reimbursement of eligible costs;

18. Points out that performance-based monitoring does not necessarily reduce administrative burdens, but that, on the contrary, weak verification systems may create hidden costs without ensuring stronger assurance; stresses that shifting from input/activity reporting to results- and impact-oriented reporting should reduce administrative burden for both auditors and beneficiaries by focusing on materiality and proportionality; calls on the Commission to streamline indicators, simplify templates, avoid duplicate data requests and apply the ‘once-only’ principle, so that beneficiaries can spend more time delivering outcomes and less time on box-ticking; considers that any shift to the use of performance-based delivery models requires capacity building at the EU level and in Member States as the monitoring, control and audit needs in the case of performance-based delivery models differ from those of instruments based on the reimbursement of eligible costs;

Or. en

Amendment 63

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

18. Points out that performance-based monitoring does not necessarily reduce administrative burdens, but that, on the contrary, weak verification systems may create hidden costs without ensuring stronger assurance; considers that any shift to the use of performance-based delivery models requires capacity building at the EU level and in Member States as the monitoring, control and audit needs in the case of performance-based delivery models differ from those of instruments based on the reimbursement of eligible costs;

18. Points out that the RRF’s simplification goal to reduce administrative burden can be undermined due to the complexity of its reporting and payment request process;

Or. en

Amendment 64

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

18. Points out that performance-based monitoring does not necessarily reduce administrative burdens, but that, on the contrary, weak verification systems may create hidden costs without ensuring stronger assurance; considers that any shift to the use of performance-based delivery models requires capacity building at the EU level and in Member States as the monitoring, control and audit needs in the case of performance-based delivery models differ from those of instruments based on the reimbursement of eligible costs;

18. Points out that performance-based monitoring does not necessarily reduce administrative burdens, but that, on the contrary, weak verification systems may create hidden costs without ensuring stronger assurance; considers that any shift to the use of performance-based delivery models requires capacity building at the EU level and in Member States as the monitoring, control and audit needs in the case of performance-based delivery models differ from those of instruments based on the reimbursement of eligible costs; has serious questions, therefore, about the reasons behind the desire to use these instruments;

Or. fr

Amendment 65

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

19. Warns that the growing use of performance-based instruments, without strengthening parliamentary scrutiny, risks shifting institutional balances in favour of executive discretion and away from democratic accountability; insists that any governance model for performance-based instruments must involve Parliament and the Council on equal terms; rejects any proposal to upset the institutional balance and undermine Parliament’s role as the budgetary and discharge authority; underlines that, in the current geopolitical context marked by Russia’s aggression and instability at the EU’s borders, investments financed under Union instruments should be strategic and assessed not only in terms of economic effectiveness but also in relation to their contribution to resilience and preparedness; stresses that, alongside performance-based assessments, input-, output- and risk-based evaluation methods remain relevant, particularly when addressing asymmetric vulnerabilities among Member States; emphasises that a risk-sensitive allocation of funding is essential to support those Member States especially in the EU’s east most exposed to geopolitical pressures and external threats;

Or. en

Amendment 66

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

19. Recalls the need of strengthening parliamentary scrutiny; insists that any governance model for performance-based instruments must involve Parliament and the Council on equal terms; rejects any proposal to upset the institutional balance and undermine Parliament’s role as the budgetary and discharge authority;

Or. en

Amendment 67

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

19. Warns that if RRF flaws are not addressed in the future there will be an increased risk of shifting institutional balances in favour of executive discretion and away from democratic accountability; insists that any governance model for performance-based instruments must involve Parliament and the Council on equal terms; rejects any proposal to upset the institutional balance and undermine Parliament’s role as the budgetary and discharge authority;

Or. en

Amendment 68

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Believes that the FNLC model for performance-based instruments should not be used as a generalised method of implementation or reimbursement between the Member States and beneficiaries, except for smaller beneficiaries implementing projects under certain financial thresholds; underlines in particular that large-scale and complex projects should remain cost-based, as their scope, duration and multi-level financing require detailed financial reporting and verifiable expenditure data to ensure proper monitoring and accountability; calls for the continued and expanded use of lump sums and simplified cost options, in particular for smaller or medium-scale investments, as effective and proportionate tools to reduce administrative burdens, increase accessibility for smaller beneficiaries, and maintain accountability and traceability in the use of Union funds;

20. Believes that the FNLC model for performance-based instruments should not be used as a generalised method of implementation or reimbursement between the Member States and beneficiaries;

Or. fr

Amendment 69

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Believes that the FNLC model for performance-based instruments should not be used as a generalised method of implementation or reimbursement between the Member States and beneficiaries, except for smaller beneficiaries implementing projects under certain financial thresholds; underlines in particular that large-scale and complex projects should have detailed ex-ante costing and clear ex-post auditing based on actual expenditures; underlines the need to connect financial incentives and sanctions to the deviation between ex-ante costing and ex-post auditing; calls for the continued and expanded use of lump sums and simplified cost options, in particular for smaller or medium-scale investments, as effective and proportionate tools to reduce administrative burdens, increase accessibility for smaller beneficiaries, and maintain accountability and traceability in the use of Union funds;

Or. en

Amendment 70

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20. Believes that the FNLC model for performance-based instruments should not be used as a generalised method of implementation or reimbursement between the Member States and beneficiaries, except for smaller beneficiaries implementing projects under certain financial thresholds, hence allowing them a more simplified system of delivery, but at the same still ensuring a solid control framework; underlines in particular that large-scale and complex projects should remain cost-based, as their scope, duration and multi-level financing require detailed financial reporting and verifiable expenditure data to ensure proper monitoring and accountability; calls for the continued and expanded use of lump sums and simplified cost options, in particular for smaller or medium-scale investments, as effective and proportionate tools to reduce administrative burdens, increase accessibility for smaller beneficiaries, and maintain accountability and traceability in the use of Union funds;

Or. en

Amendment 71

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20 a. Insists that a simpler budget must also be a more transparent budget, enabling better control of spending and reducing the risks of double funding; emphasises that performance reviews and budgetary discussions must be transparent, with clear documentation and public access to information;

Or. en

Amendment 72

Pasquale Tridico

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20 a. Stresses the importance of evaluations based not only on financial objectives, but also on environmental sustainability objectives;

Or. en

Amendment 73

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 b (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20 b. Calls for a strong governance in the next MFF, specifically in heading 1 with an architecture based on FNLC model; demands that the future performance-based instruments are designed in a way that allows for the Parliament to exercise control and accountability to its full ability; believes that the Parliament should have the power to approve NRPPs en bloc after the assessment of the Commission, in line with the with the spirit and the legal text of the Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 74

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 c (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

20 c. Stresses the need for a single audit trail in the future MFF allowing for the tracing of the budget contribution to the projects funded and the final beneficiaries, defined as the economic operators, not the receiving administrative entities; underlines the necessity of publicly marking projects financed by EU funds to ensure visibility to European citizen; underscores that reimbursements should be based on actual expenditures ex-post, allowing for a more flexible and indicative costing exercise during the planning phase; underlines the need to tie the disbursement with the fulfilment of closely intertwined and clearly defined milestones and targets to ensure a strong connection between reforms and investments for long-term structural changes; underlines the need to enhance reporting to include project-level data similar to that of Cohesion Policy Funds;

Or. en

Amendment 75

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

21. Stresses that Union financing should be granted only for measures directly linked to concrete, verifiable projects that demonstrate tangible progress, measurable results and impacts, contribute to Union policy objectives in particular strengthening economy growth and fiscal sustainability, and can be effectively monitored and audited, subject to transparent reporting requirements and regular independent cost verification;

Or. en

Amendment 76

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

21. Stresses that Union financing should be granted only for measures directly linked to concrete, verifiable projects that demonstrate tangible progress, measurable results, contribute to Union policy objectives, and can be effectively monitored and audited; underlines the need to label EU financed projects in order to make citizens aware of the impact of EU funding;

Or. en

Amendment 77

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 21

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 78

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

22. Calls on the Commission to refrain from introducing complex or speculative cost estimation methodologies, which risk undermining transparency and comparability across Member States; urges instead the development and wider use of harmonised and verifiable simplified cost options that provide clarity, reduce administrative burdens and maintain an appropriate level of accountability; urges the Commission to enhance full transparency and public access to procedural information, thus contributing to foster and develop trust inside and outside the EU institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 79

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

22. Calls on the Commission to refrain from introducing complex or speculative cost estimation methodologies, which risk undermining transparency and comparability across Member States;

Or. fr

Amendment 80

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

24. Calls for periodic assessments of real costs incurred in the implementation of performance-based instruments against the cost estimates of Member States in order to prevent discrepancies; believes that such assessments should automatically trigger controls and audits in cases where there are significant differences between real and estimated costs; believes in addition that financial consequences could be applied if discrepancies arise, e.g. via reconciliations or efficiency evaluations post implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 81

Dick Erixon

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

24. Calls for periodic assessments of real costs incurred in the implementation of performance-based instruments against the cost estimates of Member States in order to prevent discrepancies; believes that such assessments should automatically trigger controls and audits in cases where there are significant differences between real and estimated costs, utilising automated data-mining tools and AI to identify outliers without imposing additional reporting obligations on compliant beneficiaries;

Or. en

Amendment 82

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 83

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 24 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

24 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States carry out ex-post controls on the real costs and recover overpaid amounts where there is a significant difference between real and estimated costs;

Or. en

Amendment 84

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

26. Calls for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool; demands that the use of this new interoperable system should be a precondition for accessing Union funding in the next MFF;

26. Calls for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information, early-warning and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool; calls on the Commission to deploy advanced data analytics and AI tools to enhance performance tracking evaluation and reporting, alleviate manual workload and streamline reporting process, and prevent double-funding and other risks to protection of Union’s financial interests; underlines that such progress can only happen if there is also operational support to digitalised administrations; calls for the use of this new interoperable system, including full machine-readable reporting of the final beneficiaries and beneficial owners of all funded operations;

Or. en

Amendment 85

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

26. Calls for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool and publicly available dashboards focused on results and impacts, allowing taxpayers to see the value generated by their money; demands that the use of this new interoperable system should be a precondition for accessing Union funding in the next MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 86

Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 26

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

26. Calls for the establishment of a single, integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data mining and risk-scoring tool; requests considering the use of this new interoperable system in the next MFF;

Or. en

Amendment 87

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 27

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

27. Demands that the Commission establish and publish clear thresholds for corrective measures, including severity levels, to guarantee equal treatment and consistent enforcement;

27. Demands that the Commission establish and publish clear thresholds for corrective measures, including severity levels, to guarantee equal treatment and consistent enforcement, and that Parliament, as the supervisory authority, be involved in defining them;

Or. fr

Amendment 88

Cristian Terheş

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

28. Insists that the assessments of the fulfilment of milestones and targets must be performed by the Commission and not Member States and must follow a transparent and standardised methodology, with documented scoring and substantiated justification for any deviations above the legal threshold; calls for all assessment files to be made available to Parliament and the ECA;

28. Insists that the assessments of the fulfilment of milestones and targets must be performed by the Commission with the participation of each Member States and must follow a transparent and standardised methodology, with documented scoring and substantiated justification for any deviations above the legal threshold; calls for all assessment files to be made available to Parliament and the ECA;

Or. en

Amendment 89

Ondřej Knotek

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

28. Insists that when assessing the fulfilment of milestones and targets the Commission must follow a transparent and standardised methodology, with documented scoring and substantiated justification for any deviations above the legal threshold; calls for all assessment files to be made available to Parliament and the ECA;

Or. en

Amendment 90

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 28

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

28. Insists that the assessments of the fulfilment of milestones and targets must be performed on an adversarial basis by the Commission and Member States and must follow a transparent and standardised methodology, with documented scoring and substantiated justification for any deviations; calls for all assessment files to be made available to Parliament and the ECA;

Or. fr

Amendment 91

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29. Demands greater transparency in the implementation of performance-based instruments, including the timely publication of all Commission assessments, national reporting data, audit summaries, and recovery actions, in a format that is accessible, comparable and verifiable, ensuring that Parliament, the ECA and citizens can scrutinise the use of Union funds; stresses that access to information should follow a cascade approach – ensuring full and unrestricted real-time access for the ECA, a guaranteed and unrestricted right for Parliament to pose questions and request information, and appropriate, transparent access for citizens following the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union; recalls that all transparency measures must comply with data protection requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation and relevant Union legislation; emphasises that the public available data must accurately reflect the actual implementation and progress of projects, rather than planned commitments or disbursements made solely for the fulfilment of milestones and targets under national plans, thereby providing a genuine picture of results achieved on the ground;

29. Calls for stronger transparency in the implementation of performance-based instruments, requiring the timely publication of Commission assessments, national reports, audit summaries, and recovery actions in formats that are accessible, comparable, and verifiable; a cascade approach to information access should apply, with full real-time access for the European Court of Auditors, guaranteed rights for Parliament to request information, and appropriate public access in line with CJEU rulings; all transparency measures must fully comply with GDPR and relevant EU law, and publicly available data must reflect actual project implementation and results achieved on the ground, rather than planned commitments or milestone-linked disbursements;

Or. en

Amendment 92

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29. Demands greater transparency in the implementation of performance-based instruments, including the timely publication of all Commission assessments, national reporting data, audit summaries, and recovery actions, in a format that is accessible, comparable and verifiable, ensuring that Parliament, the ECA and citizens can scrutinise the use of Union funds; calls for a single and public database to be established in the FNLC and performance-based instruments under the next MFF, as well as real-time public disclosure of project-level data and final recipients, to report on all spending above EUR 100,000; stresses that access to information should follow a cascade approach – ensuring full and unrestricted real-time access for the ECA, a guaranteed and unrestricted right for Parliament to pose questions and request information, and appropriate, transparent access for citizens following the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union; recalls that all transparency measures must comply with data protection requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation and relevant Union legislation; emphasises that the public available data must accurately reflect the actual implementation and progress of projects, rather than planned commitments or disbursements made solely for the fulfilment of milestones and targets under national plans, thereby providing a genuine picture of results achieved on the ground; insists that such transparency must include real-time public disclosure of project-level data and final recipients in an open-data format, without compromising personal data protection under the EU law;

Or. en

Amendment 93

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29. Demands an end to performance-based instruments and believes that if a majority were to decide otherwise it would be urgent to obtain greater transparency in the implementation of performance-based instruments, including the timely publication of all Commission assessments, national reporting data, audit summaries, and recovery actions, in a format that is accessible, comparable and verifiable, ensuring that Parliament, the ECA and citizens can scrutinise the use of Union funds; stresses that access to information should follow a cascade approach – ensuring full and unrestricted real-time access for the ECA, a guaranteed and unrestricted right for Parliament to pose questions and request information, and appropriate, transparent access for citizens following the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union; recalls that all transparency measures must comply with data protection requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation and relevant Union legislation; emphasises that the public available data must accurately reflect the actual implementation and progress of projects, rather than planned commitments or disbursements made solely for the fulfilment of milestones and targets under national plans, thereby providing a genuine picture of results achieved on the ground;

Or. fr

Amendment 94

Dick Erixon, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29. Demands greater transparency in the implementation of performance-based instruments, including the timely publication of all Commission assessments, national reporting data, audit summaries, and recovery actions, in a format that is accessible, comparable and user-friendly, avoiding information overload and duplication while remaining verifiable, ensuring that Parliament, the ECA and citizens can scrutinise the use of Union funds; stresses that access to information should follow a cascade approach – ensuring full and unrestricted real-time access for the ECA, a guaranteed and unrestricted right for Parliament to pose questions and request information, and appropriate, transparent access for citizens following the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union; recalls that all transparency measures must comply with data protection requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation and relevant Union legislation; emphasises that the public available data must accurately reflect the actual implementation and progress of projects, rather than planned commitments or disbursements made solely for the fulfilment of milestones and targets under national plans, thereby providing a genuine picture of results achieved on the ground;

Or. en

Amendment 95

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 29 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

29a. Recalls that, when it comes to public money, any amount spent should be published, accessible online and traceable to its final recipient, the opposite being legitimately suspect to any taxpayer;

Or. fr

Amendment 96

Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 32 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

32 a. Underlines the importance of a robust financial correction system in order to address serious shortcomings in Member States' management and control systems; stresses that such a system should be sufficiently dissuasive and points in this connection to the importance of the system of net financial corrections, which is the only type of corrections resulting in a direct and immediate loss of funding for the Member State concerned;

Or. en

Amendment 97

Damian Boeselager

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33. Demands that the Commission put in place robust safeguards to ensure consistent, independent and high-quality audit work across all Member States, including through detailed methodological guidance, sustainable technical assistance wherever audit authorities show persistent weaknesses, and dedicated training on performance audit standards; insists that reliance on national authorities and external auditors must be conditional on compliance with these safeguards to prevent variability in control quality and independence;

Or. en

Amendment 98

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33. Demands that the Commission put in place robust safeguards to ensure consistent, independent and high-quality audit work across all Member States and executive agencies, including through detailed methodological guidance, sustainable technical assistance wherever audit authorities show persistent weaknesses, and dedicated training on performance audit standards; insists that reliance on national authorities and external auditors must be conditional on compliance with these safeguards to prevent variability in control quality and independence;

Or. fr

Amendment 99

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu, Gilles Boyer

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

34. Calls for the introduction of predictive analytic tools powered by AI as well as machine learning capabilities that would enable auditors to conduct real-time risk assessments and identify early detection irregularities and anomalies more quickly and accurately in order to strengthening the effectiveness of audit and oversight processes; recalls that such AI technologies must be deployed in full compliance with the EU data protection rules and must be accompanied by adequate training for national audit authorities;

Or. en

Amendment 100

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 34

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

34. Calls for the introduction of predictive analytic tools powered by AI as well as machine learning capabilities that would enable auditors to conduct real-time risk assessments and identify anomalies and patterns of ineffective spending (e.g., low productivity growth or lack of structural reforms compared to benchmarks) more effectively;

Or. en

Amendment 101

Julien Sanchez, Ondřej Knotek, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 35 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

35a. Calls strongly for the NGEU model for financing the debt burden not to be replicated and for all costs relating to repayment to be anticipated in advance;

Or. fr

Amendment 102

Olivier Chastel, Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 36

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

36. Reiterates the need to enhance transparency by expanding the RRF Scoreboard model to all performance-based instruments, to improve the timeliness and comparability of national reporting, and ensure public access, traceability and accountability; urges the Commission to ensure full interoperability of EU and national data systems, to reduce manual inputs, improve data quality and enable real-time traceability down to the level of final beneficiaries; calls in this context on the Commission to ensure that data on the real, final recipients of performance-based instrument funding, including contractors and sub-contractors, is available in real-time to audit and discharge authorities as well as to the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office;

36. Reiterates the need to enhance transparency by expanding the RRF Scoreboard model to all performance-based instruments, to improve the timeliness and comparability of national reporting with access restricted to duly authorised persons; urges the Commission to ensure full interoperability of EU and national data systems, to reduce manual inputs, improve data quality and enable real-time traceability down to the level of final beneficiaries; calls in this context on the Commission to ensure that data on the real, final recipients of performance-based instrument funding, including contractors and sub-contractors, is available in real-time to audit and discharge authorities as well as to the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office;

Or. en

Amendment 103

Julien Sanchez, Virginie Joron

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 36

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Or. fr

Amendment 104

Dick Erixon, Bert-Jan Ruissen

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 37 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

37 a. Calls for a mandatory 'review-mechanism' whereby funding streams that consistently fail to meet their impact targets, demonstrate high error rates or for which the European Court of Auditors has identified insufficient effectiveness or irregularities, are automatically reviewed for suspension or reallocation to more effective instruments;

Or. en