Skip to content
DRAFT REPORT (2025/2071(INI))

On evaluating the successes achieved and lessons learned from EU enlargements since 2004 in the implementation of the EU budget

CONT-PR-789881

Committee on Budgetary Control · Rapporteur: Tomáš Zdechovský

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 25 Sept 2026

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

This is a draft report by the Committee on Budgetary Control on the lessons from EU enlargements since 2004 for the EU budget. It finds that administrative capacity, institutional stability, digital readiness and audit culture matter more than the choice of governance model. It regrets that limited administrative capacity, gold-plating and high administrative costs have caused delays, errors and weaker absorption of cohesion funds. It calls on the Commission to assess whether its audit and anti-fraud bodies can handle a larger EU, and to support candidate countries in building administrative capacity, digital tools, procurement and audit systems before accession. It asks the Commission and member states to invest in human capital in managing and audit authorities, and to reflect these lessons in preparations for future enlargements and the post-2027 EU budget framework.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes that Parliament find administrative capacity, institutional stability, digitalisation and strong audit and anti-fraud frameworks more decisive than the formal governance model, and call on the Commission to apply these lessons to future enlargements and the post-2027 budget.

Key points

  1. Stresses that protecting the EU budget depends less on the formal governance model than on the operational maturity, stability, digital capacity and audit culture of the administrations managing EU funds.
  2. Notes that performance is driven by administrative capacity, digital transformation, institutional stability, human resources, risk management, absorption capacity, public procurement, control structures and audit culture.
  3. Finds ex ante conditionalities highly effective for governance quality, but says administrative capacity was the biggest bottleneck, causing delays, errors and reduced absorption.
  4. Notes that controls operate at several levels with additional assurance from national audit and control bodies, and that control and audit work best when independence is preserved.
  5. Notes positive developments over 20 years in EU legislative frameworks and their implementation by member states that joined since 2004, while pointing to remaining weaknesses and the need to invest in administrative capacity.
  6. Regrets that several member states struggled to absorb funds on time at the end of programming periods, and that conditionalities' added value was undermined by inconsistent application across member states.
  7. Notes that regions prioritising highly qualified human resources were more likely to perform well, and regrets high administrative costs and gold-plating that increase burdens without necessarily reducing error rates.
  8. Notes that newly joined member states faced challenges of administrative capacity, coordination and system maturity, and that weaknesses in coordination, data quality and interoperability reduced monitoring and control effectiveness.
  9. Regrets that gold-plating remains the most persistent operational challenge, that programme-level weaknesses persist across programming periods, and that control functions lack sufficient financial resources including for training.
  10. Calls on the Commission to assess the capacity of its audit services, OLAF and the EPPO for a larger EU, and to avoid unnecessary pre-accession restructuring unless evidence-based, phased and accompanied by transition plans.
  11. Urges the Commission to support candidate countries in modernising governance, digitalising funds and IT tools, professionalising procurement, monitoring gold-plating, and strengthening administrative capacity with staffing, anti-fraud and conflict-of-interest measures.
  12. Requests that the Commission and member states invest in human capital in managing and audit authorities, develop strong audit systems against corruption and conflicts of interest, and reflect these lessons in future enlargements and the post-2027 budget framework.

Who is affected

  • Member states that joined the EU since 2004: their managing and audit authorities face findings on administrative capacity, gold-plating and absorption difficulties.
  • EU candidate countries: the Commission should support their administrative preparedness, digitalisation, procurement and audit capacity before accession.
  • The Commission, including DG REGIO, DG ENEST, OLAF and the EPPO: asked to assess capacity and support reforms.
  • Managing authorities and beneficiaries: face administrative burden from gold-plating and complex procedures.

Legal basis: Articles 174 to 178 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.