Skip to content
OPINION (COM(2025)0565 – C100179/2025 – 2025/0240(COD))

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034 and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509

ECON-AD-786810

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs · Rapporteur: Thomas Bajada

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull textProcedure & committee votes
✦ 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.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs gives its opinion on the proposed regulation setting up the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for 2028-2034. It proposes amendments to the Commission proposal. The opinion wants a bottom-up approach to National and Regional Partnership Plans, with regions, local authorities, social partners and civil society involved, and country-specific recommendations used as guidance rather than imposed from the top. It rejects restricting Union funding for Member States with debt or deficit difficulties, saying the fiscal framework already has its own corrective mechanisms and sanctions. It supports using financial instruments, considered from the programming stage, to diversify delivery and bring in private capital. The amendments cover governance, economic efficiency, investment design, accountability and the coherence of the new delivery model.

Committee position. The committee proposes amendments to the Commission proposal to make the framework more democratic and territorially grounded, to keep country-specific recommendations as guidance, to reject funding restrictions linked to debt or deficit difficulties, and to facilitate financial instruments from the programming stage.

Key points

  1. The opinion seeks a more democratic, territorially grounded, bottom-up approach to preparing, monitoring and reviewing National and Regional Partnership Plans.
  2. It recommends strengthening the Partnership and the Monitoring Committee, bringing in regions, local authorities, social partners, civil society and other stakeholders.
  3. Country-specific recommendations should remain guidance and political reference, not a technocratic shortcut for imposing priorities from the top without a transparent, accountable methodology ensuring equal treatment of Member States.
  4. The relevant Partnership should assess which recommendations are genuinely relevant to national, regional and local realities and how they should be reflected in the Plan.
  5. The opinion rejects restricting access to Union funding for Member States facing debt or deficit difficulties, especially where the support is unrelated to the macroeconomic imbalance and reaches regions and beneficiaries not responsible for it.
  6. It says the fiscal framework already has corrective mechanisms and sanctions, including under Article 126 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011, and the excessive deficit framework as revised in 2024 provides for sanctions under Article 126(11) TFEU.
  7. The regulation should not withhold funding that may be essential to growth, convergence and long-term fiscal sustainability.
  8. The opinion supports facilitating financial instruments within the framework to diversify delivery, crowd in private capital, support blended finance and improve absorption, and says they must be considered from the programming stage.
  9. The amendments address how investment priorities are democratically set, how resources are allocated, how fiscal governance interacts with Union expenditure and how the budget can deliver the greatest economic impact.
  10. The opinion says a highly centralised framework with opaque assessments, broad discretionary powers, consequential suspensions and weak ownership by end-beneficiaries would weaken economic governance by lowering absorption, reducing investment certainty and distorting expenditure planning.
  11. The framework should support convergence, resilience, competitiveness and sustainable growth, deploying Union resources where they generate the highest public value.

Who is affected

  • Member States, whose access to Union funding would not be restricted over debt or deficit difficulties.
  • Regions, local authorities, social partners, civil society and other stakeholders, to be brought into preparing, monitoring and reviewing the Plans.
  • Regions, communities and beneficiaries not responsible for a Member State's macroeconomic imbalance.
  • Private capital and blended finance providers, to be crowded in through financial instruments.