LUXEMBOURG (ITALPRESS) – According to the European Court of Auditors, the considerable and many changes that the European Commission has proposed for the long-term budget of the EU could ultimately not improve the mechanisms of financing and expenditure for the implementation of EU policies and programmes in the period after 2028.
Since some aspects of the proposed mechanisms substantially change the planning, management and control of EU spending, the Court reports risks to sound financial management and calls for more decisive safeguard measures. In a document published today, in which these concerns are summarized, the Court reiterated the warnings addressed to EU policymakers in view of the negotiations on the results of the proposal relating to the budget of almost 2,000 million euros for the period 2028-2034.
In several opinions delivered since January on the Commission’s proposals for the multiannual financial framework (FPQ), the Court has its own view on a wide range of sectors, from competitiveness, research and culture to cohesion, agriculture and international support.
“From legislative proposals for the next multiannual EU budget, it is not a continuation of the status quo, but a radical change,” said the President of the European Court of Auditors Tony Murphy. “As an EU financial control institution, the Court stresses the risks and challenges in a number of opinions on Commission proposals for the budget 2028-2034. Many of the proposed changes are not a guarantee of better spending in the future”, he added.
In July and September 2025, the Commission made several legislative proposals for the EU budget for the period 2028-2034. First, it proposed a total financial allocation of approximately 2 000 billion euros, an increase of 59 % compared to the current EU budget of 1 200 billion euros for the period 2021-2027.
As a result, national contributions to the budget would increase by 81%, reaching 235 billion euros. To finance EU policies, the Commission proposed that the flows of own revenue increase by four to nine: these include new resources based on non-collected electrical and electronic equipment, tobacco excises and a corporate resource for Europe. At the same time, it proposed a net decrease – of about 20 percentage points – of the percentage of EU funding to be implemented jointly with Member States.
It also proposed a large new European fund of €865 billion for cohesion and agriculture, focusing on a single national and regional partnership plan, and a substantial increase in funding to strengthen the EU’s industrial defence base and capacity in this area. In addition, there would be an important step towards “non-cost-linked funding”, and the possibility for Member States to finance their plans through EU repayable loans of up to 150 billion euros, a significant innovation on this scale.
The Court warns that, in the event of failure to approve new revenue flows, there would be a considerable shortage of funds: in other words, it will be necessary to increase the contributions of the Member States or reduce the ambition of the budget. In addition, the Court notes the considerable increase in EU debt which would result in the borrowing of proposed loans. In terms of expenditure, shortening different policies could adversely affect the achievement of its objectives and require compromises between priorities.
For large parts of the budget, expenditure priorities will be in the hands of Member States with divergent interests. For example, a substantial divergence between Member States’ plans could jeopardize alignment between agriculture spending and EU priorities, distort competition and create disparities in conditions for farmers.
In addition, enjoying greater flexibility should not mean spending more resources without making sure more effective outcomes. The proposed performance framework is based on a lack of design, which does not measure the results achieved by EU spending and, ultimately, what benefits the EU citizens get in the face of contributions paid. .
At the same time, the mechanisms aimed at ensuring that EU funds are spent in a profitable way are excessively based, for large part of the budget, on controls by Member States often inadequate. Finally, the proposals do not define quite clearly the Court’s unlimited rights to access information.
-Photo IPA Agency-
(ITALPRESS).
