Committee on Budgetary Control Ordinary meeting CONT Committee meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Versatz
Versatz des Transkripts
Exportieren
Live aufgezeichnet
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 24. Juni 2026
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 24. Juni 2026Angezeigt
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
CONT European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenAndreas Schwab
So, now again, check. Three members missing. One missing. Yeah, perfect. Everything okay?
It's fine. Perfect. Then let's start with compromise... Or would you like, Mr. Heil-Luomo... He's not there.
Okay. If not, I would have given the chance for the rapporteur to have a quick comment, but we don't do that in that case. Then we come to compromise amendment one. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We come to compromise amendment two. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We come to compromise amendment three. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We come to compromise amendment four. In favor? Against?
We come to compromise amendment five. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We come to compromise amendment six. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted. So the secretariat says to me that I should slow down a bit because you are stressed.
Abstentions? Adopted.
I see you very relaxed. Compromise amendment seven. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment eight. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment nine. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
And that leads us to compromise amendment ten. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted. And compromise amendment eleven. In favor, against, abstentions, adopted. And like that we can come to the final vote.
And I'm very happy to see that the CONT committee is very much united today. I would like to see that more often. Please vote at the final vote. And the vote is closed. And it's adopted.
Congratulations to Mr. Häusling.
Thank you very much. And that leads us to our first item, which is combating VAT fraud and the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation when it comes to VAT fraud and its impact on the EU budget. There is a draft report and our responsible rapporteur is Andrej Knotek. I haven't seen him yet.
But as he is not there, colleagues, I will take the pleasure to read out what he has left me as a note for the report on VAT fraud. So, our colleague Ondřej Knotek has asked me to read out this. Muchas gracias. And he says, firstly, that he wants to apologize as he is unable to attend today's meeting due to family reasons. Allow me therefore to present his remarks on the draft report.
This report on combating VAT fraud addresses one of the most persistent and costly threats to the European Union's financial interests, cross-border VAT fraud. According to the latest estimates, the VAT compliance gap in the European Union amounts to roundabout 128 billion annually, while carousel fraud alone is estimated to cost between 12.5 billion and 32 billion every year. There are and these are not abstract figures. They represent resources that should finance our priorities and support European citizens and European businesses.
VAT fraud has evolved into a highly organized cross-border criminal activity. Criminal networks exploit differences between national systems, operate rapidly across jurisdictions and increasingly rely on sophisticated digital and financial tools. Stronger cooperation at EU level is therefore essential. This report highlights the importance of closing existing information gaps while fully respecting data protection requirements and the distinct mandates of the institutions involved.
The report also recognizes the valuable role of Eurofisc as an early warning mechanism and calls for its further development, including through the use of advanced analytical tools and artificial intelligence to detect suspicious VAT transaction chains in real time. At the same time, colleagues, the report underlines that cooperation must go beyond the exchange of data. National tax administrations, national custom authorities, national law enforcement bodies and judicial authorities across the European Union, all at national level, must work together more closely and more effectively. Better coordination between OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust might be crucial if we are to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal schemes.
Moreover, the ongoing review of the EU anti-fraud architecture and the preparation of the post-2027 multi-annual financial framework provide a unique opportunity to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interests. The report calls for a more integrated anti-fraud framework, clearer government arrangements, stronger reporting obligations and a more effective recovery of fraudulently diverted funds. By strengthening cross-border cooperation, improving information sharing and modernising the anti-fraud architecture, the EU budget and the financial interests of the European taxpayers can be better protected.
The rapporteur looks therefore forward to work closely with all shadow rapporteurs in the preparing of a report that sends a strong and clear message to the Commission on the view of this Parliament for the future EU anti-fraud architecture. This is what our colleague and rapporteur Mr. Knotek wanted to communicate to you. And therefore I'm very happy now to give the floor to the shadows and I want to start with Mr. Stěhovský.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also thanks Mr. Knotek as Mr. Chairman.
Dear colleagues, I would like thanks to rapporteur Mr. Knotek for his work on this important file. VAT fraud remain a major problem for EU and cost of European taxpayers tens of billion of euros every day.
And this report correctly identifies many of the challenges what we are facing. Overall, this is a solid base for further work, but we are preparing a limited number of amendments aimed at first, strengthening prevention. Stronger verification of VAT registration and better risk assessment should therefore receive more attention. Improving recovery mechanism and increasing accountability and ensuring that anti-fraud measures remain practical and effective.
By reforming the anti-fraud architecture, we can ensure better interoperability between all actors. Finally, better data shaping, stronger cooperation, and use of AI and digital tools should help us detect frauds faster, analyze risk more effectively, and achieve a much higher detection rate. We are looking forward for cooperation on this file not only with Mr. Knotek but also with other shadow rapporteurs. Also thank you very much and I wish you a pleasant day.
Thank you. Thank you, thank you colleagues.
For some short time I will replace our chair and I continue to give the floor to other colleagues. I don't know if there is someone for the S&D group. No. So I can do the floor to the colleague Brudziński for the ECR group. Oh okay, sorry, Mr. Eriksson.
The floor is yours.
Tack ordförande. Jag vill först tacka rapportören för detta högst aktuella förslag till betänkande. Momsbedrägerier är inte en abstrakt teknisk fråga.
Dick Erixon
Det handlar om organiserad brottslighet som stjäl direkt från skattebetalarna och från nationella och europeiska budgetar. När miljarder går förlorade genom karusellbedrägerier, importmomsbedrägerier och komplexa gränsöverskridande upplägg är det hederliga medborgare och seriösa företag som får betala priset. Detta betänkande går i rätt riktning eftersom det fokuserar på det som verkligen spelar roll. Bättre samarbete, bättre tillgång till information, bättre användning av data och starkare återkrav av förlorade medel.
Vi stöder betoningen på att täppa till informationsluckorna mellan nationella skattemyndigheter, Eurofisc, OLAF, EPPO, Europol och Eurojust. Kriminella nätverk agerar gränsöverskridande och i realtid. Vår bedrägeribekämpande struktur kan inte fungera med förseningar, stuprör och ofullständig information.
Samtidigt måste vi vara tydliga om att starkare samarbete måste innebära tydliga mandat, rättssäkerhet och respekt för de olika rollerna för OLAF och EPPO. Administrativa utredningar och straffrättsliga åtgärder ska komplettera varandra, inte överlappa på ett oordnat sätt. Jag välkomnar också särskilt betoningen på återkrav. Det räcker inte att utreda bedrägerier. Det räcker inte att lagföra bedrägerier.
Pengarna måste tillbaka. Parlamentet behöver tydliga siffror: vad som har upptäckts, vad som har rekommenderats för återkrav, vad som faktiskt har återkrävts och vad bristerna kvarstår. Detta är särskilt viktigt inför nästa fleråriga budgetram. Om EU begär mer pengar från skattebetalarna måste EU först visa att man kan skydda de pengar man redan blir anförtrodd. Vårt budskap är därför enkelt: ingen tolerans mot momsbedrägerier, inga svaga rapporteringar och inga fragmenterade uppföljningar.
Vi behöver ett bedrägeribekämpande system som är operativt, mätbart och ansvarsutkrävande. Och av dessa skäl kommer vi att stödja inriktningen i detta betänkande.
Tack så mycket.
Thank you, thank you so much. And now I give the floor to Mr. Hynel Luoma for the S&D group, please.
Redner 5
Thank you, Chair, and may I also thank the rapporteur for the draft report. As we know, VAT remains a fiscal cornerstone of our Member States, representing around one-fifth of national tax revenues.
It's also a key pillar of the EU's own resources, contributing around 15% of the Union budget. At the same time, the Commission identifies revenue as the budgetary area most exposed to cross-border fraud, and the vast majority of EPPO cases on the revenue side concern VAT. This discussion is timely also in the context of the negotiations on the next MFF. Expectations towards the EU budget continue to grow, while national budgets face heavy pressure and constraints. So every euro really counts, and protecting the EU budget, including the revenue side, should be a priority for all of us.
A few points from my side, which I will also put forward in my amendments.
First, preventive and precautionary measures. Recovering money lost to VAT fraud is extremely difficult. By the time fraud is detected, the money has often been moved outside the European Union or the companies involved have already been dissolved. This makes prevention all the more important and I believe the report could place stronger emphasis on this, including in the context of the upcoming AFA review where new approaches could be explored. Second, real-time data exchange and technological solutions.
VAT fraud evolves quickly and our toolbox must evolve with it. Real-time or near-real-time data exchange, interoperable systems, and the use of advanced analytics and AI could strengthen the ability of national and EU authorities to detect and disrupt fraud networks early. And finally, an important element currently missing from the draft is the rule of law dimension. The protection of the EU's financial interests, including VAT, depends on independent institutions, transparency, and also media.
When these are weakened, the risks to the European Union budget increase. I believe there is merit in exploring how the Union can better protect its financial interests on the revenue side against rule of law deficiencies. Ready to fruitful and constructive cooperation with my colleagues. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
If there aren't colleagues for the Renew group, the Greens, the Left? The Greens, there is someone that asks to intervene?
Yes.
Daniel Freund
Thanks. Maybe we can change a bit the seating order so that I don't have to feel quite as much as a backbencher and we can still see each other next time. So obviously VAT fraud is a massive issue that we need to address. This is honest taxpayers that are footing the bill for a few people that are looting our public coffers.
And I think we will do our amendments and make a number of suggestions, but it seems to me that the number one thing that we ought to do is properly equip the European Public Prosecutor. And we have recently seen that some member states, particularly those that last joined the Public Prosecutor, I mean we have increased the budget, but only to pay for the delegated prosecutors, not for support staff, not for IT budget, not for other kind of expertise that these prosecutors also need to adequately do their job. So we need to talk about this. We need more budget, more resources for the European Public Prosecutor to address this. And let me be very clear as well.
I mean, this cannot be addressed by national police or prosecution services. We have seen it time and again that they don't see VAT fraud because it precisely happens across borders. You need to work with the services in other member states or even better, work at the European level to combat this. So we will submit the adequate amendments to this. It's a bit of a shame that the rapporteur isn't here.
We all have other things on occasion to do, but then at least send someone else from your political group to follow the debate. And I very much hope, because we have seen this in the past with other reports where we have had a rapporteur, that there is no proper negotiation then on compromises and on the voting list. And I think it's shameful when we do a lot of work on important topics here and then at the end the reports fail. So I very much hope that here there is a proper engagement and discussion so that we have a good result at the end. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Mr. Freund. And now if there are no one for the Left or the ECR... Yes, there is. Fantastic.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you. I'm not the shadow for this file, but I'll just say a few words. Listening to the remarks from the rapporteur that was read out by the chair and listening to the contribution from the various groups, I think there's a lot that we have a lot of common foundation for making a good report together.
And this is really a serious topic. There are few areas of economical crime where so much money disappears from the taxpayers, and it's apparent that we need a stronger cooperation and exchange of information between Member States' authorities. So we start this work in a positive atmosphere to find a common ground with other groups, and we look forward to negotiations, and we might also table a couple of amendments. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you so much. For the ESN group, there is someone? No. No.
So I give the floor to the colleague Monika Hohlmeier. Please.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thank you very much, dear Chair. So first I would like to mention that, hm, ich spreche einfach auf Deutsch, wenn wir, wenn wir schon Übersetzung haben, dann sollten wir sie auch nutzen, weil ansonsten sind die Übersetzer eigentlich völlig umsonst hier.
Also verwende ich meine eigene Heimatsprache. Erster Punkt ist, es macht ja wenig Sinn einen Vorwurf an die EU zu richten, denn die Mitgliedstaaten sind zuständig. Und da liegt schon das Problem, dass die Zusammenarbeit der Mitgliedstaaten in dem Gebiet der Umsatzsteuer halt nun einmal leider nach wie vor sehr mangelhaft ist und dass auch das Thema Zoll dabei eine sehr große Rolle spielt. Als erstes wäre es aus meiner Sicht erforderlich, dass die Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie wirklich mal überarbeitet werden müsste, dass sie überhaupt irgendjemand versteht.
Ich habe mir das Ding mal versucht anzutun. Also das umzusetzen, dazu brauchst du mindestens 25 Experten, damit du nur den Text verstehst, weil die Regelungen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten unterschiedlich sind, differieren und aus dem Grund schon allein sich sehr viele komplexe Fragen im Bereich der Umsatzsteuer stellen. Zweitens, die Einfuhrkontrollen, ich sage jetzt mal ganz trocken, im Bereich der Häfen, an den Grenzen sind zu wenig modern, zu schwache technische Ausstattung und zu geringem Anteil.
Wenn nur 0,8 % der Güter geprüft werden, obwohl wir technisch deutlich weiter wären, viel mehr Güter prüfen zu können, zum Beispiel gerade in Häfen, dann sollten wir dies endlich tun und den Behörden die adäquate technische Ausstattung zur Verfügung stellen, auch wenn das vorübergehend erst einmal etwas kostet. Wenn ich mir den Bereich des illegalen Zigarettenhandels neben dem Karussellbetrug und die Unterbewertung von Importen ansehe, dann sind das die größten Einfallstore im Bereich des Umsatzsteuerbetruges. Bei einem einzigen Fall im Bereich der Importe aus China hatten wir eine Größenordnung von 3,8 Milliarden nur bei einem einzigen Fall.
Und drum würde sich da wirklich lohnen, in diesen Bereichen sehr deutlich mehr zu kontrollieren, zu überprüfen, wie sind die Güter bewertet worden, die bei uns importiert werden, weil ganz gezielt eine Unterbewertung stattfindet. Und beim illegalen Zigarettenhandel hilft nichts anderes als die Grenzbehörden auszustatten, weil das läuft nämlich nicht über große Schiffe und ähnliches, sondern das läuft auf dem kleinen Trapperweg. Und die sind da ziemlich munter unterwegs mit den unterschiedlichsten Transportmitteln.
Dann als letzter Punkt, weil EPPO erwähnt wurde. Es hilft nichts, wenn EPPO besonders gut ausgestattet ist, du musst Europol mit seinen operativen und mit seinen forensischen und seinen IT-Methoden ausstatten, denn dies sind diejenigen, die EPPO zuliefern müssen. Es ist sozusagen die polizeiliche Arbeit, die die Vorarbeit leisten muss und es ist die Kompetenz bei den Ermittlungen innerhalb der Polizeibehörden, der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft zuzuarbeiten. Wir sollten hier schauen, dass wir keine Doppelstrukturen aufbauen, sondern wir brauchen's einmal und da brauchen wir's gründlich und die müssen draußen auch unterwegs sein operativ. Deshalb macht es auch Sinn, dass Europol stärker für die operative Arbeit ausgerüstet wird und sowohl technisch als auch mit IT-Experten und Finanzexperten und forensischen Experten ausgestattet wird.
In fast allen Mitgliedstaaten sind es nämlich die Polizeibehörden, die die Ermittlungen durchführen, währenddessen die Federführung dann bei der Staatsanwaltschaft liegt, anzugeben, wo und wie zu ermitteln ist.
Das heißt, die Federführung liegt bei der Staatsanwaltschaft, die Durchführung und das Tun und Machen der Ermittlungen liegt bei den Polizeibehörden, je nach Mitgliedstaat unterschiedlich. Und wenn wir das nicht schaffen, ordentlich zusammenzubringen, um zum Teil bei EPPO Sachen behandeln, die sich mit 1000 Euro befassen oder Handwerkerrechnungen von 1800 Euro, wo ich glaube, das wäre wirklich entweder bei OLAF gut untergebracht oder irgendwo anders. Weil dafür haben wir die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft nämlich nicht begründet, dass wir irgendwelche Pillepalle-Fälle machen, sondern die haben wir begründet, damit wir wirklich die großen Fälle lösen.
Und da gehört das Mandat auch verändert, um diese Belastung ein Stück weit wegzunehmen, weil der EuGH hatte dasselbe Problem, dass sie zum Teil überschwemmt wurden mit Fällen, die völlig irrational sind, und dann gesagt haben, wir können diese Fälle nicht mehr alle bearbeiten, aber wir dürfen sie auch nicht abweisen. Und aus dem Grund muss man, glaube ich, in der Hinsicht auch bei EPPO in Zukunft bei einer Mandatsänderung darauf achten, dass wir wirklich sie für die großen Fälle einschalten und nicht für jeden Kleinfalle, der einfach nur Arbeit macht, Personal bindet und am Schluss nichts bringt. Der muss dann erledigt werden mit den nationalen Gerichtsbehörden, den Verwaltungsbehörden, die wir haben, den Auditbehörden, die wir haben, oder OLAF. Aber die ganzen großen Dinger, die muss man dann tatsächlich in den Mandaten reinnehmen.
Ich würde auch OLAF eigentlich unter den größeren Fällen inzwischen einsortieren, weil wir brauchen die forensischen Kapazitäten auch von OLAF, die OLAF zur Verfügung hat, die da wirklich gut sind, im Besonderen im Zollbereich. Und in dem Sinne würde ich wirklich empfehlen, das werde ich auch Änderungsanträge noch mitstellen, denn ich glaube, dass wir einfach den tatsächlichen Schwächen ins Auge blicken müssen und die ändern müssen. Und das wird ein spannender Prozess mit unseren Mitgliedstaaten, weil auf die redet man ja jetzt schon lang genug ein. Ich sage es jetzt nur mal aus Haushaltssicht, liebe Karla, nur ein kleiner Abschlusskommentar, wenn ich den noch machen darf. Es ist unglaublich, dass wir hier immer um 200 Millionen ringen, während da draußen ein Umsatzsteuerbetrug stattfindet von 50 Milliarden.
Es ärgert mich einfach nur. Wir ringen hier um Kleinstsumme, ob wir die noch kriegen für Erasmus oder nicht, und am Schluss laufen da draußen 50 Milliarden rum, die wir nicht kriegen, weil die Kriminellen schneller sind als wir.
Und das ist etwas, was ich nicht akzeptieren mag.
Thank you, thank you, Monika, thank you all the shadows and the colleagues. And now we have here Mr. Pablo Tedo Murua, head of the unit Customs and Trade Operations and Investigation in OLAF. And I want to ask him if he wants to reply something.
Redner 12
Thank you chair and and very briefly because today here is only OLAF and tomorrow I think there is a session joined with the principals of OLAF, EPPO and Eurofisc, so I'm sure there will be good good food for thought there. So from our point of view, thanking all the parliamentarians for the great support in the fight against VAT fraud and all the proposed amendments which encourage us to do our job in the most effective way.
Just commenting a bit on things that I've heard today. One important aspect is the correct delimitation of spaces so that we are all very effective. In this sense, looking at our angle in OLAF, our added value and our contribution is about our analytical capacity on declarative flows, the legal possibility that we have to move customs and tax authorities to do their job, different than law enforcement and police, and our investigative capacity autonomous to do verification. So combining those three, you know that in VAT there are like three major spaces.
So one national, that member states are zealous of this space, the national VAT. There is a cross-border angle to VAT where is where we have the issue of the carousels. And then we have the import-related dimension. So OLAF's main angle is in this third one, is the import-related dimension because this is where we have the tools and the know-how. So in this delimitation spaces, we don't aspire to do anything because there is an issue of resources, tools, and knowledge.
So in this one, import-related, which now with e-commerce is quite relevant and important, our contribution is, as it has been mentioned here, the preventive measures and the early recovery of the funds.
So we are already, it's not something that we plan, it's something that we are doing. We are already engaged with customs and tax authorities to early detect, especially in e-commerce but also procedure 42 undervaluation, signals of fraud that can be disrupted by way of preventive and recovery measures. And then in cooperation with the other actors, with EPPO, with Eurofisc, and we try to feed all the others so that they can do this task. So we are very aware that we have to be effective, cooperate and achieve collectively but also delimiting well the spaces.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Teder-Mura for your remarks, your observation. Thank you again to all the colleagues for their contribution. I just would like to remind that amendments can be presented until 25 June and that the voting is scheduled for 14 July.
And now I will suspend for 10 minutes our our commission because we have another point in the agenda but we have 10 minutes to stop and then we continue. At 10:45 we will continue. Thank you so much.
Okay, we can start. We can start. Dear colleagues, we continue our our work and I welcome to this sixth point of the agenda.
Caterina Chinnici
Today we have invited committee members from BUDG and ECON for this agenda item. We will be looking into a very interesting special report from the Court of Auditors on RRF traceability and transparency.
Gaps remain regarding the traceability and transparency of RRF funds. The Court found in the report that improvements are needed to ensure comprehensive traceability of funds to ensure accountability. A better use of actual cost information and an adequate transparency in the achievement of milestones and targets by Member States. And that the publicly available information regarding final recipients, actual amounts and results is insufficient. From the Court of Auditors, we have Ms. Ivana Maletić with us today.
She will be presenting the report to us.
A very warm welcome to you and thank you for being with us today. From the Commission, we also welcome Mrs. Cristina Jordan, Head of Unit for Economics of Resilience and Transition at the DG ECFIN, and Mr. Francesco Carlucci, Head of Unit for RRF 1, Belgium, France, Sweden, Interinstitutional at SG RECOVER. Now we'll start our work and I will give the floor to Ms. Maletić. And I give you, Ms. Maletić, the floor for 15 minutes. Please, the floor is yours.
Ivana Maletić
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good day everybody, honorable members of the European Parliament. I'm very happy to present today our one of the latest report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, focusing on fundamental question: can we clearly see where EU money goes?
I'm happy that actually we conducted this audit in order to assess more specifically points related to the transparency and traceability of RRF funding. You all know that in some of our audits, such as performance monitoring framework of the RRF and absorption of the RRF, we also tackled a little bit on the transparency and traceability issues, but this audit was devoted exactly to these topics alone. So what we did in the audit, we followed the money from the EU budget to the beneficiaries.
But and I think that this figure from the report is really important for everybody because what we try to assess in this audit is if we can really trace money to the private sector and not only public sector. You all know that within this 100 biggest recipients which are published for the RRF as final recipients of the RRF funding, we mostly have public bodies, ministries, regions, local governments, different public agencies and public enterprises, but we don't see this lowest part of the system, contractors and also legal entities receiving the funds, so different companies, NGOs receiving the funds as a final end users.
And this is exactly what we wanted to check with the audit, if we can trace the money flow to that level, to the private sector. So from this figure, it is also important to understand what do we consider under the contractors, because in the public sector with the public money, we have different types of procedures to contract entities from the private sector.
So within public procurement, we have contractors which are delivering goods and services or implementing different infrastructural projects. But also we have call for proposals or grant schemes where SMEs or non-profit organization and other type of the organizations are receiving fund for implementing their projects.
So here when we say contractor we consider them as a contracting authorities and we didn't actually check if the money is traceable at this lower level of NGOs and SMEs. So we don't say in the report that this also should be disclosed to public. But I know that you have different discussions also in the European Parliament and maybe in the cases when NGOs are receiving big amounts like millions of euros then of course that rules could be different than when NGOs are receiving 50,000 or 20,000 of euros and the same with SMEs. So this is something what is still to be considered also for the for the proposal for the new MFF.
But I will come back to that also through the presentation. So what did we find? What did we find with with our audit? First one good news is that traceability is there. So but this is not so optimistic news because of course this means that all member states have accounting and recording systems.
So this is like the least what one would expect that we really see in the accounting system transactions which were financed. So this is something what is ensured in the in the in the systems of the member states.
But this is exactly also the point where the problem begins. Because traceability we can say exists, but it doesn't really function in practice. Now you can see in this table on the slide, it's a table one in the report, the way data is collected and used. And the fact is that it differs widely between Member States. So we have different systems established in the Member States.
In some cases, information is not readily available. So in you can see that in six out of ten member states in our sample, we have this systematic collection of data, which means that at the central level, when you ask what was paid from the RRF, you can get this information.
So you can get report on the measures, how much money was spent, who gets the money and what was really paid. While in four member states, this is possible to get only upon request, which in some cases take more than four months, five months, six months. And in one case, which we have in the box in our report, we couldn't even get any information on actual costs and final recipients, so who actually really gets the money and how much. So when system is not set in a proper way, okay, transactions are recorded, but it is extremely difficult to get information and report on what was paid and who actually received the money. And this is what we actually found under this traceability part, which was striking.
Now, another major issue is also the lack of systematic data on actual spending. You know that now for for a long time during this implementation of the RRF, we had with the Commission disputes about this necessity to collect data on actual spending.
In this report, we are actually showing that it is very important to have information on actual costs related to the measures in the plans because you need to manage your plans in a way that if you have savings on some measures, then you have to use savings for other measures where you need more funding or maybe you can set like higher objectives to be achieved with more funding from the measures where you have savings. But what we found is that actually with this lack of information on actual cost, we cannot answer in the RRF on basic questions, which are: are projects over-financed, so do we have savings or not? Are funds used efficiently, so value for money?
And also, where should unused funds be redirected? So this is something what is not possible to actually see in the RRF, and this information is not consistently collected and not systematically used. And you can see here striking example on actually the fact that savings are not so irrelevant in the RRF, because in many cases our assumption was also that probably because of inflation and many challenges on the market, we have more overruns than savings. But our sample of 19 measures, so only 19 measures, 15 of them were with cost savings. And these cost savings were ranged from 7 to 25%.
So it's not something what we can just neglect. Savings are there and one should manage should manage this and this is really important lesson for for future. And now coming to the third point, to the third most important point of this report, transparency.
The fact related to the transparency is that you have many different information related to milestones and targets, fulfillment of the milestones and targets and progress of the member states in relation to that, but everything else is very, very limited. So information on actual cost you don't have, information on end users, final recipients, only this 100 biggest and here you can see from our analysis that most of them are public bodies and 80% of funds which are covered with this are actually this transfers between the public bodies.
So you don't see what ended up in the private sector, this first figure which I showed, which is actually the most important. So this is something what you cannot see. And basically because of this, we cannot assess whether funds are fairly distributed, whether risks of concentration exist, and whether EU money delivers value for citizens. And this is something what we are convinced in the European Court of Auditors cannot be repeated in the next MFF with the traditional, especially traditional cohesion and agricultural programs. And we can see that new proposal is also directed into this, into this direction.
And finally, our recommendations. First one is regarding stronger rules for transparency, which are needed in the financial regulation. So, first what we are saying is that traceability and transparency should be systematic, comprehensive and timely.
And you were able to see why we are insisting on this systematic, because if it's not, if traceability is not systematic, we can end up with not being able to get any information. And also, the problem is that in the financial regulation, it is possible in some specific regulation to define rules for transparency. What we are saying is that we should not leave possibility to individual programs to define rules, because we can end up like with the RRF with significant gaps and inconsistencies. And our second recommendation is related to the use of available data on actual cost.
So we have to use them, assess efficiency of spending and also compare systematically estimated and real cost and manage plans based on that. So most important for future instruments, even when financing is not linked to cost, member states should systematically collect and report data on actual costs. Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you, thank you so much Mrs. Maletić for your very interesting and very complete presentation. And now I give the floor to Mr. Jordan from the Commission to hear the Commission's remarks on the report.
You have the floor for five minutes. Please.
Good morning, honorable members. Good morning, Ms. Maletić. Thank you very much for giving the Commission the opportunity to present our position today on this special report on traceability and transparency. As you all know, ensuring transparency is of course a key concern for the Commission in the implementation of any funding instrument. And so we are grateful for the ECA who recognizes our efforts in this respect.
Jordan
We can of course however only act on the basis of what is actually in the regulation. Ah yes. Okay. Now maybe just a quick word on the main positive findings of the report. We welcome the finding that the ten member states included in the ECA's sample generally comply with the regulatory requirements on the traceability of funds.
We also welcome indeed the ECA's recognition that the RRF provides adequate transparency on the achievement of milestones and targets and on the Commission's management decisions.
And the audit also confirms that the Commission indeed publishes substantial information on its assessments. Now on the on the recommendations, which is what I want to focus on. As explained in our replies to this report, the Commission cannot accept the two recommendations made by the ECA. Here we have the first recommendation, which basically proposes reopening the financial regulation that was adopted in September 24, so less than two years ago.
Now, this financial regulation recast, it has increased the requirements for the collection and publication of data and information on the use of EU funds for all management modes. These modified provisions have indeed just been agreed upon between the co-legislators, and they strike a balance between, on the one hand, enhanced transparency and, on the other hand, and that of course we must never forget, also minimizing administrative burdens. Let me however also be clear that the Commission has proposed in the draft regulation on the future national and regional partnership plans from last year July, the collection and publication of information on beneficiaries, recipients, final recipients, contractors and subcontractors, including the amount of the Union contribution committed.
So all of this we have proposed in the NRPP regulation last July and this of course in principle very much responds to what the ECA is looking for. On the second recommendation, this one calls on the Commission to use actual cost data to assess and achieve the efficient use of EU funds. Now part one of this recommendation is about making use of actual cost data to assess the efficient use of funds ex post. Two points I would like to make on this.
First, in the RRF framework, and this is as we know a performance-based instrument, efficiency refers to the best possible relationship between the resources employed and the objectives achieved. And this is in this context then basically comparing the EU-level payments and the objective of supporting the implementation of the national plans. And this is precisely because we are not in a cost-based instrument, and so in line with that the RRF regulation does not require any specific reporting on costs by the Member States. Most reforms, as you know, also have no direct implementation costs and still they must be completed to receive RRF payments. And then second, the Commission has no legal basis to systematically request data on all costs actually incurred by the Member States.
There's however two things that we do do in this respect. First we have verified through system audits that all member states have put in place effective systems for the collection of cost data and of course we also consider any actual cost data that member states may have submitted to justify a revision of their plan.
On the last recommendation, or the last sub-recommendation, which is about basically the ECA wants that any future instrument that provides financing not linked to cost, that member states are required to systematically gather and submit actual cost data. On this one, I mean, there's first the matter of principle. As you know, the design of any future legislation will be decided in this house and by the Council, so the Commission cannot cannot promise anything on this. On substance, we think that in any instrument that is financing not linked to cost, there's just no ex-post verification of the underlying costs and invoices for each operation.
This would run counter to the very spirit of such instruments, would go against the objective of simplification and would just not be consistent with the logic of this approach. But also here, and we can of course also talk about this later, the Commission, we want to make it clear that we have taken these concerns into account in the future for the future national and regional partnership plans and the proposal that we have made there, where there is indeed an obligation for Member States to ensure that the estimated costs of their plan remain reasonable and plausible throughout the implementation, and that there's also now a mandatory touchpoint foreseen in the mid-term review. As you know, these proposals are just now being discussed here in the Parliament and in the Council. So overall, even though we could not accept the two recommendations, we consider the report a very useful contribution to all these reflections and discussions on the next MFF.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for this contribution. This has been useful. We come now to Mr. Carlucci, who is here. No, you don't want to add anything. And then we come back to the rapporteur, Ms. Tavares.
Carla Tavares
I will speak in Portuguese. Queria naturalmente agradecer a apresentação pelo Tribunal de Contas Europeu deste tão importante relatório num momento em que trabalhamos no quadro financeiro, no próximo quadro financeiro plurianual e também agradecer à Comissão. Sabemos bem, já aqui discutimos várias vezes, que o quadro de controlo orçamental do MRR funciona numa lógica muito distinta dos programas de despesa tradicionais da União. Os custos de execução das medidas são estimados e avaliados no início do processo, ao contrário do que se sucede, por exemplo, com a política de coesão.
Por outro lado, os custos reais suportados por um Estado-Membro no âmbito das medidas e projetos do mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência não influenciam o desembolso de fundos pela Comissão a esses Estados-Membros. E isso significa desde o início, e significou neste processo, que o controlo orçamental pelo Parlamento Europeu no âmbito do MRR conheceu limitações decorrentes do quadro jurídico que confere uma margem de discricionariedade significativa tanto à Comissão como aos Estados-Membros na gestão dos fundos e que preocupa este Parlamento naquele que é o quadro também do próximo quadro financeiro plurianual.
Embora este modelo se centre na realização de marcos e metas em vez do reembolso de despesa, o Tribunal sublinha muito claramente que a disponibilidade e utilização limitadas de dados de custos reais podem de facto condicionar a avaliação da eficiência da relação custo-benefício. O Tribunal aponta igualmente para aquilo que já muitas vezes vem a ser referenciado nesta comissão, para as diferenças significativas entre os Estados-Membros na recolha e gestão de informação sobre beneficiários finais, contratantes e subcontratantes.
E estas diferenças entre os diferentes Estados-membros afetam a rastreabilidade dos fundos e podem limitar a capacidade dos auditores, dos decisores políticos e particularmente também dos cidadãos de obterem uma visão completa de como os fundos da União são efetivamente utilizados e é também uma preocupação para o próximo quadro financeiro. Portanto, numa perspetiva de controlo orçamental, este relatório vem também contribuir para os debates em curso sobre o equilíbrio e a simplificação e também responsabilização nos programas de despesa da União. Traz também as lições a retirar do MRR para os futuros instrumentos do modelo de financiamento não associados aos custos no âmbito do próximo quadro financeiro plurianual. E por isso mesmo, e dado o momento em que nos encontramos a trabalhar, gostava de colocar ao Tribunal a seguinte questão.
Na perspectiva do Tribunal de Contas Europeu, qual é o conjunto mínimo de dados que o Parlamento deve exigir que faça parte de qualquer futuro instrumento baseado no desempenho ou modelo de financiamento não associado aos custos, de modo a permitir que façamos um escrutínio adequado da quitação? Um segundo ponto, e embora o modelo do mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência se centre na realização de marcos e metas em vez do reembolso de despesa, o Tribunal também sublinha que a disponibilidade e utilização limitada dos dados sobre os custos reais podem de facto condicionar a avaliação da eficiência da relação custo-benefício, conforme ainda hoje foi referido.
O Tribunal de Contas Europeu observa que os marcos e metas do MRR se centram frequentemente em realizações em vez de resultados, ao passo que os portais públicos geralmente não mostram os resultados reais nem o cumprimento dos objetivos globais das medidas. E pergunto o que deveria o Parlamento solicitar à Comissão que publicasse para que os cidadãos possam verificar não apenas que os marcos foram cumpridos, mas que o mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência efetivamente se concretizou. E por fim também, e tendo o privilégio de termos aqui hoje a Comissão, também a Comissão afirma que a eficiência do mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência pode ser avaliada comparando os pagamentos ao nível da União com a realização de marcos e metas.
E perguntava de que forma exata avaliará a Comissão a eficiência e a boa gestão financeira do MRR ex-post, se não recolhe custos reais por medida ou por pilar. A avaliação ex-post divulgará explicitamente as limitações decorrentes da ausência de dados de custos reais ao nível das medidas? E eram estas as perguntas que deixava. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, colleague Tavares. I share your Kopfzerbrechen about the milestones and the Zielwerte.
And the next speaker is Mr. Sanchez who has asked for the floor. Who first? Nay, no, no, sorry, we do it in the order. Monique? Okay, Julien.
Julien Sanchez
Merci beaucoup. Merci Monsieur le Président, merci Monika, chers collègues, je remercie Madame Maletić pour cette présentation. Je note aussi sa pédagogie et sa patience face au laxisme de la Commission.
Je ne vais pas l'être autant car ce rapport spécial, il est important et il confirme les inquiétudes que nous exprimons depuis plusieurs années sur la FRR. Nous parlons ici à ce stade de 577 milliards d'euros financés par une dette commune sans précédent. C'est ce qui doit nous rendre encore plus exigeants, dont les paiements sont effectués non pas sur la base de dépenses réellement engagées mais sur la réalisation de jalons et de cibles administratives. C'est toute l'originalité et la faiblesse de ce modèle de la FRR. Aujourd'hui, la Cour, qu'est-ce qu'elle nous dit ?
Elle nous dit que la traçabilité et la transparence des fonds ne sont que partiellement assurées. Des lacunes subsistent concernant les bénéficiaires finaux, les montants réellement dépensés et les résultats obtenus. Je ne sais pas si on se rend bien compte mais j'ai l'impression d'être dans la septième dimension. La Commission ne collecte même pas les données relatives aux coûts réels des mesures, y compris lorsque ces données existent dans les États membres.
La Cour estime que cette situation limite directement sa capacité à évaluer l'efficience des dépenses et à vérifier si l'argent du contribuable européen a été utilisé de manière optimale. Autrement dit après avoir mobilisé 577 milliards d'euros, nous ne sommes toujours pas capables de savoir précisément combien certaines mesures ont réellement coûté ni si elles ont été réalisées au meilleur coût. La Cour relève également que dans les États membres analysés en détail, le coût réel de la plupart des mesures achevées est inférieur aux estimations initiales. Pourtant, les économies réalisées ne sont pas systématiquement réaffectées.
Il existe donc un risque réel que certains États membres reçoivent davantage de financements que ce qui correspond aux dépenses effectivement supportées. La publication des bénéficiaires finaux ne concerne que les 100 principaux bénéficiaires. Là aussi, pourquoi ? Pourquoi est-ce qu'on ne publie que les 100 principaux ? La Cour souligne que les organismes publics représentent plus de 80 % des montants recensés et que les montants versés aux contractants privés qui exécutent effectivement une grande partie des projets ne sont pas publiés.
La transparence sur les véritables destinataires des fonds n'est donc pas totale. Je souhaiterais également rappeler qu'en tant que rapporteur du rapport PIF 2024 sur la protection des intérêts financiers de l'Union, j'ai organisé plusieurs auditions consacrées à la lutte contre la fraude et au contrôle des fonds européens. L'une d'entre elles était spécifiquement dédiée à la FRR avec la participation de la Cour des comptes européenne.
À l'époque déjà, des inquiétudes ont été exprimées concernant l'absence de traçabilité complète, l'insuffisance des informations, et rien n'a changé depuis. Forcé de constater que les choses n'ont pas évolué donc, au contraire. Le cas français est révélateur. La Cour indique que pour trois des cinq mesures examinées, les autorités françaises n'ont pas été en mesure de communiquer les noms des bénéficiaires finaux. Certaines données n'ont été transmises qu'après plus de six mois et sans permettre d'établir un lien entre les coûts réels et les bénéficiaires concernés.
Je trouve que c'est irrationnel donc que la Commission envisage de reprendre et d'étendre ce modèle dans le prochain CFP. Et je conclurai donc par une question. Comment la Commission peut-elle justifier l'extension d'un modèle de financement non lié aux coûts dans le prochain CFP alors que la Cour des comptes européenne démontre aujourd'hui que ce système ne permet pas d'assurer pleinement la transparence, la traçabilité et l'évaluation de l'efficience des dépenses européennes ? Encore une fois, l'évaluation ex-post ce n'est pas normalement un détail et ce n'est pas une option, ça doit être une réalité et une obligation morale. Merci.
Monika Hohlmeier
Vielen herzlichen Dank, Vorsitzender.
Ehrlich gesagt hat mich die Äußerung der Kommission ziemlich fassungslos gemacht. Ich möchte der Mitarbeiterin der Kommission sagen, dass sie damit den beiden Kommissaren Gentiloni und Dombrovskis widerspricht, die hier in diesem Ausschuss öffentlich zugesagt haben, dass die Kosten rückverfolgbar sind, dass die Kommission sich darum bemühen wird, dass zwar nicht alle veröffentlicht werden, was dann ein Dissens zu uns gewesen ist, dass sich dieser Ausschuss drauf verlassen kann, dass die Gelder gesichert und ordnungsgemäß ausgegeben werden, weil die Kommission jeden Cent im Blick hat.
Und auf die Frage, ob es potenziell zu Rückforderungen kommen kann, wenn die Kosten entsprechend nicht adäquat darlegbar sind bzw. keine adäquate Rückverfolgbarkeit gibt, war die Antwort der jeweiligen der beiden Kommissare, dass das geschehen wird. Ich stelle mir jetzt die Frage, wie wollen Sie etwas zurückverlangen, von dem Sie gar nicht wissen, wie es ausgegeben worden ist? Die zweite Frage ist die, die ich insofern hätte, die Kommission hat nicht einmal zurückverlangt, als Mitgliedstaaten Milestones wieder zurück umentschieden haben, nachdem sie sie zuerst gesetzlich verändert hatten, also zum Beispiel innerhalb der Slowakei mit der Antikorruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft, die regelrecht in die Luft gesprengt wurde im Nachhinein.
Als der Milestone nicht mehr erfüllt war, hat die Kommission schlicht und einfach bis jetzt so gut wie gar nichts gemacht. Und das beunruhigt mich schon, denn Sie verfolgen weder das Thema Milestones ernsthaft, noch verfolgen Sie die Targets ernsthaft, noch die Projekte, die hinter den Targets tatsächlich stehen, noch verifizieren Sie die Kosten auf einer auf der Basis, wann sie entsprechend je nach Projekt entstanden sind. Jetzt stelle ich mir die Frage, wie Sie eigentlich Ihre Voraussetzungen erfüllen, dem Lissabon-Vertrag nachstehen, nachdem Sie eigentlich für das finanzielle Management und die ordnungsgemäße Ver- der Verausgabung von Mitteln die Verantwortung tragen als Kommission.
Und ich weiß ehrlich gesagt nicht mehr, wie ich Ihnen eine Discharge dafür geben soll, dass Sie die Dinge nicht prüfen. Aus dem Grund finde ich auch die Fragen von Carla Tavares 100-prozentig richtig. Und wenn Sie mir mitteilen, dass die Kommission keine legale Basis hat, um die Kosten zu ermitteln, dann muss ich Ihnen mitteilen, dass die Kommissare uns das Gegenteil mitgeteilt haben. Vielleicht sollten Sie sich mal mit Ihren Kommissionsmitgliedern verständigen, bevor solche Äußerungen hier stattfinden. Gleichzeitig müssen wir feststellen, dass EPPO uns mitteilt, dass hier Betrug Tür und Tor geöffnet wird anhand anscheinend dieser Art und Weise von Methode von Vorgehen.
Wir haben noch nie so viele Betrugsfälle gehabt wie unter RRF, die allerdings immer erst durch Whistleblower oder durch jemanden, der uns, der anonym Anzeigen erstattet hat, dann aufgefallen sind. In Italien war es die Guardia di Finanza als öffentliche Behörde und wir haben eine Unmenge an Korruptionsfällen, die aufgetreten sind, bis hin zu schwerwiegenden Vorfällen, wie das in Spanien aufgetreten ist. Und drum muss ich Ihnen ganz ehrlich sagen, die Kühle, mit der Sie hier behaupten, dass die Haushaltsregulierung geändert worden sei und darin Performance not linked to cost berücksichtigt sei. Entschuldigung, ich war dafür Berichterstatter und das ist einfach falsch, was Sie hier sagen.
Es ist einfach falsch. In der Performance Regulation, in der Haushaltsordnung hat die Kommission verweigert, Performance not linked to cost hineinzunehmen. Aus diesem Grund ist die Forderung des Rechnungshofes logisch. Wenn man Performance not linked to cost macht, dann irgendwann musst du das in die Haushaltsordnung aufnehmen. Was Sie machen ist, Sie machen jetzt eine Performance Regulation, die eine Schattenregulierung zur Haushaltsordnung darstellt und dieser zum Teil auch noch widerspricht.
Aus dem Grund muss ich ehrlich sagen, die Äußerungen halte ich für äußerst unbedacht.
Und die Frage an den Rechnungshof von meiner Seite aus wäre, inwiefern sieht der Rechnungshof, wie die Haushaltsordnung zu ändern wäre oder in welchen wesentlichen Punkten sie aus Sicht des Rechnungshofes zu ändern wäre. Die zweite Frage wäre, ob es der Rechnungshof auch so sieht, dass es keine rechtliche Basis gäbe, um überhaupt nach Kosten zu fragen. Eigentlich habe ich den Artikel, ich glaube es war der 22, so gelesen, dass selbstverständlich für Auditzwecke als auch für Rückverfolgungszwecke für die Kommission eine volle Transparenz auch über die Kosten und über die tatsächlichen Endempfänger gegeben sein muss. Die Kommission hat das dann umgetauft, dass die Endempfänger, wollte die Frau Major hat damals gesagt, seien nur noch die Mitgliedstaaten.
Dann habe ich gesagt, dann kommt aber endgültig die Kommission ihrem Auftrag gemäß Lissabon-Vertrag nicht mehr nach und dann wird's Zeit, dass vielleicht das Parlament eine Klage einreicht gegen die Kommission, um mal zu klären, wie Dinge rückverfolgt werden müssen. Meine, sagen wir mal, grundsätzliche Empörung beruht darauf, dass die Kommission anscheinend kaum einen Lernprozess hinlegt und stur an ihren Punkten festhält, obwohl das Parlament seit nunmehr mehreren Jahren mit einer riesigen Mehrheit versucht, die Kommission darüber aufzuklären, dass sie dieses nicht willens ist zu akzeptieren und dass das Parlament kein Frühstücksparlament ist, sondern dass die Parlamentarier in den unterschiedlichen Ausschüssen das Recht haben, Informationen korrekter Art zu bekommen und vollständiger Art zu bekommen.
Und dem Auftrag kommen Sie hier leider nicht nach, muss ich feststellen.
Andreas Schwab
Vielen Dank, liebe Monika Hohlmeier. Nächster ist Olivier Chastel. No? Mr. Eriksson, please, over to you.
Dick Erixon
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Court for this crucial report. The report confirms what we have long warned for. We cannot follow the money. This is a 577 billion euro facility, yet the Commission never collects what the measures actually cost, so it cannot tell us whether the money was well spent.
This is absolutely crazy. Only the 100 largest recipients are published. The contractors who actually receive the funds stay hidden. And the Commission has rejected both of the Court's recommendations. It's shameful.
How can the Commission refuse to even measure how 577 billion euro are spent and still ask taxpayers to trust it with the next budget? We will do everything to make sure that the next financial framework does not repeat this. We and the taxpayers have the right to receive full cost data and full transparency as binding conditions. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Eriksson. Next one is Mr. Rissen, no, there is no one else. Please, over to you, Mr. Rissen. Exactly. I hadn't seen you before.
Daniel Freund is next.
Daniel Freund
Thanks to the Court of Auditors for this report. I mean, the European Parliament has been very critical about certain elements of the RRF. If you, I don't know if the Commission has actually read the Commission discharge report from last year, but it seems that you're refusing any kind of advice or counsel. I mean, you just outright reject any recommendation from the Court, you ignore the discharge recommendations that the Parliament has made. I mean, when I look at the report and I can see that in the Member States that have been looked at, over 50% of the recipients are ministries and public bodies.
Thanks.
They got over 80% of the money. I have to admit then to the Court of Auditors, I don't fully understand how you can say that the traceability is assured because clearly the money didn't end there, but it was then paid out to the actual final beneficiaries. Read the Article 22 of the RRF regulation where it speaks about VAT numbers and individuals that have received this money. We cannot see this. How is this possible?
And I would like to hear from the Court if you actually consider that this is legal.
I mean, our, and what again, what we have written into the discharge report and voted with a large majority in this house is that the Commission has an illegal interpretation of, of this part of the RRF regulation. They have provided guidance to the member states that has nothing to do with what the legislators had in mind when we wrote the RRF regulation. We want to see who got this money. And until today, we, we cannot, and the Commission outright refuses to fix this. Then I think we're running into the situation that we have clearly announced in the discharge report, that the Parliament has given till the end of the year to see this information, and otherwise, I fear we're going to end up in court over this, because this is clearly not what the legislator intended.
Thank you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much. I just would like to add my voice to the choir here. I mean, this is an ongoing disaster. We've been had this debate now for two years, but this is fundamentally flawed. We cannot follow the money.
We cannot even estimate how much money is used in a rightful way and how much is spent on something that wasn't supposed to be. And what really is the most disturbing thing is the Commission refuses to take on board fundamental recommendations coming from the Court of Auditors.
But I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for being so persistent and coming back with this well-founded criticism of this very model. I mean, this is undefendable in the eyes of the citizens of Europe to have a system like this, when we cannot even say who who gets their their their own money and the the huge loans that are taking, that are taken to finance this. And I would like to ask the Court of Auditors two things.
The first, is it even possible for you to do as you do with the normal budget today, to estimate the percentage of what payments that are not paid in the right way? I mean, you do that today when it comes to agriculture policy and when it comes to regional policy. Is it even possible for you to estimate that when it comes to the RRF and this model of expenses? And secondly, how much improvement do you see? I mean, we've been having this debate now for at least two years.
How much actual improvement have you seen that have followed your recommendations in the Commission's handling of this? Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Sjöstedt. Next one is the ESN group. You wanted to have the floor now, please.
Alexander Jungbluth
I will speak in German. Sehr interessant und auch erfreulich, wie groß die Einigkeit über die Empörung in dieser Angelegenheit ist. Und es ist auch richtig, und ich möchte diese einzelnen Positionen auch gar nicht wiederholen. Aber ich glaube, wenn wir uns ansehen, was EPPO gesagt hat, und wenn wir dann noch mal darüber hinaus sehen, dass die Rückverfolgbarkeit in keinster Weise gegeben ist, dann ist dort noch davon auszugehen, dass uns irgendwann noch viel mehr erwartet, was für Dinge mit den Mitteln aus dem RRF geschehen ist.
Was mir allerdings fehlt, und das möchte ich dann auch noch mal für die ESN-Fraktion betonen, ist, wir haben heute alle festgestellt, dass die Kommission gar nicht so genau weiß, was sie macht. Es gibt widersprüchliche Aussagen in diesem Bereich und wir stellen eben fest, dass die Kommission ein Stück weit überfordert ist mit dieser Angelegenheit. Und insofern ist doch eine politische Lehre, die wir daraus ziehen sollten, dass eben Dinge wie der RRF eventuell gar nicht auf europäischer Ebene gemacht werden sollten. Wir stellen heute fest, dass die Kommission nicht in der Lage ist, das durchzusetzen. Die politische Lehre ist, dass wir so was auf europäischer Ebene gar nicht machen sollten und dass die Rückverfolgbarkeit und die Wirksamkeit erheblich besser geschehen würde, wenn wir solche Dinge demnächst auf nationaler Ebene regeln würden.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter en dank aan de Europese Rekenkamer voor haar heldere verslag, zoals altijd. Dank voor uw aanbevelingen voor de analyse. Glashelder, maar ondertussen ook zijn uw bevindingen Rekenkamer zeer schokkend. Ik denk dat wij als parlement, als je het terugbrengt tot de basis, dat wij twee hele belangrijke basiseisen stellen aan de besteding van onze gelden. Punt één: we willen zien wie het geld krijgt.
En punt twee: we willen de harde garantie dat een begunstigde niet te veel krijgt. Dat zijn twee hele simpele basiseisen. En ik moet constateren als ik dit rapport lees van de Rekenkamer dat de Commissie, dat de EU in het kader van het RRF aan deze twee basiseisen niet voldoet. Dus dat het hele systeem eigenlijk gefaald heeft. En ondertussen gaan we gewoon door met dit systeem en proberen dat nog uit te rollen naar de rest van de meerjarenbegroting.
Ik maak me daar grote zorgen over. Als ik het dan wat even concreter maak, dan kom ik uit bij aanbeveling punt 18. Anderen hebben daar ook al het een en ander over gezegd.
Dat gaat over het publiceren van de eindbegunstigden. Ik vind het dan zeer schokkend om te lezen dat veel lidstaten gewoon volstaan met het slechts vermelden van overheidsinstanties, openbare instellingen, maar dat ze niet eens de moeite nemen om de echte eindbegunstigden te publiceren. Ik noem dat gewoon pure misleiding. Ik vind echt dat we dat als parlement niet mogen accepteren. Wat dat betreft gaan we misschien een hete zomer tegemoet als het gaat over de onderhandelingen.
Dit moet echt anders. We willen echt de namen van alle eindbegunstigden gewoon gepubliceerd zien. Dat is punt één.
Het tweede, als het gaat over de werkelijke werkelijke kosten, dan kom ik uit bij aanbeveling 13. Ja, die aanbeveling is heel netjes geformuleerd, maar ook als je na als je dan realiseert wat hier staat, is dat ook een hele schokkende schokkende constatering. Wat schrijft de Rekenkamer daar? De Rekenkamer schrijft daar: uit een grondige grondige analyse in vier lidstaten is echter gebleken dat de werkelijke kosten voor de meeste voltooide maatregelen lager waren dan geraamd. Heel netjes geformuleerd, maar feitelijk staat hier dus gewoon: we hebben massaal overgecompenseerd.
We hebben in heel veel gevallen hebben we veel meer geld uitgegeven voor projecten dan die projecten daadwerkelijk hebben gekost. Dat kan toch niet waar zijn?
En eigenlijk is ook mijn vraag aan de Rekenkamer in dat verband van: ja, hoe kunnen we dit nou in de toekomst voorkomen? Ik zou zeggen: als je te veel uitbetaalt, dan moet er teruggevorderd worden. En ook de vraag ook wel aan de Commissie: hoe gaan we dit nou in de toekomst voorkomen? Want dit kan toch niet, dit krijg ik niet uitgelegd aan de belastingbetaler. Dank.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Roos. Your reference to the fact that we will be having maybe a heatwave in summer has nothing to do with the climate change in that case, but rather with the European Commission's inability to prove the payments. There have been some questions to the European Court of Auditors.
I would like to give you the floor for two minutes and to the Commission for one minute and then to our rapporteur because we have then to do our coordinators' meeting. Over to you, Ms. Maletić.
Ivana Maletić
Thank you very much. Thank you for your extremely important questions. I will start with efficiency and effectiveness because these were like key questions. Can we measure efficiency and effectiveness with the RRF and what we can do better? So the problem here is, as you rightly pointed out, that milestones and targets are in many cases just some simple steps in the implementation and we cannot really see the results.
And this is the problem with measuring effectiveness. In the new MFF, you have to insist, of course, that indicators which are set in the performance regulation are really result indicators and then milestones and targets output indicators showing how you are heading to the result indicators which are assessed later on, not during the implementation because, of course, results are visible with the time distance.
Regarding efficiency, you also asked about this, how Commission is explaining that it is possible to assess efficiency based on the funds paid to the beneficiaries, which are in this case Member States, and what was achieved. So in the RRF, we actually cannot see clearly what was achieved, and this what was paid to the Member States is then based on the artificial calculation of unit value of milestones and targets. It is not even based on the estimated cost, but artificial calculation. So when you see all the figures on the scoreboard related to different policy areas and six pillars, they are not real. They are not even based on estimates, they are not based on actual, they are based on calculation of unit value, which is completely artificial.
So we don't know how much was spent in each of the six pillars or policy areas.
So basically efficiency is not possible to assess or measure in the RRF. This is why we are saying, we all understand that payment conditions under RRF are not linked to the cost, and this is linked to the milestones and targets.
But what we are saying as a court is that you have to report ex post because we have to know ex post what was financed, how much it was spent exactly that you can manage the plans, that you can manage the funds in the plans, that you can do revision of the plans and of course that you can inform public that they have certainty on how this money was used, who actually benefited from the money. So these are like simply financial reporting requirements which we all know exist and we all learn even at the first year of university or in secondary education. And I was really shocked that here with RRF we have this type of discussion like why we need reporting. Of course that we need reporting on what was actually done.
And this is basic for efficiency and this is also basic for transparency. Then you had also a number of questions related to the transparency and difficulties with transparency and traceability. And very interesting one was, is this 100 which we see legal or not? The problem is, and this is what we pointed out, that Commission defined final recipient as last entity receiving funds that is not a contractor or subcontractor.
And exactly because of that, you are seeing this list of final recipients which are actually public bodies because they are not contractors and contractors. If you see the figures which I showed at the beginning, contractors and sub-contractors are in the public sector. And they defined in the regulation that final recipients are last entities which are not contractors and sub-contractors. And this is the key problem, and it cannot be repeated. And then also changes of the financial regulation we defined very, very in detail in paragraph 25.
Now I don't have time to go through that because it needs lot of elaboration, but in paragraph 25 of the report we explained exactly what should be changed in the financial regulation.
And now the last, maybe most important, is what what you have to ask for the future. So for the future, if we are going in direction of financing not linked to the cost, this ex-post information reporting system must be established in a proper way. And this is what is missing now in the proposal and was missing in the RRF, and please don't go into the same trap because we cannot repeat this. This was temporary instrument. Now we have traditional instruments, half of the budget, and I think that we really have to deal carefully with the public money.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Ms. Maletić. And now I would like to give the floor to the Commission again. And I would like to ask you to start with the question if you understand that we are not speaking here about some investment of some investment company, but about public money and this Parliament looking for an explanation how taxpayers' money has been spent. Over to you.
Redner 27
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Of course, it's a bit difficult in one minute to answer all the questions that were made to the Commission. But I will try to use this to very clearly reassure you that the Commission takes the Court's concerns and the Parliament's concerns very seriously. And I will explain you why. I just want you to start to say that we had a very good cooperation with the Court on this audit.
And I think we found, we appreciated very much that they very well presented the difference between the current legal framework and what could be done. Because let's be clear, the Commission doesn't say that the RRF is perfect.
And this I want, it's clear. But the Commission must work under the legal framework of the RRF. So the legal framework of the RRF says that Member States must have this data. And in fact they do, because even the Court acknowledged that they always were able to provide the data. The question is whether they publish it, and this is the discussion of course we had with Mr. Freund, and I know very well the discussion on the 100 recipients where we have a different interpretation of what the final recipient is.
The final point on the RRF is that of course the regulation is very clear that for payment, for checking the, for carrying out the payments and verify milestones and targets, we are not allowed to systematically check costs. And this is a basis, but we do take the cost information into account whenever we have this information available, and this we also made clear to the Court.
What I would like to move on to, to one thing: why do we take your concerns very seriously? If you look into the Commission's proposal for the future, you will see many elements that are coming exactly from these discussions, which shows that we take this very seriously. First of all, on transparency.
It's not only the financial regulation, the provision proposal is very clear that all data collected must be published on recipients, on contractors, on subcontractors, exactly what you've been calling for. On the other two points that Mrs. Hohlmeier made and were made in the past in previous discussions. The Commission proposal in Article 59 has a very clear point for the future saying that in the final assurance package, Member States must confirm that the amount they received from the EU is less than the amount that they've spent in implementing the plans. Third point, incomplete measures. In the new proposal, if the last final milestone target is not fulfilled, the Commission will be able to recover money beyond what it does already today when the milestone target is not fulfilled.
And so of course, Mr. Chair, and I can close here because of course I'm available if you want to discuss further afterwards. I think it's important to make this distinction between what the legal framework is today and what the legal framework is in the future.
And I do believe, and the Commission proposal shows, that we take these concerns very seriously, otherwise we wouldn't have proposed changes to the current framework. But of course our problem is the difference between a legal framework we have to apply and the future. And I count on you because the discussions, as you know, on the future will be very important. The position of the Council is not always the same that you share here, so we also count on you because we believe very much on the importance of transparency about this. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for this clarification and we will surely discuss that further. And now at the end again to our rapporteur, Mr. Tavares.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Portuguese. Naturalmente agradecer muito ao Tribunal de Contas novamente e à Comissão e acho que partilhar aquilo que foi o sentir também dos meus colegas. Eu acho que saímos desta audição hoje tão ou mais preocupados do que quando entrámos para esta reunião.
Nós estamos a falar de facto de um modelo de financiamento não associado aos custos que nos preocupa para o próximo quadro financeiro. Nós estamos a falar de um quadro de financiamento de longo prazo, não propriamente de um tempo curto. O Parlamento tem sido muito claro relativamente à sua posição ou às suas preocupações relativamente à arquitetura e à forma como está estruturado o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual e as nossas preocupações não diminuíram.
Acho que mesmo no contexto desta comissão, há um longo debate que este Parlamento ainda precisa de fazer e a Comissão também precisa de ouvir o Parlamento e aquilo que são as nossas preocupações e que decorrem não só das experiências no terreno nos 27 Estados-membros, como uma inacessibilidade completa aos apoios. E nós falamos de dinheiros europeus, de dinheiros que são de todos os nossos contribuintes e, portanto, a nossa primeira obrigação enquanto eurodeputados é garantir a transparência e a acessibilidade, rastreabilidade da utilização destes dinheiros europeus. E não escondo que enquanto correlatora do próximo MFF, não saio hoje desta audição mais tranquila do que aquilo que entrei. Sabemos que não é um trabalho fácil. De qualquer das formas, agradecer à Comissão também pelo trabalho que tem desenvolvido.
E há um percurso, eu acho que ainda muito longo. Não temos muito tempo, mas ainda temos algum tempo para fazer essa maturação e essa discussão. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, especially to our rapporteur and I'm very glad that we share exactly the same view on this issue, especially with you and thanks for your hard work and thanks for the contribution and thanks for the European Court of Auditors and the Commission for being here today. We will now make a very short break and then we will continue with coordinators. Thank you.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.