Committee on Budgetary Control Ordinary 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
Aufzeichnung
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 1. Oktober 2026Angezeigt
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 1. Oktober 2026
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
CONT European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenAndreas Schwab
Amendment 15, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 16, in favor, against, abstentions, I would say rejected, rejected. Amendment 17, in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Compromise amendment three, in favor, against, abstentions, let's check compromise amendment three. Vote is opened, vote is closed.
14 in favor, eight against, adopted. Then we come to the pre-final vote, amendment one, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. And the final vote by roll call vote, please vote because the voting machines are open. And we close the vote and it's adopted 16 to five. Thank you very much, congratulations to our rapporteur, Mr. Kovachev.
So, colleagues, let's continue today's exchange of views with the Secretary-General of this house, Alessandro Chiocchetti. Buongiorno, we are very happy to have you here.
Thank you for joining us today. We are here to discuss the follow-up to the 2024 discharge and to introduce the 2025 exercise, the year of the current discharge procedure. Thank you also for providing us with the written follow-up to the discharge resolution that was adopted on 29th of April. Receiving that document with the right level of detail is really highly appreciated. And not only I want to thank you, but all your cabinet that is also available if problems are arising during the year, and that's highly appreciated.
Thank you so much. For today's discussion, I propose we keep a clear focus. I know that you are doing this all the time in your work. First, any clarification colleagues wish to raise from the 2024 discharge, and second, the launch of the 2025 discharge. A dedicated exchange later in December, just before Christmas, Mr. Secretary-General, dear Alessandro, will be done, will return to the current discharge in more depth.
With thanks to all colleagues for constructive, concise, precise and very good interventions and questions, and also to the Secretary-General for his and your availability, I will now invite you, Alessandro, to start with your introductory remarks.
Alessandro Chiocchetti
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very glad to be with you this morning, as always, to conclude Parliament's discharge procedure for the year 2024. The financial year 2024 followed two very challenging years, which were marked by the pandemic crisis and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in early 2022. This has resulted in high inflation, soaring energy prices and a degradation of the financial situation in the entire European Union.
Furthermore, you will remember 2024, it was an election year, with an extra expenditure incurred in connection with the end of one parliamentary term and the start of the next one. So, in 2024, Parliament received a budget allocation of 2.383 million, corresponding to an increase of 8.81% on statutory expenditure over 2023, like salaries or allowances, which amount to about two-thirds of the budget, and an increase of 1.87% of non-statutory expenditures, so below the 2% as was required by the MFF. And I want to remind that no additional permanent or temporary post had been requested. In 2024, Parliament achieved a very high degree of implementation of the budget, committing 99.7% of the allocated budget. So, as you know, on 16 July 2024, the 10th legislative term began following the elections, an event that required considerable support activities and preparation work by the Parliament's administration in a collaborative effort.
Staff across several DGs invested heavily in specific election-related activities, such as the establishment of staffing of dedicated departure and welcome villages, provided personalized support for members, APAs and staff from the political groups.
Another important event in 2024 was the package of reform measures covering legislation, scrutiny, budgetary functions, including budgetary control, plenary and external relations, which was adopted by the Conference of Presidents in December 2023 and entered into force in 2024 after the elections. We also had, and it was a consequence of that reform, in April 2024, the corresponding amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure. So, against this background and with a view to reinforcing the administrative support for Parliament's core business, in September 2024, I proposed to the Bureau to create four new Directorates-General responsible for legislative, scrutiny and budgetary activities, splitting the former Directorate-General for Internal Policies, DG IPOL. This was done in a budgetary neutral way, so no additional post created, just through redeployment of existing resources. Also in 2024, the regulation on cybersecurity entered into force, and a detailed plan for an internal cybersecurity risk management, governance and control framework, which also included reference to the cybersecurity risk management measures, was prepared and it was adopted by the Bureau on 10th February 2025.
Also in 2024, we established and adopted an artificial intelligence governance framework, which include, among others, a thorough risk assessment for the use of new technologies. And at the same time, the European Artificial Intelligence Act, as you know, entered into force on 1st August 2024. On this, the Parliament services are implementing the strategy on artificial intelligence and the corresponding roadmap. And this strategy, I said it already, but I repeat, is based on principles such as alignment with Parliament's strategic objectives, a human-centric approach, regulatory compliance, adherence to ethical values and the promotion of process simplification, greater efficiency, resilience and new opportunities for professional development and upskilling. Last but not least, in 2024, Parliament has successfully maintained its EMAS registration.
The Bureau reaffirmed Parliament's commitment to improve its environmental performance, approving in November 2024 a new set of targets for the legislative term 24-29, setting new objectives, including a 55% net CO2 emissions reduction goal compared to 2006, sorry, levels. Mr. Chair, if you allow me, I would like to take this opportunity also to make some considerations that go beyond the discharge year in question. As you know, because now you know me a little bit, my main goal as Secretary-General and my key priority has always been to strengthen the administrative support to the core business of Parliament, enabling members to exercise their mandate in the best possible conditions in legislation, scrutiny and budgetary matters. And these are the key functions of the Parliament as established in our treaties, and the administration should be organized around them. That's why I launched the structural reforms of Directorates-General that I mentioned.
I have applied a tight budgetary discipline to the preparation of the annual budget. And for four years in a row, meaning that as I mean after I was appointed Secretary General, we have not increased our establishment plan, meaning the level of the staff, not even by one by one new post. So this approach I think will continue and I think this will be necessary given the news that we have on the new multiannual financial framework, which for sure will not increase the budget for the administration. So this is what I intend to do also in the future, meaning do what we have to do with what we have, because I think we are not a poor Parliament, so we are not in scarcity of resources, but we are in limited resources regime, which means that we have to use our resources in the best possible way. Which means that and this is the let's say what I wanted to tell you, at the beginning of next year, building on the experience and assessments done, I intend to launch a comprehensive review on our spending.
Which will be about how much, why and also how we spend the money. And this will be about achieving savings and implementing structural improvements on resources allocation in strategic areas. And it'll be about consolidating a spending culture where every cent has to be spent in the best interest of the institution. And I take this opportunity to thank all Directors General for their commitment and the Budgetary Control Committee for the continuous support in this regard. And it's not purely let's say a form of courtesy.
I am as you know very much convinced that good cooperation between the Budgetary Control Committee and the administration is key. We can let's say do a lot of things together. We have to be transparent. Transparency in my view is not a goal per se. Transparency is as a mean to ensure accountability, but it's also the best way to avoid misunderstanding, rumors, fake news and so on.
That's why for everything we can let's say tell you as information that you may require in this committee, we are absolutely 100% ready to provide, of course within the limit of what we can, because in some cases we cannot because of privacy, because of ongoing proceedings and and so on. But everything we can give you as an information, you can count on us. I'm done, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Secretary General for that very concrete outline of your activity since 2020 for the election year, but also your announcement on this better way of spending. And if I may add as an experienced member also better way of controlling the spending so that we don't lose too much money is a very, very helpful tool and maybe you can even come more often than. But I shouldn't dwell about that because the floor is now to our rapporteur Mr. Lupo.
Giuseppe Lupo
Grazie Presidente. Grazie anche al Segretario. Ho apprezzato come di consueto la chiarezza della comunicazione del dottore Chiocchetti. Qualche domanda attiene al registro della trasparenza e cioè se il Parlamento ha verificato nel corso del 2024 che le informazioni relative ai soggetti iscritti al registro di trasparenza fossero monitorate e periodicamente aggiornate.
Faccio questa domanda perché penso che potrebbe accadere ed è un rischio che dobbiamo evitare che soggetti inizialmente regolarmente accreditati in quanto aventi i requisiti possano successivamente essere acquisiti da persone o da organizzazioni non idonee all'iscrizione che potrebbero averne preso acquisito la proprietà o anche la governance quindi è necessario penso un monitoraggio e una verifica dei requisiti di iscrizione al registro. Un'altra domanda attiene all'Ethics Body. Come sappiamo nella relazione sul discarico 24 il Parlamento europeo ha approvato un emendamento in plenaria che ricorda che il Parlamento rimane vincolato all'accordo che istituisce un organismo interistituzionale per le norme etiche per i membri delle istituzioni europee. Quindi quali procedure, risorse, strumenti di monitoraggio sono stati messi in campo per garantire che le raccomandazioni dell'Ethics Body producano effettivamente conseguenze operative? Chiaramente con riferimento al 24 il voto è stato successivo.
Una domanda rispetto alla ristrutturazione SPAK cioè quali costi sono stati fin qui sostenuti e impegnati e se possiamo avere un aggiornamento e per ultimo come valuta il Segretario generale l'affluenza dei centri Europa Experience nell'ultimo anno. Noi riteniamo che siano importanti sappiamo che c'è qualche difficoltà penso che dobbiamo fare di tutto per avvicinare il Parlamento europeo ai territori anche con questo strumento. Grazie.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you chair and let me start by by thanking last year's shadows for working so well together and being able to get the discharge report through this house because the year before we we were not able to to do so. And secondly I also want to thank the Secretary-General and the Parliament's administration not only for the work done during the discharge process but also for the coherent follow-up afterwards. Nevertheless I I do have a few points that are still outstanding and two of them have a high political nature. The first one is the PVV case of misuse of parliamentary funds. The discharge last year was significantly affected by that and the follow-up seems to appear quite slowly.
And we asked in our resolution to be updated as a committee and that is not very very much happening in detail. I know it now rests at the Bureau, the Parliament's Bureau, it's okay that it's there now but I hope that we are being informed as soon as possible. The second point that concerns the ESN and that is a bigger political problem and in the discharge we explicitly explicitly asked for the CONT committee to be informed about the investigation into the alleged use of budget item 400. And we know that the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations is still investigating this and I really call up on the administration to to follow up as soon as possible and inform our committee in writing on this. I'm very pleased that there is movement on the Ethics Body, important part of the adopted discharge report and I hope that we can continue moving in a in a swift way.
Then two final points that might be less sensitive, but I do believe that they are important. They're about the attendance of ourselves, members of this house during committee meetings. It's very difficult to get the data. We put it in our report and we asked for this data at committee level, but somehow we don't get the data that we can really use. The plan is not to go after individual MEPs whether they were there or not, but it's very important that we have a look at our attendance.
I made that point quite clearly when we discussed the discharge report that we have important meetings with only a handful of MEPs present. I don't think that's something that we should allow to happen. So maybe the administration can work harder to provide us with that data. And linked to that, my final point, the travel expenses. These are huge amounts and especially the amount of external travel is is really exploding.
And I noticed that there is a link between attendance here in Brussels and Strasbourg and external traveling in delegations, ad hoc missions, etcetera, etcetera. And I'd really would have us to look at this more closely. Therefore we we need the data. I'm very happy with what our Secretary General announced, this comprehensive assessment of spending. And it would be wonderful if you can put that on top of the list as well, that we really look at our spending on our travel spending, of course not between our home states and Brussels and Luxembourg and Strasbourg, but all the external traveling that we are doing.
I think that is too much. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Gerbrandy. Is there any other colleague that would like to join this round of exchange with the Secretary General at that stage? Ms. Monika Hohlmeier and then Mr. Olle Schmidt from the Greens. Monika.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much. I would have some questions in relation to controlling the costs in in another direction, asking for a kind of proportionality because I see some requests where there are questions round about the value of three euro and the time that is used of the staff is round about five hundred euro to six hundred euro in the value. I have some doubts that this is really makes sense. I would like to see a little bit more focus on real, let's say, misuse and fraud and not looking at if somebody has had twenty-two kilometers or twenty-seven kilometers and why this can happen in a big city. This is self-declaring normally that this is not the real cost-effectiveness problem.
MEPs have to declare what they really drive and not what some programs are telling to some controllers. And explicitly if it goes in this direction of really five euro, ten euro and in a if you have a big city, I fully understand the colleagues telling us, are you crazy in this committee asking for this type of controls? And I said no, this is not our request, but I will mention it that this could be more effectively done.
So to have a kind of proportionality. Secondly, to the colleague Grapini, to make some joke because it's not my group that is, there are colleagues that are elected for the reason not to be in committees. To be frank, we have one party that was going outside in the campaigning, telling, I'm going there because I'm against the Parliament and I won't join one meeting. He was elected. That's fine.
He was elected telling the people, I'm there to make use of the money that I'm getting there, but I will not work. Okay, he was elected. I don't like it, but it's democracy, if I like it or not. And the second issue that I wanted to tell you, we are not here to survey our colleagues. We are all independent MEPs.
And for example, if you have colleagues being in committees that are at the same time, they cannot be in two committees at the same time. We always have the request to try to solve this issue, but it cannot be solved because it's Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, not more. So we only have the space that we have. We have a lot of committees. So a kind of presence, for example, I was now present in ENVI committee to replace a colleague during the votes.
I could not vote here. So I would appear as not to be present, but I was in ENVI. I'm not an ENVI member, but I replaced my colleague being sick and being not able to vote on three big files. So we have to be very careful how we treat this type of data and not to give the impression to our colleagues in the Parliament, to whomever, that we are the controllers of independent MEPs. If there is real fraud and misuse, I'm on your side.
I even criticized this one colleague very much. He's much more popular than I am in the German TV. But okay, that's it. That's how life is. But I really ask us to be proportionate and not to play this game against us, against our own staff, against the staff of Parliament, because normally, yes, we can criticize us, we can make the things more effective, but normally I have the impression that a lot of people here, 98 percent, try to be normal, try to be, or 95 percent, whatever.
So let's deal with those who are really trying to misuse the system systematically and not to have cases you mentioned, one case for example, there I'm really in absolute in favor, but this whole control over every MEP, how is the MEP present? We don't know why they are not present and this presence list doesn't say anything. It can be somebody sick, it can be somebody who is pregnant. You have every kind of cases. So this is not written into this paper.
This is why I'm very careful in using this type of data as something that declares anything.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. I mean, this is a real concern of a lot of members and therefore, Monika, I was very indulgent also with the timing because I'm happy that the Secretary-General listens to this in public. But now we come to the shadows. And the first one that has been asking for the floor was Mr. Nordkvist, then Mr. Stegrud, then Mr. Jaron, and then Mr. Roosen. Over to you, please.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you. And thank you to the Secretary-General.
I'm a little bit the new guy in class when it comes to these procedures of discharge. And therefore I've been looking into as well what happened last year and how is the follow-up and is it actually, I mean, is what we're doing, does it matter? And on a lot of points it has, but a lot of the points as well we see a bit explanation of how things are being done already and not really perhaps the improvements we are asking for in our discharge report. And therefore I have four areas where I'm a bit curious to hear what is actually the follow-up when I look at the report voted through in Parliament and then what's happening from your side. And first of all it's about the declaration of interest where there had been these 11 alleged breaches in 24.
And pretty much when I see your answer to it, I mean, the reply is a bit, it's always the members who decide the final content of the declaration. But is this plausibility check enough? I mean, when we raise it, it's because we have concern and a bit the answer we got from you is a bit just the explanation of how things are done right now. So is there anything there we should perhaps look a bit more into? The same when it comes to members' training.
I mean, 99% of members did the mandatory anti-harassment training, but what happened to the small handful who didn't? And also are you considering also to make integrity declaration of interest compulsory training as well in this training we already do? My third question is on the vehicle fleet where the administration says that the policy is deliberately not to fill the Strasbourg cars and that is hard to align with our sustainability policies as well. So are you or would you consider widening the user group as the resolution clearly asks, or again is it just the explanation of the status quo we get? And then my last question is on whistleblowers because the reply says that the old rules were adequate and the problem was how they were being applied.
But we've seen that the General Court found that the Parliament failed to protect a whistleblower against retaliation. So what has concretely changed in how we handle whistleblower cases since this judgment? And since the new rules only follow the directive, so far is it compatible with the staff regulation, which part of the directive are still not covered? That would be my question just to look into the process of the coming discharge report so we can see how it's actually been followed up to the work we're doing. Thank you.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Yes, colleague, I would like ask Secretariat to look on the rules that first are speaking shadows, second are speaking coordinators and then others members. But I'm not protesting, I'm not protesting, never. I would like only say some things, yes, yes, to remind role of coordinators and shadows. It's nice. Yes, but I love the creativity, creativity of this committee.
And dear General Secretary, I would like first thank you because every times when we call you and ask you any question, you response. It's very important that we know that you response and give us the response in very short time.
And sometimes I'm very surprised that you are acting very well. This is my things what I would like to you from my heart and I am so intelligent, social intelligent, if is it not true I will never say this word in Budgetary Control Committee. The question of my colleague Cunha is can I provide us with details on how the Parliament is implementing AI-based solution for member for members and staff and how their solution respect standard of security particularly in light of numerous media reports of security incidents related to AI application. Second question is how is AI used to help the administration in dealing with daily task related to service for members? Do you consider that integrate AI agents into daily works of employees of member office?
And third question is in terms of security incidents like that theft of other breaches has the situation improve in 2025 compared to 2024? What rules have been adopted toward improvement? Thank you very much for your response.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Zdechovský, replacing as a coordinator a shadow rapporteur. Next one is Virginie Joron.
Virginie Joron
Merci Monsieur le Président. Tout d'abord, en préambule, je voudrais répondre au collègue procureur Gerbrandy qui nous fait état d'un détournement de fonds de PFE. Il me semble qu'à ce stade, c'est une présomption de mauvaises utilisations d'argent. Déjà, c'est le premier point. Et je rappelle aussi, comme il est dans la rigueur budgétaire et il a raison de l'être, je souligne qu'on a refusé une question qui concernait plus de 5 millions d'euros de publicité à la DG FINS.
Voilà, ce préambule qui est posé. Je reviens à mes moutons. Donc merci Monsieur le Secrétaire général d'être là et merci de votre présence et votre présentation parce que c'est un élément important pour nous de répondre à ces questions sur le processus annuel d'approbation des comptes de la gestion du Parlement européen. On parle d'un budget de plus de 2,5 milliards d'euros et pour que les auditeurs comprennent bien, nous parlons donc ici de l'aspect administratif et non pas des votes qui ont lieu au Parlement européen. Alors j'ai appris que certaines ONG internationales comme l'Oxfam reçoivent des dons informatiques, des ordinateurs par centaines, on ne sait pas finalement, peut-être par milliers.
Ces ONG dont nous savons tous ici que ce sont des organes militants de gauche et qu'elles recrutent d'anciens ministres de la gauche morale ou des moralistes verts. En France, c'était Aubry que vous connaissez bien ou l'écologiste Duflot. D'ailleurs, les gens ne le savent pas mais certaines d'entre elles offrent des salaires mirobolants à leurs dirigeants d'Oxfam et cachent des activités commerciales dans leurs déclarations. On est bien loin du bénévolat quand on touche près de 500 000 euros par an. Donc ma première question : quelle sélection, quels critères, quelle procédure utilisez-vous pour vérifier le caractère non commercial et non politique des ONG qui reçoivent des dons des parlementaires ?
On a à peu près 9 500 appareils informatiques à recycler avant leur cession aux ONG. Concernant Oxfam, comment assurez-vous qu'ils n'en retirent aucun profit commercial ? Quel type de matériel du Parlement vous leur donnez ? PC, voitures, on ne sait pas finalement, bureaux, locaux. Deuxième question concernant la communication : pourriez-vous clarifier comment l'administration du Parlement assure dans les contrats avec les agences de communication ou les organismes de presse que ces agences respectent la neutralité politique en rapportant les messages de chaque groupe politique et en respectant les poids politiques respectifs ?
À combien se chiffrent ces contrats, notamment avec Havas ou avec l'agence Europe ? Est-ce que le Parlement fait des publicités dans les médias ou finance des activités de lutte contre la désinformation ? Enfin, dernier point concernant les nouveaux influenceurs qui sont annoncés par Madame von der Leyen : pourriez-vous nous expliquer quels critères sont utilisés pour sélectionner ces influenceurs qui interagissent avec vos services ?
Combien d'argent est dédié à ce nouveau poste de dépense ? Exemple tout récent avec cet influenceur tunisien qui parle d'une coopération avec vos services. D'ailleurs, est-ce que vous êtes consultés par la Commission ? Je vous remercie.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, Chair. I have three questions. First of all, about AI. The Secretary-General spoke about cybersecurity and about AI strategy. But while recently we saw, for example, that AI is now capable to access, let's say, on their own, third-party data and websites and so on.
So my question in this respect is, well, indeed, I'm happy to see that we have a kind of a cybersecurity strategy, but my question is, well, do we see in a sufficient way the different risks ? Do we see AI also as a digital security ? Can you tell a bit more about the strategy of the Parliament in this respect and how can we ensure that we, as members of the European Parliament and staff, use AI in a responsible way ? So I think that's a big issue, AI, how we are dealing with that as Parliament. My second question is about the different experience centers in the different member states.
Recently we saw in a newspaper that the visitor numbers in some experience centers are extremely low. So you can really wonder how cost-effective these centers are. So my question in this respect is, do you have numbers, figures, data about the visitor numbers in the different experience centers ? That's also an issue for us. And then the last point, you spoke about indeed the need to reduce our CO2 emissions.
In this respect, yeah, we have also to speak about our monthly move to Strasbourg. We all realize that we have an obligation, it's in the treaty, but nevertheless we have a responsibility to see how we can arrange our sessions in Strasbourg in a more efficient and cost-effectively way. So my question is, do you see new additional possibilities for new restrictions on the missions to Strasbourg in order to, well, to reduce the costs, but also in order to reduce the CO2 emission ? For example, in our group we spoke about a new policy saying, well, for each member, each member can travel to Strasbourg just with one APA, one assistant. These kind of rules maybe can be helpful.
But finally, Chair, I would like to express my appreciation for the work that all the Parliament's support services and the administration of the Parliament have once again done for us also last year.
Without their hard work, we would not be able to carry out our duties properly. So from me, a sincere thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Wissens. And I would like just to build on your question and asking myself the Secretary-General how much CO2 emissions he was able to reduce with the cycling challenge that he has been personally engaging with. That would be a personal interest that I have. And before giving you the floor, Alessandro, Monika Hohlmeier has a small, short last question.
Monika Hohlmeier
I have just a small last question because of the colleague's question. As I'm working in one of these committees that are related to code of conduct and so on, we see there different kind of cases. We see cases that are really based on facts and really necessary to be dealt with with sanctions by the presidency. We see there cases where we have to discuss how we see it into the Parliament and what we would perhaps recommend as committee. And there is a third type of cases where I'm really a little bit irritated meanwhile.
They are politically founded or even denunciation, where colleagues are really denounced. And I had the impression that we have for everything an answer, but not for denunciation. Because it goes then very often to the public. Colleagues are not able to react because they don't know what's going on because it's a so-called whistleblower. Even in the JURI committee, they are fighting with this because several colleagues were wrongly denounced or wrongly brought into the public.
And I would ask the General Secretary that we have to find a solution for this problem. That denunciation is not a tool that is misusing or people denouncing members via the whistleblower tool. Because this is meanwhile really, I have to say, we have several cases that are really only politically founded, only, try to damage the reputation of another MEP. And I think that this is not a very nice situation. And perhaps, I don't expect an answer today, but perhaps EP has to deal with this denunciation problem because several colleagues were really denounced.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleagues. I don't see any other question. I would like to give the floor back to our Secretary-General.
Alessandro Chiocchetti
Okay, then. I hope you're still here tomorrow. Okay. No, no, because the questions are very interesting and I also would like to take this opportunity to give some answers. So, I would start by the rapporteur, l'onorevole Lupo, se posso esprimermi in italiano è meglio.
Dunque, allora lei mi chiede sul registro di trasparenza se c'è un monitoraggio continuo. Effettivamente c'è un monitoraggio continuo che viene condotto dal segretariato, che è un segretariato stabile, fisso, quindi non è un segretariato, diciamo, temporaneo. E io stesso faccio parte del management board e abbiamo recentemente fatto un assessment sul funzionamento del registro di trasparenza insieme con gli altri due segretari generali del Consiglio e della Commissione e abbiamo condotto, abbiamo concluso che il sistema funziona. Certamente quando abbiamo dei casi che dobbiamo controllare, almeno io faccio parte del board quindi non sono operativo in questo senso, ma so che il segretariato è molto attento a verificare tutti i casi, anche in particolare quelli che sono un po' più complicati.
Per quel che riguarda gli ethics body, maybe now I turn into English if you allow me, because it was also asked by other members. Well, what is the state of play of the ethics body? To this date no meeting at political level has been convened. It would be for the Council now to do it because it's the Council that has the chair of the body. Parliament is ready to attend such a meeting with its designated members, representatives, Vice-President González Pons as a member of the ethics body and Vice-President Barley as an alternate member.
If a political meeting were to be convened, then the matter would be submitted to the Conference of Presidents with a view to determining a mandate for our representatives. And of course this is not my position, is the position which was endorsed by the Conference of Presidents on 13th of May 2026. Concerning the SPAK, well, as you know now we are in the preparatory phase of the SPAK, which means the studies, the call for tenders and of course the organization of the move. And well, you will remember that the overall budget is 455 million and I said it also in the budget committee and I repeat it here, my intention is to keep the budget. And of course everybody tells me this is a dream because you will know, you will see that then prices in crisis increase and so on.
But for instance we have also included penalties in the in the contracts and therefore delays would let's say be avoided I hope. We also included some bonus if they do the works earlier, but this is absolutely quite theoretical. As I said now we are in the preparatory phase meaning that we have to empty the entire PHS which means around 400 people and this will be the big the largest move of the history of this Parliament. And we have let's say a system of cascade in the sense that some services need to stay in Altiero Spinelli and therefore we had to empty also some offices in Altiero Spinelli in order to to accommodate the ones who have to leave the SPAK building. Up to now we have spent, well, not spent but committed around the 3.9% of the total commitments which amount to 17 million more or less.
And the works are supposed to start on the 1st of February 2027, which means that we will be still able to use the hemicycle for the January traditional event on the Holocaust.
Traditional events on the Holocaust and this will be the last time for five years where we can use our hemicycle in Brussels. But I will, if you so wish, Mr. Lupo, send you the detailed figures on what is, what was spent until now and of course this will be at the disposal of the Budgetary Control Committee. Concerning Europa Experience, you know that when I was appointed I also found out that in some cases it worked well and in some others it didn't work well. That's why I wanted to have an assessment of all of this and the assessment resulted indeed in the confirmation that in some cases it was, let's say, the attendance of people in the Europa Experience was satisfactory and in some others absolutely not. And therefore I went to the Bureau with a reflection paper trying to understand why in some cases it worked and in some it didn't.
And the outcome of this was that probably the choices that were made in the past concerning the location, for instance, and also concerning the concept itself were not the most appropriate because for instance if we want to have school classes going to visit and so on, then we need a place which can accommodate a bus. And while up to now the concept was rather let's take something in the very center where yes, people shop maybe, but not necessarily go into the Europa Experience. So we need to revise and we did it, I think it was in 2024, yes, that the Bureau adopted a new approach also revisiting all of these concepts that were decided in the past. And now after two years I think it is indeed time to draw conclusions and to see whether this has already produced some effects. Of course, as you can imagine, not all the situations are the same.
In some cases we are owners, in some cases we rent. So also the possible works that need to be done in order to adapt the structure to the new concept, they're not always the same in all capitals. But be assured that the problem is very much known and the Bureau already had several discussions on this and I hope that we can get to the situation where all of them work in a very satisfactory way. So Mr. Gerbrandy asked me about the Patriots and well, the case of the Patriots is the consequence of the fact that the ID group was dissolved and therefore they gave the archives to the administration and there we found some irregularity. And therefore this is one separate case from the Patriots.
The Patriots were created with the new term, so we are discussing now about the second semester 2024 and the first semester 2025 very soon.
So what I can say is that I would like to inform the Budgetary Control Committee, but you will also have to understand that concerning ongoing procedures, I'm bound to the principle of confidentiality. And in this regard, the confidentiality requirements governing our cooperation with EPPO and OLAF, for instance, as recalled in the respective working arrangement, and all of this prevents me from disclosing information concerning any specific proceedings. Anyways, we are dealing with this as we normally do with all these cases. So we apply the rules by the book and we will submit to the Bureau the relevant decisions concerning the accounts for the Patriots group and together with the opinion which was issued by the Committee on Budgetary Control in July this year. So as regard the 2025 accounts of the political groups, the file is currently being finalized and once this is done and in accordance with the applicable rules, of course, I will submit it to the CONT Committee for its opinion, like I did for the second semester 2024.
And this is expected to take place in the next few weeks. On ethics board, I said concerning the attendance of members in committee, it's 32 years that I'm in this house and of course I can see that there is less presence of members in committee. So of course if you ask the administration to make a survey, we can do. I think that this is not really due to other commitments. I think that we have the same problem in plenary.
You know that from time to time when the attendance in plenary rises, then somebody says, ah, because they are busy in the committees or in trilogues and so on or in parallel meetings. I think that this is not true in the sense that I think that there are different reasons why members don't go to plenary and not certainly the fact that they have other engagement of institutional nature because in Strasbourg, and we have evidence of that, sometimes we have parallel meetings and nevertheless we have members in plenary. And we have also the proof of the contrary, that when we have zero meetings in parallel, nevertheless there are very few members in plenary. So I think that if you want to find the right solution to a problem, you have first to understand the cause of the problem. And I don't think that parallel meetings or travels of members are the cause.
And if you want me, if you ask me what is then the cause, maybe I can tell you, but not as a Secretary-General, but as somebody who lives in this house since 32 years, is the fact that we had a change in habits of the members compared to the past. In 2019, we had for the first time more new members than old members. We had traditionally we always have 70% of re-elected members and 30% of new members. In 2019, we had the opposite. We had 55% of new members.
And then we had COVID.
And then in 24, we also had more new members than re-elected members because we had 55% of new members. And also the re-elected members were new members in 2019. And then we had COVID. So I think we really have a gap in the transmission of the working method and habits of the members. We have a gap in generations, let's say.
Now we have a completely new generation of members and they are still, let's say, trying to find the right way. And this reflects in committee attendance. I also have to say that during COVID we were obliged to introduce the speaking time, the attribution of speaking time, which we continued after COVID in many committees. Now luckily, except some committees, it's over. Why do I say that?
Because indeed members, they come, and we have seen this morning when you have to vote, and they feel that there is their duty to be there to vote. But if you have the attribution of speaking time and a member knows that he has no speaking time, then probably he has better things to do. So, and this more or less is the same as plenary. But I mean, I'm ready if the committee so asks me to have, let's say, a survey. Probably we already have.
And then of course the political level will do what it's needed because this is not for the administration, that has to be clear. So, then we have artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Artificial intelligence, it's one of the main challenges, but not only for us. I think that all national parliaments but even all national administrations face this problem. Because after a first moment of excitement, "Ah, now artificial intelligence can help us and we can be more effective and more efficient" and so on, now we start seeing that we also have very, very difficult problems to solve in order to make it safe.
And it is not very easy. What we can say is that we have seen already a huge increase, for instance, in the amendments, in the oral questions to the Commission, in the petitions, and also in the requests of access to documents that we can have from journalists or from civil society. And of course, this is due to the use of artificial intelligence. Now somebody tells me, "Ah, but let's then use artificial intelligence to process them." Okay, we can indeed use artificial intelligence, for instance, to order amendments.
But I would be very prudent, for instance, to use it to draft compromise amendments because I tried once and what you get is simply a compromise amendment which contains different elements of the other amendments but is not really a political compromise because let's be honest, to be political you have to be human so far. So, and then I have also to say we have to be careful because a colleague, Secretary-General of a national parliament, told me that he knows that his members use artificial intelligence to ask questions to the government and they know that the government uses artificial intelligence to answer. Which means that then we have a discussion among artificial intelligence. So indeed, it's a very, very problematic. We have done everything we needed to do.
We have adopted what we needed, the structures that allow us to implement the Artificial Intelligence Act. We have a code of conduct, we have an artificial intelligence board and a roadmap.
All of this, of course, was presented to the Bureau and decided by the Bureau. Is this enough? I don't think so. I think we are still at the very beginning of the reflection on artificial intelligence. As I said already in the Conference of Committee Chairs, I'm not too much in a hurry, and not because, let's say, I'm not efficient, but because I think that in this particular case we have to be very, very careful.
And by the way, what we can do, we can do for the administration, but of course it's very difficult to oblige members or to prevent members or assistants to use artificial intelligence tools. We have also the problem of, let's say, our internal ChatGPT. The decision was taken by the Commission, by the Council and by us to elaborate our internal, so to call it, ChatGPT. Problem is that this has to be presented in the correct way because it will never ever be able to compete with the ChatGPT where they invest billions every month. So I think our ChatGPT would be of an internal nature and could be very useful in order to process documents that only we have.
And this would also avoid that these documents are one day somehow in the, I don't know, American cloud. So, but I want to reassure you that we are on it and the problem is clear. Solutions, yes, we have done, as I said, everything we had to do, but we still need further reflection, and not only us, on an inter-institutional level and probably also involving national administration. On cybersecurity, well, we also did everything by the book in the sense that we applied what is foreseen by the cybersecurity regulation. But the first thing I learned in cybersecurity when I was appointed, that you can never be 100% safe.
That's clear. So whatever you do, you cannot be 100% safe simply because, same thing as ChatGPT, they invest massively and foreign actors have teams of 80 people trying to force our systems. And I have to say, well, I don't know if I can say it because I am from South and I am superstitious, but we are relatively safe within our perimeter of security. But of course not 100%. And the combination between cybersecurity and artificial intelligence is quite, it's quite dangerous because now we have these actors that can go in and do things.
So I am always quite, let's say, concerned about cybersecurity. I mean, the only thing that I can say is that, okay, it's not only for Parliament. I remember in 2024 where ourselves we were the target of a huge cyberattack. Also the British Army was targeted. They stole all the, I think, the payslips and so on.
So I said myself, okay, if the British Army was attacked, then we have no hope to be safe because... But okay.
So, so if you are interested in more details, we can elaborate and I can also send them to you in written. So now I have Mr. Nordqvist who asked me very important and detailed questions. So concerning the declaration of interest, of course we do some plausibility controls, but we don't want either to, as Mrs. Hohlmeier correctly reminded and I will answer to you on the proportionality, of course we cannot either make a too heavy exercise because we have to keep the proportionality between the effectiveness and let's say the cost behind it in terms of working hours and resource use. The members, you ask what happens with the members who didn't follow the training. I'm happy to say that almost every member, with some exceptions, now I don't know exactly how many members didn't do it, but it's 99% of members who have taken part in the mandatory training course.
And of course they know that if they don't do it, they cannot be appointed, they cannot accede to the elective positions in this Parliament. Of course, it's not up to me to judge whether this is enough or not. These are decisions which are taken at a political level and we are here just to apply them in the best way that we can. Concerning the whistleblower case that you mentioned, I am happy to precise that the case, it was based on the old rules, not on the new rules. It was an old case, but as of 1st of December 2023, now we have brand new rules and I think they work very, very well.
And since 2024 we have, sorry, yes, in 2024 we have five cases and in 2025 we have also five cases, which of course are different cases. But precisely, I want to reassure you that the judgment of the court was based on the old system and I think that we will not have any case now because we established a brand new system and the Bureau decided upon that, which apparently works very well. Yes, Madame... no, first Mrs. Hohlmeier, pardon. Proportionality, be my guest. This is my daily battle.
Yes, thank you. No, the thing is that of course we have rules and we have people who have to implement the rules. And of course we are administration, meaning a bureaucracy, and it's always easy for everybody to apply the rules as it is. So if the rule says 25 kilometers and not 24, the guy who has to apply the rule says, sorry, but this is set to 25. So it's the easiest way, let's say, to apply it, which is not wrong, because one could say, okay, if the legislator or the one who adopted the rule accepted 24, he could have used a formula saying 25 or around 25.
Okay, this is just an example. But what I mean is that indeed we have rules and, okay. But I completely agree, completely agree, and you know it, that the rules have to be also interpreted and have to be seen in the light of the scope of the rule. If we have a rule, it's because we have a need. And then, when applying the rules, we have to be reasonable and to apply it taking into account the scope that was foreseen for that rule and also the cost that it will engender the respect, let's say, the strict respect of the rules.
So I will not say more on this, but this is a long-standing battle that we are conducting. And you know, you can make all the reforms that you want, but the most difficult reform is the reform of mentality. So we have a little bit to change our mindset. But also we are also, let's say, working on the simplification of the rules. As you know, by the way, I have undertaken an exercise of simplification in the Parliament, meaning that we have to see whether we cannot reach the same result with less effort and with less bureaucracy.
So this is done. We have an action plan. I also established a unit on simplification because, of course, it's clear every administration, every bureaucracy has tendency to solve problems through new rules and then the natural tendency is expansion of rules. So to a certain moment it becomes very, very complicated and that's why we need simplification. Madame, maintenant, dulcis in fundo, Madame Joron.
Alors, vous me posez la question sur la sélection des bénéficiaires. Bon, la sélection est faite sur base de l'article 244 du règlement financier. Et je peux vous dire que la majeure partie des dons, c'est-à-dire 99 %, a été attribuée à des organisations sélectionnées dans le cadre d'un appel à manifestation d'intérêt lancé par le Parlement européen pour le compte des institutions de l'Union européenne. Les organisations caritatives bénéficiaires des équipements ou des équipements ou de mobilier cédés par le Parlement européen affectent ces ressources conformément à leurs objectifs organisationnels et à leurs missions humanitaires et statutaires. Cette démarche garantit une utilisation efficace des ressources parce que on a beaucoup effectivement de matériel qui n'est plus utilisé par nous parce qu'il est obsolète et dépassé.
Donc l'attribution de dons à des grandes ONG permet une gestion plus efficace et efficiente que si on s'adressait uniquement à des petites associations locales. Ça c'est le choix qui a été fait. La DG ITEC fait don de matériel informatique obsolète à des ONG et par exemple aux écoles européennes qui sont très contentes de ça sur base d'accords-cadres qu'on a avec elles et qui sont conclus par la Commission européenne avec par exemple, et vous l'avez cité, trois ONG : Oxfam Solidarité, South Cluster et Close the Gap International. Ah, sorry. I told you, I mean, I have a lot of questions.
Monika Hohlmeier
No maybe we can continue this in a written exchange or you come back to a motivation session for our members later.
Alessandro Chiocchetti
Ok ok sorry sorry. Mais je veux dire je suis madame je peux vous envoyer par écrit c'est des des appels organisés au niveau interinstitutionnel donc c'est plutôt la Commission et concernant concernant les les only this and then les les influenceurs ça je suis le secrétaire général du Parlement et ça c'était une chose dite par la présidente de la Commission européenne donc je ne peux pas je ne sais même pas à quoi elle se référait au juste donc j'avoue mon ignorance là-dessus mais je si vous voulez je peux me renseigner et puis aussi je vous donnerai les réponses par écrit. I'm sorry for having been long but as I said I want to be transparent exhaustive so if you want then ask me less questions next time.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much thank you so much Secretary General this has been very exhaustive and very interesting and lots of points have been touched other questions may have even come up. I don't know if Mr Lupo because our colleague Mr Gabranti has already left wants to have a very short final word on this and then we move on. Please over to you Mr Lupo.
Giuseppe Lupo
Grazie presidente solo per ringraziare il segretario generale per la sua chiarezza la sua completezza e anche per il lavoro che sta svolgendo insieme a tutti i suoi collaboratori grazie.
Andreas Schwab
Grazie collega grazie segretario generale and that means that we can move on to item six which is the reporting back to committee from the CONT mission to Greece as of 29th of December we have had an agreement to make a report. The mission was led by Mr Tomas Zdechovský and included Ms Monika Hohlmeier Luciano Unciata and Rasmus Nordqvist from the Committee of Budgetary Control. They were joined by four accompanying members of the European Parliament from Greece. Ms Iliana Ivanova member of the European Court of Auditors and two representatives from the Commission's Directorate General for Agriculture also participated in the mission. I have heard that colleagues had quite an interesting insight and I now would like to give the floor quickly to colleagues that have been participating Mr Zdechovský over to you.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you chair dear colleagues our mission to Greece from 26 to 28 May focused on protection European agriculture found and assessing the reform assessing the reform following the OPEKEPE allegation. We met public authorities auditors agriculture representatives journalists and other stakeholders. Discussion were constructive and Greek authorities expressed a clear commitment to reform. We welcome this commitment but it must translate into measurable results. The previous payment system suffered from structural weaknesses insufficient controls excessive bureaucracy reliance on external contractors and unstable governance.
These weaknesses undermined confidence that agriculture support was reaching genuine farmers. The ongoing reforms provide an opportunity to address these problems.
Digital verification, reliable land records, modern livestock identification and interconnected databases can strengthen the payment system and close loopholes. We must also ensure that misused money are recovered and that whistleblowers have safe confidential channels to report crimes. Genuine farmers should receive the support to which they are entitled through a reliable and predictable payment system. Sincere cooperation with EPPO is a legal obligation and protection the Union financial interest must remain our shared priority. The Commission must closely monitor implementation and provide Parliament with the action plans, assessments and recovery figures necessary from meaningful scrutiny.
Let me briefly address the closing press conference. I present the joint statement agreed by the official delegation members. Next to this, separate conference in the same EU premises was presenting different political interpretation. I have to say it was the last time when it was on the mission of the CONT. The people what cannot behave and what doesn't follow the rules will be never ever the members of our missions.
And I have to say that some of Greek, and sorry that there are not one colleague from the socialists, what were never present on our mission. They did nothing. She was not here for half of our mission. She only sign and then she left. And she spent it all the time in the in the hotel.
And she came here after the mission on the press conference to criticize our mission. She is crazy or what she was doing. Look on the members are free to disagree, but separate political position must be clearly separated from the institutional finding. So I believe that this situation will never repeated and it is not acceptable. So next task is to following implementation and assess whether the reform deliver improvement.
European taxpayers and Greek farmers deserve accountable management, effective safeguards and results that they can trust. Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Zechowski. Before giving the floor to Mr. Løkkegaard, I just want to say that I interpret your statement as a criticism in political terms, not as a factual comment about any situation with our colleagues. Please, over to you, Mr. Løkkegaard.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, thank you. And first I want to thank the secretariat for really a well-organized mission. I mean, it was a complex mission as well. I mean, it's not a it was not an easy case to look into. So thank you for that job.
And I'm happy that we managed to agree on a report. I just want to mention a few things that really stood out for me in this mission that I think is important that we keep in mind as well. First and foremost, it is about the whistleblowers. And we were told that the civil servants who raised the alarm do not feel they are or have been protected. And I think that was a clear clear message.
So it's good with confidential channels, but when a court finds that somebody get redundant for exposing the truth, I mean, then the rulings has to be accepted by the government and by the authorities.
And there we have a clear problem when it comes to this case. I also want to mention especially on the Commission side that they have been aware of serious deficiency in the OPEKEPE since 21. So we really have to be very much on their back to make sure that they follow the action plan bit by bit and that Greece is living up to the changes they have promised in this action plan. And we will come back of course to this in the discharge. And then of course that the EPPO must be able to work unhampered.
I mean, I think also that was clear in this whole situation following up to the mission. And then just I think we should take some learnings from this as well looking into the future. We're negotiating the future CAP and there's clearly something about the capping about support for small and genuine farmers. There's conditionality and transparency and then also including of course beneficial ownership. So there's a lot to learn as well from this case.
But for me as being on my first CONT mission, I was pretty shocked about what we saw and what needs to be done. So let's follow this case as well closely.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Nordkvist. I just would remind us, but also the administration, that if there is a mission that has a composition that is decided by this Parliament, it cannot be that the Parliament's administration gives Member States just happen to join themselves to such a conference get similar powers because if not we don't have to make a choice here of whom to send there. I know that this is a delicate question, but I fully trust your smart approach to make this happen. Thank you very much. We come then to the next point of our agenda, which is the protection of the Union's financial interests in the post-2027 multiannual financial framework.
Co-rapporteurs are Tomáš Zdechovský and Dick Eriksson. I would like to give the floor first to Mr. Zdechovský and then to Mr. Eriksson. Over to you.
Tomáš Zdechovský
It's not obvious that I will present both statement, my and Mr. Eriksson, but I have to say that we have it very close cooperation. Also first I would like to read my statement and then I will continue with statement of Mr. Eriksson. Dear Chair, dear colleagues, as a co-rapporteur, I'm happy that I can introduce you main priorities of the INI report on the EU anti-fraud infrastructures. For me as a EPP group, the starting points is clear. Protecting the EU financial interest must remain central priority of the next MFF.
We need a system that works effectively in practice, responds to new risk and protect the EU taxpayers' money via entire anti-fraud cycle. I'm preparing this report and I have focus on four key principles. First, prevention and early detection must be strengthened. Once of the EU money has been lost, recovery is more difficult and often incomplete. Better risk analysis, data sharing and digital tools can help us identify problems earlier.
Second, cooperation between the different actors must work better in practice. OLAF, EPPO, Commission, Member States and other relevant authorities have distinct roles and responsibilities. Their work must properly coordinated. In particular, cooperation between OLAF and EPPO must be effectively through anti-fraud cycle. This request timely exchanges of the relevant information.
Their work must be properly coordinated. In particular, cooperation between OLAF and EPPO must be effectively through anti-fraud cycle. This requests timely exchanges of the relevant information, clear arrangement for cases involving both administrative and criminal aspects and adequate follow-up. Cooperation must fully respect their respective mandates, investigative independence and we should improve how the existing infrastructure functions with clear responsibilities and better information flows while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. Third, recovery and budget protection must remain of the center of the system.
Detection and investigation are essential but our committee must also ensure that the findings lead to effective financial follow-up and concrete protection EU budget. Finally, digitalization and AI offer important opportunities provided that they use with appropriated safeguards, included human oversight, data scrutiny and respect for fundamental rights. Better use of technology should make control more targeted and effective while reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Also, dear colleagues, my object with the report is to put forward practical recommendation that strengthen prevention, cooperation and recovery and prepare our anti-fraud infrastructure for next MFF. And I look forward for your comments and amendments and I hope we can build broad support within this committee for clear recommendation to this Commission and Member States.
Our shared responsibility is to ensure that every euro of the EU funding is properly protect and use for the intended purpose. Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Stihovsky. Before giving the floor to the shadow rapporteur, Mr. Gayer, I would warmly welcome the European Commission, Deputy Director General of DG BUDG Beatrice Sanz Redrado, together with DG BUDG Principal Advisor Olivier Waelbroeck and Tatiana Verrier from the Secretariat-General of the European Commission. A warm welcome to you. We are looking forward to your intervention later. Mr. Gayer, the floor is yours.
Andreas Schwab
Mr. Eriksson. I saw that you have included it. You want to do it now?
Tomáš Zdechovský
No, no, no. Separately. From Mr. Eriksson, dear colleagues, I would like to read speaking points on my colleague and ECR co-rapporteur Mr. Eriksson. He would highlight four points. First, the revision should make the existing anti-fraud infrastructure work better as a system rather than create new institution, lawyer and expand mandates through administrative practice.
Competences must remain clear. Second, we strongly depend operation independence but independence cannot mean opacity. Parliaments needs meaningful reporting on outcomes, following and recovery. Third, we need to address a fragmentation of information flows through better coordination, secure digital report and more interoperable data.
This also links directly to the upcoming work on beneficiary data. The report calls for standardized and accessible information on all recipients of EU funds, including final beneficiaries, contractors, subcontractors, which is essential for tracing money and detection fraud risk. And finally, recovery and measurable results are central. Success should not be judged simply by the number of investigations opened, but by actual financial outcomes of the protection of taxpayer money. So the political logic is straightforward: clear competencies, better data, cooperation, strong accountability, and measurable results.
Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. Now to Mr. Eriksson. And now I give the floor to, I'm super sorry Mr. Geyer, to Gilles Boyer. He's the shadow rapporteur for Renew and standing rapporteur on EPPO, and then over to you. Gilles Boyer.
Gilles Boyer
Merci Monsieur le Président. En effet, en tant que rapporteur permanent sur le Parquet européen, je voulais remercier tout d'abord nos co-rapporteurs pour ce projet de rapport qui est ambitieux. Nous rappelons régulièrement notre souhait de voir l'architecture anti-fraude européenne mieux fonctionner dans son ensemble, et ce projet présente des propositions très concrètes, et je voudrais le saluer. Je voudrais remercier les équipes des rapporteurs pour le travail réalisé en amont, notamment pour l'échange et la coordination avec les différents groupes politiques. Sur le fond, je pense qu'il est important que nous gardions ensemble bien présent à l'esprit l'objectif de ce rapport.
Nous préparons la révision des règlements OLAF et EPPO, ainsi que de la directive sur la protection des intérêts financiers de l'Union. Certaines propositions de ce projet viennent donc volontairement questionner des interprétations qui sont aujourd'hui bien établies du cadre juridique existant. Et c'est précisément, je crois, l'intérêt de ce rapport. Nous devons mettre en lumière les difficultés qui existent aujourd'hui dans la circulation de l'information entre le Parquet européen et OLAF, et trouver le bon équilibre : permettre davantage de coordination, un échange plus précoce des informations pertinentes, respectant le principe d'indépendance, bien sûr, sans interférer avec les enquêtes ni affaiblir leur confidentialité. Je veux aussi souligner notre satisfaction de voir la question du recouvrement occuper une place importante dans ce rapport.
Le renforcement du suivi du recouvrement et la mise en place d'indicateurs permettant d'en mesurer les résultats constituent à mes yeux un élément important de ce projet. Certains points peuvent naturellement encore être clarifiés ou nuancés, mais je pense que ce texte constitue une base très solide pour poursuivre notre travail.
Je vous remercie.
Andreas Schwab
Merci, chers collègues. Et maintenant la parole est à Monsieur Geier.
Jens Geier
Also, aller guten Dinge sind drei. Ich würde gern Deutsch sprechen. Erstmal bedanke ich mich natürlich sehr herzlich bei den beiden Berichterstattern für die Vorlage ihres Entwurfs. Ich habe ihn mit großem Interesse gelesen. Was ich aber vermisst habe, sind die Wörter Rule of Law.
Stattdessen unterstreicht der Absatz 25 die Verantwortung der Mitgliedstaaten. Das ist natürlich nicht falsch. Aber was ist denn eigentlich, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten sich selber dem Vorwurf ausgesetzt sehen, dass sie, was die Rechtsstaatlichkeit angeht, Defizite haben? Das haben wir ja nun schon einige Male in der EU erlebt. Und würde dann die AFAR nicht eindeutig geschwächt, wenn wir diese Trennung vornehmen würden?
Die zweite Frage, die ich an die Berichterstatter habe, betrifft den Scope. Woher kommt denn eigentlich die Sorge, dass EPPO oder OLAF mehr tun, als sie sollten? Also zum Beispiel in Abschnitt 2. Ich finde das etwas irritierend, dass da ausdrücklich die organisierte Kriminalität genannt wird. Wir haben doch jetzt gerade einen Bericht des Europäischen Rechnungshofs vorgelegt bekommen zum Thema Tabakschmuggel und illegale Zigarettenproduktion in der Europäischen Union.
Die Produktion dieser Zigaretten, die Verteilung, der Verkauf, das Waschen des Geldes, das setzt organisierte Kriminalitätsstrukturen voraus. Das ist ein Milliardenschaden für den europäischen Haushalt. Ich würde da gerne mehr drüber diskutieren, gerade vor dem Hintergrund, dass wir einen neuen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen behandeln. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass die Berichterstatter solche Formen von organisierter Kriminalität nicht bekämpft sehen wollen. So, damit korrespondiert aber eigentlich auch die Trennung zwischen administrativen und ermittelnden Aufgaben.
Die halte ich für ein Stück weit künstlich, weil schon ein Blick der Behörden in einen Fall getan werden muss, um zu beurteilen, in welche Zuständigkeit sie denn fallen, und dann natürlich auch schon die Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Fall umgeht. Also mir müssten die Berichterstattenden erklären, wie denn die Determinanten von administrativer und investigativer Zuständigkeit genau getrennt werden können. Ich glaube, wir schaffen hier mehr Probleme, als wir lösen. In dem Zusammenhang ist mir auch nicht klar, was eigentlich durch den Intake Mechanism gewonnen werden soll. Ich habe weder von OLAF noch von EPPO gehört, dass sie große Freunde dieses Vorschlags sind.
Ich habe den Eindruck, dass sich hier jemand in eine Idee verliebt, die ich aber nicht nachvollziehen kann. Deswegen würde ich meiner Fraktion vorschlagen, dass die Abschnitte 12, 13 und 14 gestrichen werden sollten. Und zum Schluss, bei mir ist die Sorge einer der AFAR-Strukturen angekommen, dass es wohl nur einen unzureichenden Kontakt zu den Berichterstattern gegeben habe. Ich kann mir das ehrlich gesagt nicht vorstellen. Es wäre aber schön, wenn hier noch mal unterstrichen würde, dass es natürlich einen intensiven Kontakt und auch den Wunsch dazu zwischen den beiden Berichterstattern und den AFAR-Behörden gibt.
Vielen Dank.
Andreas Schwab
Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Geier. Als Nächster wäre eigentlich Mr. Knotek dran, aber Mr. Bzoch ersetzt ihn offenbar.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, Mr. Knotek cannot be here with us today, so he sends his apologies and I would like to read the statement on behalf of him. First of all, he would like to thank the rapporteurs and their teams for their valuable work. This draft report makes an important contribution to the review of the anti-fraud architecture. It rightly asks how we can share information sooner and take timely measures to protect the Union budget.
Some of its ideas are particularly interesting, but we need to examine how they would work in practice. For example, as regards the joint intake AFAR register, timely receipt and appropriate routing of information could prevent cases from falling between institutions.
Yet the report also says that EPPO and OLAF must assess information independently within their respective mandates. But what happens if they reach different conclusions about the same case? We need a clear procedure for handling such disagreements. Mr. Knotek also welcomes the ambition to improve interoperability and secure information sharing. But linking more data also increase security risk as well as the risk of collecting more information than is necessary.
Access, retention and safeguards must therefore be defined carefully. He understands the difficulty posed by parallel criminal and administrative investigations and sees merit in examining a graduated time-bound suspension of OLAF's investigative measures. Any solution must protect ongoing investigations and procedural rights while remaining consistent with national rules under which criminal proceedings are conducted. Finally, cooperation with third countries is essential where Union funds are implemented beyond the EU. Effective access to information must go hand in hand with firm safeguards against the disclosure of sensitive data.
Mr. Knotek supports further work on these proposals whose legal and practical implications deserve careful examination. He looks forward for further cooperation on this very important file. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. Next speaker would be Mr. Freund, but he's replaced by Mr. Lundgren.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you very much and also I will raise a few points on behalf of Daniel Freund who couldn't be here, who is our shadow on it. And first and foremost, of course, thank you to the co-rapporteurs for the good draft report. There's a few points that he asked me to raise. And first it's some amendments first and foremost on the common information intake mechanism and the graduated suspension rule suggested in the draft report. Because we can understand that the Commission, EPPO and OLAF have some concern about the legal feasibility of this.
So we think it's important to discuss this again to what extent that makes sense and how we can at least mitigate these concerns in the report. And then also we are quite skeptical about the idea about the introduction of a voluntary cooperation and early closure mechanism as it is suggested and we will have some amendments there. And then he will also put forward additional points specifically on OLAF to the report in the process of amendments that will come from Daniel. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for a very precise comment. And now I give the floor to Ms. Verrier du Secrétariat général de la Commission européenne. Over to you.
Tatiana Verrier
Thank you very much. Honorable members, colleagues, good morning. And thank you very much for the opportunity to present the progress on EU anti-fraud architecture review. So in my short introduction, I would like to touch upon very quickly on of course overall the aim of the review and the problems we seek to address, but also the improvements that are currently under discussion and the timeline associated with that. So let me start with the purpose of the AFAR review.
So in terms of aim of the review is to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interest. This review seeks to do it so by improving the effectiveness, coherence and complementarity of the EU's main anti-fraud actors. We clearly need a system that is better coordinated across multiple actors that play a role in in the overall protection of EU financial interest such as EPPO, OLAF, Eurojust, Europol and in the future also AMLA and EUCA, the customs authority that is will be set up. We also need to find ways to react to new trends and new developments in the area of fighting fraud such as for example new forms of crime, of course the role of AI in this area, cyber threats and other other new challenges.
So the key objective is to improve coordination across the full anti-fraud cycle. So we are looking at the full cycle which includes prevention and detection, but of course investigations, recovery and reporting. So in terms of the process and timing of the AFA architecture review. So as you know we have adopted the white paper on 16th of July 25 that complemented the MFF proposals and underlined the importance of protecting the EU budget and the Union's financial interests. So the AFA review in general draws on on multiple documents and analysis, for example including the evaluations, currently the joint impact assessment is being prepared, targeted consultations, very close work with all the AFA actors in the multiple working groups.
The review is closely linked with other files such as EU anti-corruption strategy which is planned to be adopted by the end of 26. The important elements of the of the overall anti-fraud architecture are clearly the Europol regulation and Eurojust regulation revisions that were adopted in June 2026. They it was very essential to ensure that that these first proposals that are coming ahead of proposals on the EPPO, OLAF and PIF directive, they will remain coherent with the overall vision for the for the improved and modernized anti-fraud architecture. So these particular proposals for the revision of the regulations already include the elements of the future AFA architecture such as a common reporting, cooperation across AFA actors and automated hit-no-hit approach. So we have also adopted the EPPO and OLAF regulations evaluations on the 18th of September and currently the work is ongoing on a joint impact assessment on EPPO and OLAF regulations and the PIF directives.
So Commission aims to adopt the communication on the AFA review by the end of 26 and the work is accompanied by possible legislative changes to EPPO regulation, OLAF regulation and PIF directive. So now few words on the concrete actions that are suggested under under the AFA review. So first of all there are four groups of actions that are already reflected as I mentioned in Eurojust and Europol regulation proposals and will need to be reflected clearly now also in EPPO, OLAF regulation revisions and PIF directive. So the first group of actions relate to strengthening information sharing between AFA actors. So here we propose automated asymmetric hit-no-hit system as a multilateral cross-checking mechanism between AFA actors, initially involving EPPO, OLAF, Europol and Eurojust with possible extension to AMLA and in the future to the European Customs Authority EUCA.
The system will need to be developed in full respect of the specific needs and mandates of each AFA actor. We also propose a secure data exchange platform to enable seamless and secure exchange of information both from the hit-no-hit information and other information that needs to be exchanged during investigations. So the second group of action relates to strengthening analytical and forensic support. We propose developing Europol as an operational arm and analytical hub supporting EPPO criminal investigations, but also OLAF can act as a hub to support EPPO in this area. The third group of action is setting up a common reporting framework on the actions taken by AFA actors to protect EU financial interests.
So here we aim to develop common indicators, including the damage to the EU budget in respect to PIF crimes and irregularities. The consolidated report showcasing the contribution of each actor will also is envisaged. The fourth group of action is improving coordination across actors. Here we are proposing establishing structured coordination in a form of coordination forum that will bring the actors to cooperate regularly in a structured setting on both strategic but also operational issues. For example, this forum could address technical questions, also IT development questions, security, joint training actions.
Member states can also be invited when necessary. So these are the four areas on which the progress have been already achieved and they are reflected as I said in Europol and Eurojust regulation proposals. The work is still ongoing on several other areas where improvement is required. They are also covered by the upcoming joint impact assessment for EPPO and OLAF regulation revisions and PIF directive revision. So these areas are six areas which concern addressing the inefficiencies in handling the allegations, the arrival of allegations and avoiding duplications.
The second area is strengthening EPPO and OLAF investigations. The third area is enhancing the recovery to the Union budget. The next area is intensifying prevention to protection the Union financial interest. The fifth area is addressing unclear competence of EPPO and strengthening procedural safeguards. And the last is enhancing capacity of OLAF to investigate.
So the work is ongoing on these particular areas also in the context of impact assessment. And to conclude, the Commission aims to deliver the AFAR review communication accompanied by possible legislative proposals towards the end of 2026. So we look forward to fruitful exchange of views with you on this review. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Ms. Vergi, for that exchange, for your presentation. May I ask colleagues if they have any further question in relation to your presentation? Mr. Stihovsky.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like have it one question. So the Commission said that you would like to involve also AMLA and customers authority what we will be now built. Also we would like also add Eurojust and Europol to be part of this very important reform of anti-fraud infrastructure. We were now in the Singapore and one of very important issue what they raise and what they told us in anti-fraud agency what is their functioning is that investigation takes only one year.
It's for the effectiveness, it's very important for the results, it's very important for the prosecution. In European Union it's takes much more, two, three years. Also are you expecting that there will be any progress or would you like to have it have the Commission ambitions to really have it investigation much more much more made in very short time or what would you like what will be what will be main goal of the reform?
Second things is sharing of information. We felt from the beginning of discussion this reform that EPPO is not very supportive of the idea to sharing information. Also, do you think that we can find a compromise between OLAF and EPPO to share some information because we would like to prevent double investigation? Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Gilles Boyer, s'il vous plaît.
Gilles Boyer
Merci Monsieur le Président et merci pour ces explications et pour ces précisions. En complément des questions posées par le collègue Zdechovský, je voulais insister sur le recouvrement parce que je crois que c'est un des domaines où nous avons une grande difficulté pour évaluer l'efficacité globale de l'architecture anti-fraude. Et je crois que c'est ici notre mission de pouvoir expliquer au contribuable européen de quelle manière notre organisation est efficace et de pouvoir mettre des chiffres à l'appui de cette affirmation. Donc je voulais savoir quelles étaient selon vous les principales lacunes dans le suivi du recouvrement tout au long de la chaîne anti-fraude et comment améliorer le reporting afin que notre Parlement et d'une manière générale tous les décideurs publics européens disposent d'une vision plus claire des montants identifiés, des montants effectivement recouvrés ou passés en perte, ainsi que des délais qui sont nécessaires au recouvrement. Je crois que ce seraient des données très importantes pour nous et je crois pour vous aussi.
Andreas Schwab
Merci beaucoup Gilles Boyer. Est-ce qu'il y a encore d'autres contributions? Ce n'est pas le cas pour le moment. Donc je souhaiterais donner la parole à la Commission européenne et c'est Madame Sanz Redrado.
Beatrice Sanz Redrado
Oui, merci beaucoup. Thank you very much and let me just answer to these I think three topics on that you have put to us. The first one, I would like to say that when we were consulting with the AFIS actors, we had around the table not only OLAF and EPPO, but also AMLA representatives of DG TAXUD, which will be, they are setting up now the EU Customs Agency, and of course Eurojust and Europol. How we could do the investigations much faster? It is true that we always say the faster that an investigation is done and the faster we start taking action, the more we can recover.
So the speed is something that is very important. I think one of the issues that we have is the exchange of information because sometimes the investigators want to do something, they have to send the request to a Member State, to a Directorate-General, etc., and that takes time. And also to follow up whenever there are not, no replies, and we all know that sometimes there are issues to get information needed when you are doing an investigation. So here I would like to put some ideas that we think that with the next MFF we will be able to all benefit, but also and very much OLAF and EPPO. The first one is the single gateway.
You know that we have a project to have all the transparency for all management modes in a single portal. And also Arachne Plus will also have all management modes. Today we have a scatter landscape where in the financial transparency systems we don't have shared management.
So if we want data from shared management, we have to go through the different member states or go ourselves to different databases in different languages and and that takes time. The second one, you know that OLAF has these counterparts in the member states which are the AFCOS and that the AFCOS today, they help, but not in every member state we have the same the same structure, the same mandate and the same capacity. So we are we are looking on on how we could strengthen also this collaboration and the AFCOS have been were created to help OLAF, but I think that they could also help the EPPO and we don't have we should not have EPPO calling on OLAF to call the AFCOS. So I think this collaboration is is very important. There are quite a lot of ideas in your report and also in in our thoughts to speed up collaboration and here I will I will touch on on how OLAF and EPPO can can work much better.
We are following on the recommendation from the ECA report on creating a common repository for all the allegations and is a bit like the intake that that you have put in place in your INI report. I think this is important for two reasons. One is not to have parallel investigations, so jeopardizing one each other. And the second to ensure that there is no interesting information that is left not treated because one thing is administrative, the other thing is is criminal and then nobody is doing anything. So I think it's very important to make sure that we we touch and we cover everything.
And during the investigations, it's true that and we had it in this seminar in camera last year where we had Europol, Eurojust, OLAF and EPPO telling successes and failures. I think it's important to make sure that they can work together in an orderly manner. So what we are working is on combined investigations where EPPO can can allow OLAF to to carry out administrative administrative investigations. It is very important because if we wait till EPPO ends the investigation, it might be too late to recover. It will be very good for the indictment and that's a success and we have to keep that, but also the capacity for the Commission to recover the money is is also important.
So we are discussing with EPPO and with OLAF to find a way also to have OLAF and Europol supporting EPPO with forensic analysis and digital analysis. I think that's also going to bring a lot of information and and good good results. I will leave Olivier to talk about recoveries, but let me just talk about reporting and indicators. One of the things that you and us we find difficult is to know what's the state of play. When you look the OLAF report, the Europol or or the EPPO report, you have different indicators and they don't match and at the end you don't know what happens and who's right, who's wrong.
And I would say everyone is right, everyone is wrong. So one of the ideas that we are putting in place, at the beginning probably within the PIF report, is to have some common indicators when we are assessing the same thing. So how much has been recommended, how much has been recovered and we need to have not only the same label, but also the same formula because otherwise we cannot consolidate. And also to to chip in with the other actors how they are contributing to to the PIF, to the protection of the financial interest because there are a great job that is being done, for example, for Eurojust, but nobody is seeing anything on that contribution when you look at an OLAF report the OLAF annual report or the EPPO report. So we are we are strengthening or our intention is to propose a series of indicators that will give a global overview of how every actor is is together taking care of of the financial interest and what are the results.
And for that we will need of course your support because it might be difficult to to agree on a single formula on how to count and especially when they are going to do parallel or combined investigations that we are not double counting. So we think that the the state is worse, but that that we can really also show how the different actors are working together. And Olivier now Olivier Waelbroeck will talk about recoveries. Thank you.
Olivier Waelbroeck
Thank you Beatrice and chair rapporteur. I would like to say two words very quickly on the recoveries. On the recoveries we intend indeed to centralize the responsibility within Commission with OLAF because they already monitor their own recommendation, they already have the overview of the EPPO notification and we have set up recently a monitoring forum to call the Director Generals not following up and and comply and explain and also a very dynamic process much more than was than what it was the case before. On the future and the changes that we are considering including in the package of December, it is about the strengthening of EPPO's role in in the recoveries because I think we'll agree that EPPO has been a game changer in terms of efficiency and unique process in the prosecution and we want to build on that to leverage on that on the in by allowing the EPPO to bring claims for restitution of defrauded EU funds and compensation for damages to the EU budget. We want the EPPO to have the possibility to do so and actually we wouldn't be starting from scratch because the EPPO can build on the exercise by national public prosecutors in many member states of similar powers at national level.
Then we want also that for the simplified procedures like bargaining plea bargain etc. we want to condition the application by the EPPO of these procedures to the full repayment of the damage to the EU budget. This is clearly a way to leverage and finally we would also consider to allocate to the EU budget the proceeds of the confiscated and seized assets following an EPPO investigation. If you have an EPPO investigation it's because there is a prejudice to the EU budget. So it's only normal that what is seized or confiscated in the context of such an investigation go back to the EU budget and and does not end up with the national member states as it is the case for the moment. Needless to say this will be delicate to discuss in particular with the member states and we count on your support.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much to both representatives of the European Commission for giving us here the insights. There is a short last round of interventions. Mr. Zdechovský has asked for the floor and he's the first.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you very much. After your response I feel that we have to ask much more much more and we have to clarify two things. One things what do you think about inter-registers because I felt that some of colleagues has it problem with them. And second things do you think that after so many years of anti-fraud infrastructure recommendation what is not use by prosecutors on in OLAF it's enough also if you don't really use the report of OLAF who investigated some of cases for long time by the by the court.
Also, what do you think about the changes of the OLAF role? Because we saw it in Singapore that the anti-fraud agency give it to prosecutor conclusion and he use the conclusion for prosecute the case.
Beatrice Sanz Redrado
Yeah, I'm not sure I can talk on OLAF recommendations and I don't have the annual report, I just have a fact sheet. But on the intake, so we, I could mirror the intake in your INI report with our common repository. There is one difference that for me it will be a red line for OLAF and EPPO. And that's that in your INI report you consider that the intake, because it is before there is a decision of the public prosecutor or the Director-General of OLAF to open an investigation, this information would not be sensitive or confidential or whatever. In our view, is the most sensitive information because you get all sort of allegations.
And just think whenever there are a new Parliament and there are elections, OLAF and EPPO they get tons of information of allegations. Half of them they are not substantiated and they are dismissed. So putting that in the hands of Commission staff or, you know, some people that would not be OLAF and EPPO, for me is dangerous and I don't think that OLAF and EPPO will like it and I think there is also an issue of rule of law there. So the intake or our common repository, I think if is done by OLAF and EPPO so that they make sure that they agree on this is for EPPO, this is for OLAF, this is for both because there is an administrative side so let's go into do a combined investigation, there's no problem, we are really aligned. And also I think that we have not said is that this common repository as the ECA recommended, we are going to start with OLAF and EPPO but after they will chip in all the others, the Europol, etc.
But we are going to start small and then we will build on. So my only issue and I think that if you speak with OLAF and EPPO they hope, I hope they will also have it, is this confidentiality and also that is the beginning of an investigation. If you don't have an allegation, a Director-General or a public prosecutor cannot decide to investigate. So we have to keep it within. I understand that it was what the INI report consider was just the registration because it's true that they receive like 6,000 and only open 20%.
But the problem is when you do the registration you already see and it can be leaks and everything. And then OLAF and EPPO will say, well, the issue is not ours. And I think that's something that I don't think we should go there and I think as long as is manned by OLAF and EPPO it shouldn't be a problem. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for your answer. I think that concludes our session right here. Thank you very much for your contributions. Thank you very much to those colleagues that have been registered and attending this meeting for their presence. And we are looking forward to further discussions on this topic.
Thank you very much.
So colleagues, after that little break, I'm very happy to welcome with you Director General Stéphanie Riso. Bienvenue dans cette commission. Et donc on va poursuivre nos travaux cette fois-ci avec notre rapporteur Olivier Chastel. Et je pense que on est d'accord que la Commission va nous donner une présentation de sept minutes quelque part et après c'est les collègues qui vont parler. Donc s'il vous plaît, Stéphanie Riso.
Stéphanie Riso
Merci beaucoup. Dear Chair, dear rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, honorable members, thank you for inviting me to this exchange of views as part of your work for the discharge on the year 2025. I would like to focus on four key responsibilities areas of DG BUDG in 2025: the preparation of sound and reliable accounts, the oversight of the financing side of the budget, the protection of the EU financial interests and the budgetary control aspects of the next MFF. If I start with the accounts, 2025 was the first year in which the consolidated annual accounts were prepared using our new financial and accounting system SUMMA. So since January 25, all financial operations of the Commission and its executive agencies are done in this new system.
That was quite a task affecting all Commission's financial operations and requiring training more than 2,000 staff. As expected, at the beginning we experienced a bit of difficulties, especially in the first months of 2025, but we have been able to resolve all of them. And crucially, we did not identify material issues that could compromise the reliability of the accounts.
On the revenue side, this is a key part of DG Budg's work, consisting of overseeing the financing side of the budget. In 2025, revenue from own resources amounted to 155 billion. To ensure controls of the own resources collection, DG Budg carried out 21 inspections on traditional own resources and 13 inspections on VAT-based own resources. In addition, we continued, together with Eurostat, the multi-annual inspection cycles for GNI and plastic own resources. Where shortcomings were identified, we took actions to recover the amounts due to the EU budget.
For example, DG Budg issued recovery orders for 72.7 million in traditional own resources that should have been paid by Member States. Late payments of traditional own resources also triggered 120 million interest of recoveries. Also, in 2025, DG Budg raised about 150 billion in the capital markets via the issuance of EU bonds to finance NextGenerationEU, our support to Ukraine, our support to Western Balkans beneficiaries and Moldova, and macro-financial assistance to Jordan. Last year, in this context, you asked us about the EU debt sustainability and increasing interest costs. In December 25, on the 11th, we published our report under Article 256 of the Financial Regulation, which assessed the sustainability of the Union's contingent liabilities, and this report concluded that even under extreme adverse scenarios, the headroom would be sufficient to deal with our annual exposures.
We are running this exercise again, and the next report will be published in November this year. In 2025, interest costs have continued to grow, in line with continued borrowing for NextGenerationEU programs and others, but also because of higher interest rates in relation to the macro-financial environment. Over 21-27, interest costs are expected to be close to 28 billion. Third, on the protection of EU financial interests. While DG Budg is responsible for controlling the own resources collection and raising funds in the capital market, the responsibilities on the spending sides are for the relevant authorizing officers by delegation across the Commission services.
In this setup, DG Budg plays a facilitator role between the Commission services and the European Court of Auditors to ensure effective audit procedures and that recommendations are followed up. In 2025, we supported the Commission services in relation to 39 special reports, one review, and 12 opinions from the European Court of Auditors. And to ensure continuous methodological improvements, as your committee asked and called for, DG Budg and the European Court of Auditors organized four technical workshops last year in 2025 in the areas of research and innovation, cohesion policy, natural resources, and external actions. These workshops offered a good opportunity for the two institutions to share experience, deepen knowledge about our respective control and audit methodologies and findings, and given the good experience, we're continuing this year with those workshops. Beyond audit work, to prevent risk affecting the EU financial interests, DG Budg continued monitoring the rule of law situation in 27 Member States in line with the Conditionality Regulation.
In 2025, Hungary continued to be under the Conditionality Regulation measures as no adequate remedial measures had been put in place. This resulted in a permanent decommitment of about 1 billion euro of cohesion funding by the end of 2025, as was already the case at the end of 2024. As you know, Hungary notified remedial measures on the 9th of September this year, and Commissioner Serafin wrote to you last week to inform about the positive Commission assessment that Hungary had addressed the rule of law breaches affecting the EU budget. Now the Council has one month to take its position.
In 2025, we also continued our work on the early detection and exclusion system, with seven entities excluded based on EDES panel recommendations. We also intensified work on Arachne Plus, our data mining and risk-scoring tool, in order to prepare for the next MFF in line with the financial regulation recast. We are also actively contributing to the Commission's work on the anti-fraud architecture, a long-standing discharge recommendation. In particular, we focus on increasing the recovery of funds for the EU budget following recommendations by OLAF or notifications made by the EPPO. Finally, last year, the Commission adopted in July its proposal for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework.
And I would like to highlight four areas directly relevant for the discharge work. First, protecting taxpayers' money. For the national and regional partnership plans, the Commission is proposing an assurance model establishing key requirements for strong and well-functioning management and control systems in the member states. If and when these requirements would not be met, or the EU financial interest would be at risk, the Commission will have the tools to act, including by interrupting or suspending payments and applying financial corrections as necessary. Second, protecting the Union's value.
Respect of rule of law and fundamental rights are a sine qua non condition for access to EU funds in the Commission's proposal. The new framework combines safeguard in case of breaches with EU funding to support the protection of core EU values. Third, transparency and traceability. The proposed single gateway will provide information on recipients of EU funds across all management modes. This goes beyond the current financial transparency system, which does not provide information on recipients of EU funding being implemented by member states in shared management.
We know that the Commission and the European Parliament share the same transparency objective and hope we can work together to ensure that this is not diluted in the negotiation process, as this transparency very much depends on data provided by member states. Finally, delivering on policy objectives. The proposed performance regulation will provide a coherent and more granular tracking of what the EU budget finances and what results are delivered, while substantially streamlining data reporting and collection from beneficiaries. By harmonizing indicators across programs, it will reduce their number from over 5,000 in the current MFF to around 900 common indicators. Preserving this coherence throughout the negotiations will be also essential to deliver on the ambition of transparency, quality of data, and reduce burden for beneficiaries.
Honorable members, DG BUDG stands ready to continue working with this committee, the European Court of Auditors, and the Commission's services to ensure that the EU budget delivers on the Union's priorities and that it is properly accounted for and effectively protected. Thank you for your attention.
Andreas Schwab
Merci beaucoup pour cette contribution très rapide mais très large. Notre rapporteur est Olivier Chastel, et c'est à lui de faire la première question.
Olivier Chastel
Merci Monsieur le Président. Madame Rizzo, chers collègues, comme nous le savons tous, octobre marque le début des auditions dans le cadre de la procédure annuelle de décharge, une procédure qui nous tiendra occupés pendant plusieurs mois, jusqu'au mois de mai avec le vote en séance plénière. Alors Madame Rizzo, merci beaucoup pour cette première présentation.
Vous avez la chance d'inaugurer les auditions de la décharge pour la Commission. Nous nous reverrons à plusieurs reprises au courant dans le courant des mois prochains. Et aujourd'hui avec la particularité, c'est que nous discutons alors que nous n'avons pas encore en notre possession le rapport de la Cour des comptes. Et donc pour ce premier tour de piste, j'aimerais brosser avec vous un premier bilan global de l'année 2025. Et si je lis bien le rapport annuel, vous estimez donc que le risque à la clôture reste inférieur à 2 % pour l'ensemble des grands postes budgétaires, ce qui traduit selon le rapport un niveau élevé de fiabilité dans la gestion et la protection des fonds européens.
Nous nous verrons donc dans quelques jours si la Cour des comptes partage cette analyse. J'ai donc effectivement pour cette première audition un certain nombre de questions. La première, la Commission considère que le budget est globalement bien protégé. Comment explique-t-on que 32 réserves demeurent en 2025, sachant que 30 réserves concernent le budget de l'Union pour 867 millions et deux autres le FRR pour 343 millions ? Quelles sont celles qui présentent un caractère récurrent et pourquoi les mesures correctrices n'ont-elles pas permis de les lever ?
C'était ma première question. La deuxième, le rapport indique 1,137 milliard d'erreurs détectées avant paiement, mais surtout 7,9 milliards de corrections après paiement, soit un peu plus de 9 milliards d'euros de mesures préventives et correctives en 2025. Dans quelle mesure cette hausse reflète-t-elle une amélioration des contrôles ou dans quelle mesure résulte-t-elle simplement de la clôture des programmes de cohésion 2014-2020 ? Le rapport indique aussi que le risque au paiement dépasse de peu le seuil de 2 % pour les rubriques marché unique et cohésion, mais qu'après contrôle et correction, ce risque repasse en dessous des 2 % dans toutes les rubriques. Quelle part de cette réduction repose sur des corrections déjà effectivement réalisées et quelle part repose sur des corrections futures estimées ?
Les mêmes sources d'erreurs reviennent depuis des années, on le sait : coûts inéligibles, bénéficiaires inéligibles, pièces justificatives manquantes sont toujours identifiées. Quelles mesures concrètes la Commission prend-elle pour tenter de réduire ces erreurs à la source plutôt que de compter sur des corrections après paiement ? Au vu de la question que je viens de poser, quelles sont d'ailleurs les initiatives que vous mettez en place pour améliorer les contrôles, les audits dans le cadre du prochain MFF afin d'améliorer les systèmes ou les bases légales comme les définitions claires ? Quels programmes ont présenté les plus faibles taux d'absorption en 2025 ? Quelles en sont les causes ?
Quelles sont les mesures qui vont être mises en place pour y remédier ? Comment la Commission mesure-t-elle le rapport d'ailleurs coût-efficacité des principaux programmes ? Cette question vaut aussi pour les États membres, hein, puisque les taux d'absorption des États membres, de certains États membres en particulier, restent relativement faibles. Quelles sont les mesures concrètes prises par la Commission pour accélérer ce taux, fluidifier les procédures ?
À ce titre, quel regard portez-vous sur le travail des différents États membres ? Comment améliorer l'efficacité des administrations nationales ? Ces points sont-ils abordés lors d'échanges bilatéraux avec les États membres ou d'ailleurs dans certains États, les régions ? Comment la Commission vérifie-t-elle la qualité des systèmes nationaux de contrôle et d'audit ? Un système, un suivi particulier est-il en place pour certains États membres ?
Et existe-t-il des exemples de simplification ayant permis une meilleure absorption des fonds ? Enfin, en ce qui concerne la FRR, en 2025, 543 milestones ont été supprimés des plans nationaux de relance et de résilience, ce qui a réduit évidemment le nombre restant d'environ 20 %. Comment la Commission peut-elle démontrer que cette rationalisation n'a pas réduit le niveau d'ambition initiale ni permis d'ailleurs aux États membres d'échapper à certains engagements devenus difficiles à tenir ? Comment allez-vous vérifier à long terme l'impact et les effets durables des réformes annoncées sur plusieurs années après le prélèvement des différents fonds ? Et enfin, une dernière question concerne l'Ukraine.
Avec l'augmentation considérable des financements destinés à l'Ukraine, comment la Commission tente-t-elle de garantir une traçabilité suffisante jusqu'au bénéficiaire final si possible, notamment lorsque les impératifs de sécurité limitent la transparence publique ? Comment adaptez-vous les besoins de vérification d'une part vu la situation de guerre sur place, mais aussi vu la situation en Ukraine en matière de corruption ? Voilà Monsieur le Président, ce que je souhaitais poser comme question à Madame Rizzo pour ce premier tour de discussion.
Andreas Schwab
Merci beaucoup Monsieur le rapporteur. C'était beaucoup. Je ne sais pas si c'est possible pour Madame Rizzo de nous répondre d'une manière que je comprenne dont vous parlez. Mais je pense que c'est très utile. Juste que je vous demanderais Madame Rizzo de répondre d'une manière que moi aussi je comprenne complètement les questions et les réponses.
Et après on va faire le tour avec les autres collègues. Mais prenez votre temps pour mieux comprendre les choses.
Stéphanie Riso
Merci Monsieur le Président, je vais faire de mon mieux. I think the first three type of questions, right, first on the budget, the second on RRF, the third one on Ukraine. If we start with the budget, we indeed consider that the EU budget continues to be well managed and protected. For the MFF headings where expenditure is cost and compliance based, the level of error, and it is indeed after all controls, corrections and recoveries have taken place. So the risk at closure is estimated by the Commission below 2%.
It varies across the different headings. For heading one, we have a risk at payment at 2.1%, but this is indeed reduced to 1.7% for the risk at closure when we implement all the controls, corrections and recoveries. Heading two, the difference is between 2.3 and 0.8. Heading four, 1.1 and 1%. So nearly the same.
Heading five, 1.7, exactly the same. And heading seven, the same. Now, we have some headings for which the expenditure is performance based. This is true for natural resources and environment and neighborhood and the world.
And for those a quantitative risk at payment and at closure cannot be determined. This has led to a new indicator, which is the share of expenditure considered at low risk. In 2025, we have 64.4% of heading 3 and 89.6% of heading 6, so natural resources and neighborhood and the world expenditure considered low risk. In 2025, 15.4 of heading 3 expenditure was assessed as high risk and 20% as medium risk. This is partly due to a better understanding of how to assess the functioning of systems and resulting gradings by certification bodies in several member states.
In addition, end of program effects, you mentioned that, Monsieur Chastel, in the 2014-2022 rural development programs including accelerated spending at closure may increase the amount at risk. Obviously in this context, Greece continued precautionary reservation also remains a significant driver in absolute terms. Now, we, as I mentioned, we continue to work very, very closely with the European Court of Auditor to ensure that we have a continuous improvement of our system of control. And we have been, as I mentioned, having four technical seminars with them on nearly all the headings in order to understand better the differences between our approach, their approach, be them in terms of calculations, so in terms of the risk at closure as we estimated or their own error rate that will be indeed published on the 8th of October. But it goes beyond, we also try to work together on improving how we do the sampling, how we do the auditing and what are the controls that we should actually try to inform the member states, inform the member states with.
If I go in some of the details of, and you asked for that, on what we are actually recommending, what are the concrete actions we are trying to implement in order to improve. If we look for example in heading 1, the main error source is ineligible personal costs. So what we're doing concretely is webinars, trainings, help desks, national contact points, outreach events and exchanges with stakeholders enabling beneficiaries to better understand and apply rules in order to avoid errors. I would like to recall also that the annotated grant agreement offers detailed guidance on how to compute the costs. And we advocate for the increased use of lump sums which we believe are reducing the level of errors.
In heading 2, cohesion, resilience and values, the main source of error is ineligible cost or projects, missing supporting documents, you mentioned that also, and errors in public procurement, state aid infringement, although to a lesser extent. What do we do? We have a targeted action plan that we agreed in 2024 for program authorities to address detection capacity weaknesses identified by both the European Court of Auditor and the Commission. We increase coverage of Commission's audits to check more audit authorities and programs. We offer support to member states to foster their capacity building and exchange of best practices, for example, ex-ante revision of member states' audit tools.
We encourage managing authorities to use simplified cost options and financing not linked to cost. In heading 3, the main error source is ineligible land declared, not respect of agri-environmental or climate commitments and ineligible expenditure or beneficiaries. Concrete actions we're trying to do: simplifying rules, encourage the use of simplified cost option, help member states design interventions less prone to error.
We also try to leverage on new technologies, for example, the area monitoring system, AMS, Copernicus Sentinel data and artificial intelligence to prevent and detect errors. We provide guidance to member states. We try to foster capacity building and exchange of best practice. We have some learning network of paying agencies, for example. We also use the integrated administration and control system, IACS, including the identification system for agricultural parcels.
In heading six, the main source of error is ineligible cost and errors in public procurement rules. So here what we do is we raise awareness and analyze the application of the procedure for verifying, for example, the profile of key experts. We we also try to join up efforts together with the European Court of Auditor to access to documents for access to documents from international organizations. So overall, we have a good understanding of what is leading to the to the difficulties. We have some concrete actions that we are deploying.
You ask us how we see this in the next MFF in order to reduce this error. I think the main the main action point that we have in the next MFF is the simplification. Because what we have observed is that the more complex the system, obviously the more it is prone to errors. And so we are trying to simplify massively, to have a single rulebook for for the programs so that we simplify the rules and that should help avoid other avoid some of these errors. That was also one recommendation from the European Court of Auditor.
On the RRF, indeed there has been a simplification of the different plans, a massive effort last year to simplify all the plans. We need to remember that the RRF had been designed in a crisis moment. And so and it was the first time that this system of milestone and targets was done. And therefore the first programs have led in some instances to some complexity that over time were identified and proposed to be to be resolved. Now, the main system to assure to ensure the legality and regularity of payments in the RRF is the is the assessment of the satisfactory fulfillment of milestone and targets.
So what we obtain the way we obtain reasonable assurance on the achievement of milestone and target is based on ex-ante controls before the payment is made as well as ex-post audit work. Now, you're raising the question of the risk of non-performance through the simplification of the different of the different milestone and target. Now, there are two categories of or say two ways to look at this. First, some of the but my colleagues of course in ECFIN and RECOVER are way more knowledgeable on the details of of this system, but fundamentally what they have been trying to do is to simplify some of the too detailed milestone and targets that were leading to potential non-fulfillment for non-essential reason.
I am one example, for example, would be in an investment project to buy some computers to be too detailed on the actual setup for those computers, that could lead to non-satisfactory fulfillment, while actually the overall purpose is still the investment in those in those computers. Now, of course, if during the last the assessment of the last payment request, the Commission assess that the milestones and targets have not been fulfilled, then there will be non-payment either for the full amount or for partial amount. And in case needed, you asked this also, if it has been paid already, then there will be recovery of the amounts paid under NextGenerationEU programs as established by the rules of the financial of the financial regulation. On Ukraine, indeed, the Union has put in place a very comprehensive framework to combat fraud and affecting EU funds to Ukraine, which is based on ex-ante controls, reviews and during implementation and ex-post controls. These provisions were laid out in the founding regulation and in the framework agreement that entered into force in June 2024.
They reflect a level of control much higher than in any other country outside the EU, and this is explained, justified by the size of the EU support, obviously. We have set up asked the Ukrainians to set up an independent audit board that was established by the Ukraine facility as a specific and unique body reporting to the Commission on possible mismanagement of funds. The members were appointed in February 25 and now the board is following up on recommendations from a system audit that was realized in May 2025. For the Ukraine support loan, the last one, the 90 billion that was agreed back in December, the co-legislator decided that the provisions of the framework agreement of the facility would be mirrored. So this means OLAF, EPPO and the Commission services have a similar access under the Ukraine support loan as they have under the Ukraine facility.
And the loan agreement that was signed in May this year reflect this ambitious provisions. Now, OLAF reports that Ukrainian internal detection capabilities are generally working well. For instance, as of 25, Ukraine reported 24 fraudulent irregularities and seven non-fraudulent irregularities linked to the Ukraine facility. Maybe one word on the on the audit board, which is the most innovative element in this architecture. It has already produced three reports on the internal control, internal audit, external audit and anti-corruption.
It has also produced its first monitoring report on the internal control and internal audit reforms, assessing the level of progress made on its recommendation in the first report. It is now currently preparing several key reports, including a report on public procurement, a second one on anti-corruption and anti-fraud, and all those reports are of course accessible to this committee as well. If you allow me, I stop there.
Andreas Schwab
Merci, Madame Rezo. This has been again a lot of information, so I would like to know from our rapporteur Olivier Chastel if if he is satisfied and if this was useful or if there is anything that we should ask for in written or you're fine. Very good. Thank you very much. Then we come to a round of shadows or coordinators and the first one here is Mr. Stechowski for the EPP group.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Chair, dear Director General, thank you for joining us today for exchange of views on the 2025 discharge.
I would like to focus my question on four issues which I believe are relevant from the perspective of the discharge authority. First, on recovery fund and future performance-based funding. We have seen discussion about the possible stronger performance-based approach in the post-2027 MFF. The recovery fund is now entering its final phase. Member states submitted their final payment requests by yesterday, 30 September, including their management declaration, summaries of the audits, and the supporting evidence necessary for the Commission assessment.
The Commission will have a very limited period to assess the final request, with all payment to be made by the end of 2026. From the DG BUDG perspective, what are the main lessons from the RRF in terms of assurance, transparency, auditability, and Parliament's ability to scrutinize the implementation of EU funds? Which safeguards would you consider essential if similar performance-based delivery models were to be used more extensively under the post-2027 MFF? Parliament is currently negotiating the position on the new RPPs and wants to address some of the RRF issues. For example, the Commission proposed to mirror some processes from the RRF into new RPP, but does not insert sufficient safeguards.
For example, payment requests from the NRPPs would be verified by member states, not the Commission. How can the Commission is applying the lessons learned from RRF to new NRPPs? Second, assurance and risk management. Last year, during our exchange of views on Commission's annual activity report, we discussed the importance of ensuring that the Commission's assurance framework adequately reflect the risk of affecting EU funds. Looking at this year's discharge documentation, I would therefore like to ask how DG BUDG assess whether the current risk-based approach is able to identify emerging or systematic risk at an early stage.
Concretely, how do you ensure the weaknesses identified in management and control system are reflected promptly and correctly in the Commission overall assurance? Looking ahead to the post-2027 MFF, do you see a need to further strengthen the assurance framework so that it captures not only transactions error, but also systematic and longer-term risk?
And since the entire model of implementation will change, we will no longer have a error rate of the EU programs as we had it today, because it will be almost impossible to qualify this. How will actually access irregularities at the program level in the next MFF? Thank you very much for your response.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Stekhovsky. I hope the Commission can answer yes or no on these questions because we are running a bit out of time, but maybe we can also try to find a general answer and you come back to us with some more detailed answers based on what needs a bit more consideration so that the other colleagues can get the floor as well. Madame Riso, over to you.
Stéphanie Riso
Merci. Maybe very quickly, so we had identified, you had identified four, at least three domain of weaknesses in the RRF model. One was the assurance system, the so-called assurance gap, the second was on the transparency, and the third was on the the role of the regions, the fourth being the administrative burden. So these are four areas, four weaknesses that we were well aware of when designing the new the new MFF. The next, what we've been proposing for the national and regional partnership plans is different from the RRF in the sense that this is shared management.
And indeed, as it was mentioned, it means that the the system, the assurance system is actually starting from the managing authorities that will be in charge of verifications of the compliance of the fulfillment of milestone and targets and of the applicable law. Then the Member State audit system, the Member State audit authorities, pardon, will be in charge of the system audits, the verification of milestone and targets and applicable law. And then the Commission will be in charge of system audits, we will rely on the audit authority work and of course remain able to process audits on milestone and targets and applicable law when necessary. So it is this system that we are proposing for the NRPP that builds very much on the cohesion system, the existing shared management system, so we can rely on the same managing authorities as existing, the one we know very well. We will have a clear division of duties between the Commission and Member States in line with shared management principle like I mentioned cohesion or the common agriculture policy existing today.
There will be a single audit approach to avoid duplication of audits and reduce administrative burden, but as I mentioned we will keep the possibility to reperform audits and take corrective actions in case of deficiencies. One innovation in this system will be the 15 minimum key requirements that will be established for the national management and control systems to respect, including compliance with applicable law, state of state rules, public procurement rules, a robust anti-fraud strategy, for example, and all of this will be checked by the Commission before the payments will start and at any time during the implementation of the program.
In case of deficiencies, the Commission will have the tool to interrupt, suspend payments or to proceed with financial corrections. So I think the lessons have been learned from the RRF and also from cohesion, and we have tried in this new model to design a system that is building on what has worked well in cohesion and ensure that what has not worked well in the RRF is not existing in this new system. In terms of transparency, we know that the RRF has been suboptimal, to say the least, in terms of the transparency of final beneficiaries. We know this, we have listened very carefully to what you've been saying, and that's why we propose in the new MFF the single gateway that should actually provide transparency on all management modes throughout the MFF and on all operations. And this will allow us to satisfy the new requirements of the recast of the financial regulation.
Quickly on the role of the regions, that was one weakness in the RRF model obviously. We have built the new system on the partnership principle so that ensure the same role of the regional authorities as actually in terms of the design, the implementation of the programs. And we have been trying to very much simplify the administrative burden also that has been one of the reasons why, you know, leading to the revision of the plan in terms of exchanges and processes with the Commission trying to ensure less administrative burden and still of course the same level of control. If any of the specific questions have not been answered, we will be of course happy to provide more information in writing as you suggested, Chair.
Andreas Schwab
That's very kind because that might be useful so we can then ask Olivier Chastel on the answers that he got if there is a need for further deepening and also my colleague Stehovsky and also Carla Tavares will be the next one. But if you allow me one question, Stéphanie, because you were speaking about the partnership with the regions. Am I right to conclude that this is only possible if the central authority of the member state agrees to this, or is this now automatic with the European Commission? Because it seems to me that this depends on the member state, and I think from a subsidiarity point of view you could say, well, we can't meddle in or meddle through with the member states, but in some countries, and I don't speak about Germany now, there is a positive effect of the regions being part, but central government may block it. Can you make a very quick comment on this, please?
Stéphanie Riso
So the partnership principle is fully preserved in the national and regional partnership plan, and the role of the regional authority in the shared management mode is just the same. They will continue, the regional authorities, to be directly involved in programming, management and implementation of the plan. In trying to ensure that, we have discussed possible additional safeguards which is called the regional check to ensure that they will be actually involved. Now, member states will indeed tailor the plans according to their constitutional and institutional setup, and you said it, according to the subsidiarity principle, we're not going to tell them that this setup or that setup is different. So it is according to their constitutional and institutional setup, but I think it is a strength and not a weakness because we know that our 27 member states are set up very differently and there is no reason why one single setup would be perfect, actually there is all the reasons against it.
Andreas Schwab
I have understood that, thank you very much.
Next one is Carla Tavares.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, thank you chair. In first I would like to warmly thank to Mrs. Riso for presenting the consolidated annual accounts of the EU for 2025. And first of all let me extend the apologize of S&D shadow rapporteur for Commission discharge 2025, Mrs. Maria Grapini, who could not be here today. I have one question, thanks for the last explanation. I hope it will be true in the end of our discussion about MFF, but I have one simple question and another concern.
The question about the sustainability of EU debt and own resources. We know that joint EU borrowing for NextGenerationEU was absolutely necessary to successfully respond to the major crisis, namely the global pandemic and Russia's war of aggression on Europe's soil. However, we know servicing this debt sustainably is becoming difficult with ever new challenges occurring almost every day. I would like to ask if and how did the Commission set up the effort to fight, for example, VAT fraud, which is negatively affecting collection of the already existing new own resources. Of course we know that we have another institutions to fight with this reality that we have in our member states and in this MFF, including in this MFF, but we think in this moment it's very important to talk about this because we are working around the next MFF.
Another thing, another thing about new own resources and sorry, but in this moment all the moments are important to talk about new own resources. And the Parliament would like to ask again, please look our proposal for new own resources. We know this is the most challenge that we have in this moment in the next MFF. We know we have a good proposal from the Commission about new own resources, the five own resources. In the Parliament, in BUDG committee, in CONT committee, we try to work around new solutions to be possible to have a next ambitions ambitions MFF.
And one of the proposals, the digital levy, we think it's possible to work around to the next MFF. We know that we have a big issue inside the Council and it's important to look to all the solutions to be possible to have the MFF that we need it, ambition that we need it to the new challenge that we have on the table. Now another point, completely different, a concern about operating grants for the health NGOs. This support was stopped in the summer of 2025, not for this area the Commission Serafim, but for the by the Commission Vălean. And we think in S&D this is a very, very important program.
Last year we request again informations to know what is possible, what is the idea the Commission about this program. And I would like to ask again if you have some ideas about this important program to the NGOs and in particular in this area in health. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Carla. I just would like to remind you Stephanie that Carla is the rapporteur of the European Parliament on the MFF, so you should take even more important her comments on the resources.
Over to you.
Stéphanie Riso
Yeah, I knew it, I knew it, I remembered. So, three questions. On the, and I can only concur and agree that any good occasion to talk about the new own resources should be seized. So I'm very happy that I have this occasion also in this context. The first question was linked to VAT fraud and the impact of this on the new own resources.
The current own resources based on VAT is actually based on collected VAT. So in a way, the VAT fraud does not affect directly the own resources because it's only on collected and what is fraud is not collected. But obviously indirectly it has a cost because you have less, the base is actually less than it should be and this is indeed a problem not only for the EU budget but also for Member States' budget. Now, a lot of actions are taken by our colleagues in DG TAXUD to try to bring some answers or some solutions to this fraud which unfortunately is not new but is also finding new ways of existing, including through AI, for example, or other systems that lead to an even more complicated fight against VAT fraud. There has been one success in summer this year on July 26th when access by the EPPO and OLAF to VAT information proposed by the Commission, to VAT information across EU has been granted.
So that will certainly strengthen the EU fight against VAT fraud, protecting national budget by reducing VAT losses and thereby indirectly benefiting also the EU budget. There are other actions that our colleagues are taking, for example in the context of the VAT package for e-commerce where they are removing exemptions that are complexifying the compliance with VAT and therefore giving more possibilities for fraud. They are also setting up some one-stop shops in order to have only one stop shop for registering in Member States. They are also proposing import one-stop shop to simplify VAT declarations and payments and ensures that low-value goods, that the correct amount of VAT arrives at Member States when it is due. Now, they have a whole list of actions.
I'll be more than happy to put them in writing to send them to you to show you what is currently undertaken by our colleagues in order to fight against this VAT fraud. From the new own resources perspective in the next MFF, we are trying to simplify this VAT new own resources, so we are proposing to remove any of the exemptions related to VAT fraud. Now, on the new own resources for the next MFF, we are very much aligned with the European Parliament and this has been true for a long time on the issue of the new own resources. You mentioned that the Commission has proposed five new own resources for the next MFF. The Parliament has proposed some new ones.
The Commission, in order to facilitate this discussion on the European Parliament's proposal, has issued for the Parliament and the Council some analysis of those three new own resources based on online gambling, the digital tax, and crypto-assets.
And you mentioned in particular the digital tax. We have modeled one possible design for such a digital tax with a 3% tax rate on turnover of large companies on digital activities. This is modeled on the national digital taxes that exist in the EU. Similar taxes exist in France, Italy, or Spain, for example. And we estimate that the revenues stemming from such a digital tax could lead to about 5 billion per year.
So it is significant and has been presented also in the Council. And we're trying to explain and answer any questions that they would have. And I think the Commission and the Parliament could not be more aligned on the criticality of the existence of new own resources when it comes to the next MFF. Now, your last question were on operating grants in EU4Health and the fact that there has been none in the new work program. We should remember that at the time of the midterm revision of this MFF, there has been a decision by the European Council to cut by 1.2 billion EU4Health, so from 5.8 billion to 4.6 billion, which was agreed from 25 onwards.
And this revision has to be implemented in the last three work programs of this MFF, so 2025, 2026, and 2027. This obviously had consequences on the scale of planned health initiatives and on the implementation of EU health actions. Now, in 2025, we have secured funding opportunities for NGOs in the form of action grants. So although operating grants for NGOs were not included in the EU4Health work program for 2025, the work program included eight action grants open to civil society participation for an amount of 51.6 million. And I want to reiterate here that NGOs and civil society groups play a major role in the European healthcare sector and that this is absolutely recognized.
The discussion, you know, are still ongoing on the work program for 2026.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, Stéphanie. We have now four minutes left. I have the obligation and the duty to bring Mr. Nordqvist as our shadow replacing Mr. Freund, or are you doing the shadow yourself? Yeah. So and he also would like to get an answer, and Monika Hohlmeier has also asked for the floor.
So maybe we can really be very quick, even if that is not always profound, and you bring your answers in written. Over to you, Mr. Nordqvist.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, and almost, I mean, my questions could be yes or no answers from our good people from the Commission. I mean, we know we are waiting for the written responses to the 24th discharge, but I have just two questions on the state of play. First one is on the RRF recipient, the largest final RRF recipients, if we will receive this list when we have the deadline 31st of December as we have asked for. So that is a rather simple question. The other one is on the deterioration rule of law situation in Slovakia, which could pose a risk to the EU budget.
We have asked the Commission to start the first step of the rule of law conditionality procedure against Slovakia. Why has we not really seen any action yet from the Commission, or are we going to see it in the coming days, perhaps even? Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Please really yes and no or in written because if not we don't manage it. I know that it's not a joke. I'm super sorry our interpreters have said 1:00 it's finished. Over to you Stephanie.
Stéphanie Riso
On transparency, yes it should be because that's in the law so they should actually they should actually provide it. On Slovakia, we have been in intense dialogue with them. Some of the issues are have been improved notably for example on the criminal code amendments. And I stop here. We are we continue to monitor the situation very intensively and should the situation request the conditionality regulation to apply we will not hesitate.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much and the last question short of Monika Hohlmeier.
Monika Hohlmeier
Very short. First question, we hear that in the RRF last year 2026 national projects have been redeclared to European projects. How do do you control this because this was not the idea of RRF to take just out of national budgets the projects and then to declare them to European. Second questions would be how do you interpret the wording of the Commission that appears around about eight times in different to different stakeholders: member states are not expected to control the costs when you tell us at the same time that the cost effectiveness and that the costs are really clearly controlled in the next times for the future MFF. And a last point that I have is about the Arachne system.
You mustn't answer it now because it's no more possible but I think that this is an old system. We need a new system with AI and not an old system that is renewed several times because it does not fit for the future. Is the Commission planning this to modernize the structure?
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Monika. The time is over but Olivier is our rapporteur so please final word from you and I kindly ask the Commission to come back to us with written answers.
Olivier Chastel
Monsieur le Président, on a abordé lors de cette première séance beaucoup de questions très intéressantes et je me permets une toute petite remarque. L'exercice qui nous occupe est l'exercice budgétaire 2025. Donc j'insiste pour qu'on ait ça en tête parce que c'est très intéressant de parler du prochain MFF, des plans de partenariat, des nouvelles ressources propres. On n'a pas assez de temps que pour poser suffisamment de questions sur 2025 et que Madame Rizzo puisse y répondre. Mais si alors on s'égare dans des perspectives du futur, on n'y arrivera pas.
Andreas Schwab
Merci beaucoup. La prochaine fois je vais vous citer et je vais être plus dur avec le guide le rôle de guide de ce débat. Merci beaucoup Madame Rizzo. Je pense le plus utile c'est que vous revenez en écrit. Merci chers collègues.
Merci Olivier Chastel. On va essayer de faire plus et mieux la prochaine fois. La séance est clôturée.