EU Funds

EU budget: for the European Court of Auditors the reform gives no guarantee of better spending

For the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, the Commission proposes 'a radical change' but the risks and challenges are many. That is why, according to the ECA, "stronger safeguard measures" are needed.

by Paolo Riva

27 April 2026

La sede della Corte dei conti europea a Lussemburgo

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

BRUSSELS

"Many of the proposed changes do not guarantee better spending in the future". The judgement is stark, and it comes from the President of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), Tony Murphy, regarding the next EU multi-annual budget.

The budget, which is worth around EUR 2 trillion for the period 2028-2034 and in technical terms is called the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), is currently under discussion. The European Parliament, meeting in plenary session in Strasbourg, is about to vote on its position, while the negotiations between the member states, meeting in the EU Council, seem to have only just begun.

Both European institutions have to find a compromise starting with the legislative proposals made by the EU Commission last July. And it is precisely these proposals that the European Court of Auditors analysed, concluding that 'this is not a continuation of the status quo, but a radical change', as Murphy also stated.

"As the EU's financial control institution," the president continued, "the ECA highlights the risks and challenges in a series of opinions on the Commission's proposals for the 2028-2034 budget. In particular, in recent months, the ECA has published 12 opinions on as many specific aspects of the budget, all requested by the Parliament and the Council.

He has now also addeda final document in which he reiterates the main messages of the sectoral opinions and picks up on concerns already expressed by other institutions, such as the European Committee of the Regions or the Budgets Committee of the European Parliament.

A first relief is that "it will be difficult to pursue all objectives at EU level while adapting interventions to regional needs" because "for large parts of the budget, spending priorities will be in the hands of Member States with diverging interests". In practice, with more resources managed by national governments, there is also an increased risk that each will go in a different direction.

In the crosshairs, simplification, flexibility and single fund

The Court also warns against the simplification and flexibility elements proposed by the Commission. For the former, it writes that 'although reducing the number of rules and programmes is a first step, in cases of shared management it could shift the administrative burden from the Commission to the Member States and beneficiaries' and, furthermore, 'the unification of different policies could jeopardise the achievement of their respective objectives'. Flexibility, on the other hand, could become a 'critical aspect for long-term investments'.

Finally, the ECA also raises concerns about transparency, reporting and evaluation of results. "The mechanisms to ensure that EU funds are spent wisely and properly accounted for," it writes, "depend for large parts of the budget too much on Member State controls, which are often weak.

"The proposed framework," he continues, "has structural weaknesses that make it impossible to measure what EU spending has achieved and what European citizens ultimately get in return for their money". Therefore, in view of the progress of the negotiations on the multiannual budget, the European Court of Auditors calls on EU policy makers "to introduce stronger safeguards".