Plenary endorsed the budgetary management by the European Commission, responsible for more than 95% of EU expenditure, but warned that structural issues were undermining EU financial credibility and policy delivery. The decision was taken by 412 votes to 245 with 5 abstentions.
High error rate demands corrective action
In the resolution accompanying the discharge decision for the Commission (adopted by 443 votes to 202 and 21 abstentions), MEPs said they were seriously concerned about the 5.6% error rate in EU spending, which has risen for the third year in a row. They call on the Commission to present a clear action plan within four months to reduce errors. MEPs also demand stricter fraud detection and audit mechanisms, clearer definitions of milestones and targets, and the prevention of double funding and use of pre-existing projects for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).
Outstanding commitments and mounting debt
Unpaid commitments rose to a record €543 billion in 2023, more than double the EU’s annual budget. This backlog risks delayed implementation, warn MEPs, who demand more realistic budget forecasting.
By the end of 2023, EU borrowing stood at €458.5 billion, with further increases expected. Rising interest rates and the absence of a repayment plan, MEPs say, could compromise fiscal stability and limit future EU action.
NGO transparency and conditionality
Parliament demands full financial transparency for NGOs and other interest representatives, and for the Commission to share the results of an internal screening of contracts with the Parliament. All entities must be registered in the EU Transparency Register and disclose their main funders. Alignment with EU values, and traceability of funds should be a prerequisite for access to institutions and funding.
Quote
Rapporteur for the Commission discharge Niclas Herbst (EPP, DE) said: “Billions of euros have been transferred to member states under the RRF, but Parliament and the European Court of Auditors are not sufficiently involved in their control. For example, we have asked in vain for a meaningful list of final beneficiaries. The RRF has been used to take on debt at the expense of future generations, to finance questionable national budget priorities, and repayment remains uncertain. Because of these weaknesses, the RRF must never be used as a model for future financial programmes or the EU’s next financial framework.”
Discharge postponed for the Council and Asylum Agency
MEPs postponed the Council’s discharge − as has been the case every year since 2009, due to a lack of cooperation with Parliament. They also postponed the discharge decision for the EU Asylum Agency, citing “very worrying conclusions” from an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which they say put the Agency’s stability, governance, and reputation at risk. Postponed decisions are revisited later in the year, when discharge is either granted or ultimately denied.
Vote results of all the discharge decisions will be available here.
Background
Through the “discharge procedure”, the European Parliament exercises democratic oversight over the budget’s implementation, holding the Commission and other EU institutions accountable for the management and disbursement of EU funds.
Based on reports from the Commission and the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) reviews the financial management of the EU budget in a given financial year, considers irregularities and holds hearings with the relevant officials. Refusal of discharge can result in remedial action, stricter financial controls, or political consequences.
Discussion about this post