Lisbon: The ECA budget review published on 4 November 2026 gives the Commission’s 2028 to 2034 spending plan a mixed grade, with only one of 28 earlier improvements fully taken up. The European Court of Auditors tracked the proposals it made in June 2025 and found 19 partly addressed and 8 untouched, according to a report by Brussels Signal.
The auditors’ central worry is accountability. They say the proposal does not guarantee that money can be followed to final recipients, and it does not spell out what happens to member states that break the rules. The new funding model ties payments to the achievement of objectives instead of incurred costs, borrowing the approach of the post-pandemic recovery fund and extending it to much of EU spending. The ECA budget review warns that this still focuses on whether milestones are ticked off rather than on what investments delivered, and that payments could be authorised on member states’ own declarations without mandatory prior checks.
Penalties come in for criticism too. Definitive cuts in funding for irregularities could be delayed until February 2036, which the Court says would blunt deterrence, and it asks for clarity on when misused money must be recovered. On the rule of law, the Court recognises tougher safeguards but says some provisions could weaken sanctions for breaches.
Structure raises a separate question. The Commission plans to merge farm subsidies and cohesion funding into a single fund of 865 billion euros run through national plans, and the Court warns that this could weaken the say of regions. The ECA budget review credits real simplification, since budget headings fall from seven to four and programmes from 52 to 16, but it says these cuts alone will not reduce red tape for beneficiaries.
The Court also questions the revenue side in the ECA budget review. Adding five new income streams would bring the total to nine, which it says adds complexity and could raise administrative costs, while cutting VAT and customs losses would reduce the need for new contributions. It adds that European added value, the idea that justifies spending at EU level, is not defined in law, so results will be hard to compare across programmes.
The Commission’s response is not recorded in the report. The article does not say which of the 28 improvements was fully adopted and quotes no Commission official, so readers should treat the claim that Brussels sidelined most fixes as the outlet’s framing of the numbers. Jan Gregor, the ECA member responsible for the review, said the findings could serve as a guiding compass for lawmakers.
Negotiations between Parliament and member states continue, and the article names no votes or milestones. The ECA budget review therefore enters the talks as an outside benchmark. If negotiators close the gaps on traceability, recovery timing and the definition of European added value, the 2028 to 2034 budget could carry stronger checks. If they leave them open, the ECA budget review will read as an early warning that went unanswered.
