05 Nov 2026
European Court of Auditors lists proposals for improvement of MFF 2028-2034
The European Court of Auditors has published a 'Review 02/2026: Opportunities for the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework - a follow up to ECA Review 03/2025'. The review says that the proposal for the 2028-2034 budget misses several opportunities for improvement, in that it fails to address several ways to make it more accountable and transparent to citizens. The auditors warn that the proposals do not consider important concerns they have already raised. They remain particularly concerned about financing not linked to costs.
In June 2025, the ECA had published an analysis looking ahead to the EU budget after 2027, and identified 28 opportunities to improve key areas in the EU budget, such as how to simplify, adapt, and finance it. In July and September 2025, the Commission then published its proposals for the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), setting out the foundation for the EU’s priorities during the next seven-year budget period. The auditors checked how far the proposals address these opportunities.
The auditors highlight many issues that require further improvement to address the opportunities identified, as well as to plug several significant gaps. The review states that of the 28 opportunities, the Commission has fully addressed only one, which was to simplify the rules that allow the EU budget to respond flexibly to changing needs, has made the least progress in addressing the issues related to financing not linked to costs, and has overall addressed 19 of the auditors’ warnings only partly, and left eight entirely unaddressed.
Amongst a number of issues viewed critically by the ECA is the fact that the 'EU added value' is not defined in the legislation, as well as the prioritisation of output indicators, with insufficient result and impact indicators. The authors also state that simplifying rules at EU level does not necessarily reduce the administrative burden on final recipients. The review is similarly critical of the European Semester process, stating that bringing programming together under a single plan for each member state may give regions less say over decisions. There is also insufficient clarity about how reforms are assessed and resources are allocated to them.
For more information: