A significant proportion of investments involving public procurement and state aid are still to be implemented over the remaining duration of the RRF. Non-compliance with public procurement and state aid rules is a perennial problem in EU budget expenditure. In this audit we examined the RRF controls systems at the Commission and in member states and whether they provide sufficient assurance on compliance with public procurement and state aid rules. We found that despite improvements in its audit work, the Commission has not been able to draw sufficient assurance on whether member states have effective control systems to ensure that RRF spending complies with the rules. We make recommendations to improve guidance and transparency and to increase EU level assurance in these areas.(This special report is currently available in EN only. The other language versions will be published soon).

​This opinion is currently available in English only. The other language versions will be published soon.

The EU’s ambition is zero water pollution by 2030. In view of this, we assessed EU actions to address ship-source seawater pollution. Overall, EU rules improved, but implementation weaknesses existed and data was insufficient to measure results. While the European Maritime Safety Agency developed useful tools, member states did not use them to their full potential. They often failed to meet their mandatory targets for ship inspections. There was no overview of the results achieved by EU-funded projects or of the options for scaling up. Lastly, the monitoring of ship-source pollution was not adequate. Our recommendations aim to make pollution alert tools more effective, strengthen the monitoring of ship inspection targets, improve the impact of EU funding, and better measure seawater pollution.

To address migratory challenges caused by the war in Ukraine, the EU gradually adapted cohesion policy rules by adopting Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE). We examined whether member states used CARE and the cohesion policy funds available to address the needs of the refugees. We concluded that CARE helped member states use the available cohesion policy funding to address the crisis. However, we found that the monitoring of cohesion policy funding does not capture the entire support and the use of CARE. We recommend that if the Commission were to prepare proposals for new crisis‑related measures or amendments, it should ensure that there is an appropriate monitoring system with data necessary to assess their effectiveness.

This audit examined the progress made regarding the EU policy on military mobility, focusing on the EU’s second Action Plan (2.0) of November 2022. The plan was developed under time pressure, amid Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Overall, we conclude that Action Plan 2.0 was not built on sufficiently solid foundations. Progress towards the overall objective – ensuring swift and seamless movement of military personnel, materiel and assets at short notice and on a large scale – has so far been variable. To strengthen the EU’s impact on military mobility, we recommend improvements in different areas, including governance, funding predictability and the selection of dual-use infrastructure projects under the post-2027 multiannual financial framework.

Geo-blocking limits consumer access and hinders the EU digital single market by restricting access to online services across member states. The 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation aimed to address such discrimination based on nationality or residence. We assessed the effect of the Regulation and actions taken by the Commission and member states to tackle unjustified geo-blocking. While progress has been made for consumers and traders, challenges remain in implementing the Regulation uniformly. We recommend that the Commission carry out a study to assess whether to extend the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation, improve support and awareness in member states, strengthen enforcement arrangements and improve the adequacy of the monitoring system to measure the effectiveness of the Geo-blocking Regulation.

Air and noise pollution can harm our health, particularly in urban areas, where most EU citizens live. We checked how the selected cities implement the EU rules designed to better protect our health. We found that although air quality is improving, air quality standards either are not always met, or have only recently been met. We also found that our cities are still too noisy. We consider that the lack of EU noise reduction targets disincentivises member states to prioritise actions to reduce noise pollution. We also note that the noise reporting thresholds cover only part of the EU population that may be exposed to harmful noise. We recommend actions to reduce harmful levels of noise.

Digital payments – the electronic exchange of funds, often through mobile devices – contribute to economic growth. In 2023 alone, digital payments for retail sales in the EU exceeded €1 trillion. We examined the EU’s approach to digital payments, and in particular whether the regulatory framework sets the right conditions for safer, faster and less expensive digital payments. We found that the EU’s approach has contributed to improving the conditions for digital payments, though the framework requires further attention in some areas, most notably price interventions and account data sharing. We make several recommendations to the Commission, including to set out clear criteria for price interventions in the area of digital payments and carry out periodic reviews and to develop and implement a data monitoring strategy.

The Commission is responsible for overseeing the application of EU law by member states and to enforce compliance. The objective of our audit was to assess whether the Commission’s management ensured timely detection, follow-up, appropriate monitoring and reporting of infringement cases. We conclude that the Commission has improved its management to detect and correct infringements of EU law, but it still takes too long to close infringement cases. The Commission regularly monitors and reports on EU law enforcement but adherence to benchmarks is neither improving nor reported. We recommend that the Commission should improve planning and documentation of checks, improve handling of complaints, petitions and informal dialogues; reinforce its infringement case and sanctions; and strengthen its monitoring and reporting.

The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is one of the ways the EU supports migrant integration measures. Our audit assessed whether the use of AMIF support by the Commission and the member states was sound and effective. We carried out audit visits in Germany, Spain, France, and Sweden, and found that support from the Fund played a relevant role in the integration of third-country nationals in the EU, but that its impact could not yet be demonstrated. We also found there to be a risk that the Fund’s added value was limited by its administrative complexity. We make four recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future actions in the area of migrant integration.

This report examines the EU efforts to combat harmful tax regimes and corporate tax avoidance, which can lead to significant tax losses for member states and distortions in the internal market. Within its limited competences in the area of direct taxation, the EU adopted a legal framework and uses supporting instruments as a first line of defence against systemic harmful tax practices. However, we identified shortcomings in how the rules were implemented and noted the absence of a common performance monitoring framework at EU and national level. We recommend ways to improve the Commission’s oversight and close existing loopholes, thus helping it to tackle these harmful tax practices, and provide enhanced support to member states to ensure consistent application of the legislation.

Labels provide consumers with information about the content of their food and help them make informed purchasing decisions. We found that food labelling in the EU can help consumers make better-informed decisions when purchasing food, but there are notable gaps in the EU legal framework as well as weaknesses in the monitoring, reporting, control systems, and sanctions. This leads to consumers being confronted with labels that can be confusing or misleading, or that they do not always understand. We make a number of recommendations, including addressing the gaps in the EU legal framework for food labelling, stepping-up efforts to analyse labelling practices, and taking action to improve consumer understanding of food labelling.

The COVID‑19 pandemic made healthcare digitalisation a more important part of our lives. We examined whether the Commission’s actions to support member states in digitalising their healthcare systems were effective. We found that, given its mandate, the Commission supported member states effectively overall. After the COVID‑19 pandemic, the EU policy framework was strengthened. The Commission provided member states with guidance on EU funds, and monitored their progress in healthcare digitalisation. However, member states faced obstacles in using EU funds, and neither the Commission nor most member states have a comprehensive overview of how the funds are used. We recommended that the Commission should improve its reporting on member states’ progress in healthcare digitalisation and on the use of EU funds.

This report presents the results of our review of the European Schools’ consolidated accounts for the 2023 financial year.

​The annual management and performance report (AMPR) is the Commission’s high-level performance report on the EU budget, and part of the Commission’s annual financial reporting package. The legal deadlines involved limit what we can address comprehensively in time for the annual discharge procedure and consequently this review focuses on Volume I of the 2023 AMPR. Our review notes that overall, the Commission had good procedures for its preparation, while there was scope to improve the quality of performance data. We also highlight that the AMPR reflects views that differ from observations we raised in our annual report, concerning cohesion funding and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.​​​

​Sixty-nine upcoming audit reports and reviews are announced in the European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) new work programme published today. The programme reflects the institution’s audit priorities for the next two years, and shows that the auditors will address emerging EU initiatives. They will also continue to tackle the challenges that have arisen in recent years, ensuring that the lessons learned help the EU to achieve its future objectives.​

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the EU institutions’ employment framework provides them with the flexibility to meet recruitment needs and improve workforce management, and enable them to address the increasingly challenging circumstances that the EU faces. We found that the EU institutions dealt with emerging priorities by reallocating staff where most needed and diversifying recruitment channels. They relied more on staff with fixed-term contracts, although this brings business continuity risk. The institutions struggle to attract some profiles, and do not use all the flexibilities in their employment framework regarding staff performance and career opportunities. Our recommendations aim at improving the institutions’ policies for their employment of temporary staff, their attractiveness as employers, and their workforce management.

​This report presents the results of our annual audit of the EU agencies and other EU ​bodies for the 2023 financial year.

Following the economic disturbance caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Commission adapted its state aid framework and approved since 2020 a significant increase of state aid for undertakings. We assessed how effectively the Commission adapted the EU’s state aid framework, monitored and evaluated crisis‑related state aid. We also examined the consistency of the state aid framework supporting the European Green Deal and other industrial policy objectives. We conclude that the Commission reacted swiftly to member states’ needs for state aid, but there were shortcomings in the Commission’s monitoring of aid and in the consistency of rules. We recommend that the Commission strengthen its monitoring of state aid, evaluate its impact on competition and streamline the relevant state aid rules for supporting EU industrial policy objectives.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) saw the first ever large‑scale rollout of EU funding with no link to actual costs, which was expected to both deliver results and simplification. In this audit, we assessed the Commission’s and member states’ systems for avoiding double funding between the RRF, on the one hand, and the cohesion policy funds and the Connecting Europe Facility on the other. With unprecedented amounts of EU funding available for the cohesion objectives, we concluded that the use of financing not linked to costs leads to a higher risk of double funding. Considering the weaknesses in the control environment, we found that it is difficult to detect double funding. We make recommendations to help protect the EU’s financial interests.

Extreme climate events such as heatwaves, drought and flooding are increasing. There is an urgent need to adapt to these climate conditions. We assessed the EU’s climate adaptation framework and how a selection of EU adaptation projects addressed the impacts of climate change. We found that the overall EU framework for adaptation policy was sound but there were weaknesses and gaps in its implementation. While most of the projects we audited addressed climate risks effectively, some had little or no impact on increasing adaptive capacity and a few may result in maladaptation. We make recommendations to improve reporting and knowledge-sharing on climate adaptation and to ensure that all relevant EU-funded projects are adapted to current and future climate conditions.

Every year, the ECA audits the revenue and expenditure of the EU budget and delivers its opinion on the extent to which the annual accounts are reliable, and income and spending comply with the rules and regulations. Our auditors test samples of transactions to provide statistically based estimates of the extent to which revenue and the various spending areas are affected by error (the “error rate”). In 2023, EU payments totalled €239.2 billion: €191.2 billion spending from the EU budget and a further €48.0 billion from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The ECA will provide two separate opinions on the legality and regularity of expenditure: one on the EU budget and one on the RRF. Every year, the European Parliament and the Council agree the EU budget as part of a multiannual financial framework (currently the 2021-2027 MFF). NextGenerationEU (NGEU), a temporary recovery package of additional funds financed by issuing bonds, supplements the EU budget. The RRF accounts for about 90 % of NGEU funding. ​It is primarily the responsibility of the European Commission, together with the other EU institutions and bodies, to ensure that the budget is spent properly. However, member states share responsibility for around two-thirds of expenditure, mainly in the spending areas of natural resources and cohesion.

A word on the ‘2023 EU audit in brief’ The ‘2023 EU audit in brief’ provides an overview of our 2023 annual reports on the EU’s general budget and the European Development Fund, in which we present our statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them. We also covered the Recovery and Resilience Facility and provide a separate opinion on the legality and regularity of its expenditure. The EU audit in brief also outlines our key findings regarding revenue and the main areas of spending under the EU budget and the European Development Fund, as well as findings relating to budgetary and financial management. The full texts of the reports may be found at eca.europa.eu​.​ The European Court of Auditors (ECA) is the independent external auditor of the EU. We warn of risks, provide assurance, highlight shortcomings and good practice, and offer guidance to EU policymakers and legislators on improving the management of EU policies and programmes. Through our work we ensure that EU citizens know how their money is being spent.

We audited the EU’s financial support for health systems in partner countries over three programming periods. We carried out a documentary analysis and we examined projects in Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe. We conclude that the Commission allocated funding according to its broad priorities. However, the methodology of allocation was affected by shortcomings. The effectiveness of projects was hampered by issues of coordination, sustainability and monitoring. The cascading structure of implementation increased the projects’ costs whilst the visibility of EU funding amongst targeted populations was limited. We issue recommendations on allocation and criteria of funding, coordination, reasonableness of management costs, synergies, monitoring, sustainability and maintenance of equipment delivered by projects.

The common agricultural policy (CAP) is a key European Union policy area, making up 31 % of the EU budget. The new CAP for the period 2023-2027 aims for increased environmental and climate ambition. It builds on Plans defined by each member state. We conclude that the Plans are greener than in the previous CAP, but do not match the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment, and that key elements for assessing green performance are missing. Based on our findings, we recommend that the Commission promote exchanges of “green” good practice in the Plans, estimate the CAP’s contribution to the Green Deal targets and strengthen the future CAP monitoring framework for the climate and the environment.

Established in 2015, the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is an EU response to address the root causes of migration, instability and internal displacements in Africa. We followed up our 2018 recommendations and assessed whether the EUTF has improved the focus of its support, while showing due concern for human rights. We found that supported projects have reported the delivery of many results. However, the EUTF support remains insufficiently focused on the agreed priorities. Furthermore, there are weaknesses in the accuracy and sustainability of reported results and a lack of procedures and follow-up on allegations of human rights violations. With a view to the ending of the EUTF and/or future development action, we make four recommendations.

Organic farming is an agricultural method to produce food using natural substances and processes. The Commission set the target of having 25 % of the EU’s agricultural land organically farmed by 2030 – a significant jump from 10.5 % in 2022. We found that the EU strategy for organic farming lacked important elements such as quantifiable objectives and how to measure progress. The EU funds for organic farming – over €12 billion in 2014-2022 – helped to increase the organic area, but the environmental and market objectives were not sufficiently taken into account. Moreover, due to data constraints, the policy’s impact could not be assessed. We have made recommendations to improve the strategy and effectiveness of the EU funds for the organic sector.

In January 2021, the EU introduced a new own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated by member states. In 2023, it amounted to €7.2 billion, 4.0 % of the EU’s total revenue. We assessed the introduction of this new own resource. We conclude that the member states were not sufficiently prepared, and data used was not sufficiently comparable and reliable. Even though the Commission’s actions improved data quality, they were not timely. We recommend that the Commission apply the lessons learnt from the introduction of this new own resource, improve data comparability and reliability, and mitigate the risk that waste sent to recyclers is not actually recycled.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility provided member states with an incentive to invest in the green transition. They planned to spend around €275 billion on climate action as part of the green transition pillar. However, our analysis revealed shortcomings in the Facility’s design and implementation of green transition measures. This led to potential overestimations of amounts allocated to climate action, discrepancies between planning and practice, and little indication of the measures’ actual contribution to the green transition. There is no requirement in the legislation to assess the Facility’s contribution to the EU’s climate objectives, nor report on actual spending, limiting the relevance for stakeholders. We make several recommendations to improve design and effectiveness of EU funds relevant for green transition.

The two medical agencies of the EU, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Medicines Agency alongside the European Commission played an important role in the response of the EU to the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that, although not fully prepared for a protracted pandemic, both agencies generally managed well. The European Commission and the agencies are in the process of implementing the lessons learned from the pandemic. However, we identified some remaining shortcomings. We make recommendations to help the agencies to be better prepared for future health emergencies.

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), amounting to €724 billion, was set up in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We audited the absorption of RRF funds and concluded that it is progressing with delays. Whilst the Commission and member states took actions to address these delays, risks remain regarding the completion of measures and therefore the achievement of the RRF’s objectives. We found that the RRF Regulation does not provide for the possibility of recovering funds if measures are not completed and that the disbursements to member states do not necessarily reflect the quantity and importance of the achieved milestones and targets. We recommend, among others, that the Commission provides additional guidance where needed, monitors non-completion of measures and strengthens the design of future similar instruments regarding absorption.

The Commission set the course for creating a renewable hydrogen market in its Hydrogen Strategy and REPowerEU plan, which included EU targets for hydrogen production and import. Renewable hydrogen is one way to decarbonise, especially for the hard‑to‑decarbonise sectors of industry. For the 2021‑2027 period, total EU funding for hydrogen‑related projects is currently estimated at €18.8 billion. We conclude that the Commission was partially successful in creating the right conditions for the emerging hydrogen market and associated value chain. The legal framework has mostly been adopted, but a number of challenges remain. One of our main recommendations is that future strategic choices should be based on a reality check – making strategic choices going forward without creating new strategic dependencies. Corrigendum to special report 11/2024: “The EU’s industrial policy on renewable hydrogen – Legal framework has been mostly adopted – time for a reality check” In Box 5, first paragraph: For (initial publication): “The estimated cost for the entire national hydrogen network is €4.5 billion”, Read (​​​corrected publication): “The estimated cost for the entire national hydrogen network is €1.5 billion”. ​​​

Cohesion policy accounted for more than one third of the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. The assurance framework for cohesion has helped reduce the overall level of error since 2007, but it has not been effective in bringing it below the materiality threshold. Our audit results consistently indicate error levels above 2 %, both annually and from a multiannual perspective. This shows that there is room for all key actors to improve the way they implement the assurance model. ​The review provides a multiannual overview of our audit results, an assessment of the assurance framework and country-specific information. We also point to the root causes of errors and the measures that are in place for the Commission to prevent and correct errors.​​

In our artificial intelligence initial strategy and deployment roadmap, we explain the use of AI in audit, as well as the audit of AI systems. The document outlines our goals and objectives, provides the results of our risk analysis, and proposes an AI roadmap with concrete action to take in 2024 and 2025 to achieve our goals. It aims to serve as input for the ECA’s next multiannual strategy.​

While member states may set rules for access to professions, the TFEU guarantees the free movement of labour and services and freedom of establishment within the EU single market. In 2005, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a directive on recognition of professional qualifications with the aim of preventing member states from imposing excessive conditions on citizens wishing to exercise these rights. We examined how effectively the Commission ensured uniform application of the directive. We conclude that the recognition of professional qualifications in the EU is an essential mechanism, but used sparsely and inconsistently for exercising the right to pursue a profession in another member state. The application of the directive still has shortcomings and the information provided to citizens is not always reliable.

The International Energy Agency defines energy security as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price”. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a gas supply and affordability crisis in the EU. This tested the EU’s gas security of supply framework and led to the adoption of a number of temporary security of supply measures at EU level as the EU diversifies away from Russian pipeline gas to rely more on liquified natural gas. We found that the EU’s framework addressed the secure supply of gas unequally and that the achievement of crisis‑response objectives often cannot be demonstrated. Based on our findings, we recommend that the Commission: - complete the EU’s gas affordability framework; - optimise the process of member state reporting on gas security of supply and revise the structure of regional cooperation; - improve transparency of the implementation of projects of common interest.

Embracing AI technology will likely determine the path of the EU’s future economic development. In 2018, the Commission adopted a coordinated plan with the member states to scale up investment in artificial intelligence and adapt the regulatory environment, which was updated in 2021. We assessed whether the Commission’s implementation of the framework was being effective. We found that the Commission’s actions covered key dimensions that are important for the development of an EU ecosystem for artificial intelligence. However, the multiple actions (many of which are still ongoing) had a limited effect in developing the EU AI ecosystem by the time of the audit and did not accelerate AI investment in line with global leaders. The Commission and national measures were not effectively coordinated, as the Commission lacked the necessary governance tools and information. We recommend that the Commission re-assess the EU investment target for AI and how member states might contribute to it, evaluate the need for a more AI-focused capital support instrument, reinforce coordination and monitoring, and steps up support for the exploitation of results in the EU.

We assessed whether the Commission’s systems for managing and recovering irregular expenditure incurred by beneficiaries of EU funds were effective in protecting the EU budget and as a deterrence from future irregular activities. Under direct and indirect management, the Commission ensures the accurate and prompt recording of irregular expenditure, but takes too long to recover it. Under shared management, where member states have primary responsibility for recording and recovering irregular expenditure, recovery rates are generally low, but with significant differences between member states. We recommend examining systemic irregularities and improving audit planning for external actions. In agriculture, the Commission should assess the need for incentives for member states to improve recovery rates. Finally, the Commission should provide complete information on established irregular expenditure and its correction.

​European Court of Auditors - Our activities in 2023​

The Facility for Refugees in Turkey channels support to refugees and host communities in Türkiye. We followed up on our 2018 recommendations and examined whether the Facility provided efficient and effective support. We found that it provided relevant support in difficult circumstances and that the Commission had improved the Facility’s management by implementing our previous recommendations. All audited projects addressed beneficiaries’ needs and were delivering their planned outputs, but implementation was delayed significantly for various reasons. There was no systematic assessment of project costs, and insufficient measurement of impact. Sustainability was only ensured for infrastructure projects. We conclude that the Facility could have achieved greater value for money and demonstrable impact, and we make recommendations for future action.

Lobbying is an essential democratic tool allowing organisations and individuals to provide input into policy and decision-making. The European Parliament and the European Commission set up the EU Transparency Register through an interinstitutional agreement, later joined by the Council. We assessed whether the register is a useful means of providing transparency on the lobbying activities in EU policy and decision-making. We found that it provides useful information to citizens. However, weaknesses and gaps in that information reduce the transparency of lobbying activities taking place in the three signatory institutions. We recommend strengthening the register’s framework and publishing information on non-scheduled meetings with lobbyists. Moreover, we recommend improving data quality checks and the user-friendliness and relevance of the public website.