Clashes over the 2024 budget discharge and future multiannual financial framework (MFF) dominated the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) debate on 5 February 2026. Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA) advocated for a broad discharge procedure that confronts systemic risks including corruption, rule-of-law deficiencies, and transparency failures. He proposed concrete measures such as a six-month deadline for beneficiary information disclosure under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), aiming to enhance accountability. In opposition, Tomáš Zdechovský (EPP), Ondřej Knotek (PfE), Annamária Vicsek (PfE), and Arno Bausemer (ESN) urged to keep the discharge narrowly focused on legal and procedural scrutiny limited to the 2024 budget. They warned against politicizing the discharge by introducing extraneous political issues or broad normative judgments, which they said would threaten the professionalism and constitutionality of the process.
The meeting took place in the European Parliament’s CONT Committee on 5 February 2026, focusing on budgetary control over EU spending and the upcoming MFF for 2028–2034.
Freund’s call to impose a strict deadline and possible legal action on beneficiary data disclosure under the RRF stands out, explicitly targeting transparency and audit reliability shortcomings. Monika Hohlmeier (EPP) pointed out the need for updated procurement rules fit for IT and cyber security risks after identifying these as major systemic weaknesses in EU agencies, while Raquel García Hermida-Van der Walle (Renew) concretely advocated for increased staffing and resources for the European Institute for Gender Equality, citing chronic understaffing despite good results.
Conversely, some MEPs provided less detailed commitments. Eero Heinäluoma (S&D) and Gilles Boyer (Renew) voiced concerns over accountability risks linked to performance-based financing models without proposing detailed remedies, focusing instead on maintaining existing scrutiny roles and involving regional authorities.
increasing versus limiting the scope and political nature of budgetary discharge; augmenting versus preserving the strength of EU institutions’ control over funds; and enhancing versus maintaining traditional audit and accountability mechanisms. On supervision, Freund’s stance implies stronger EU-level transparency demands with tighter deadlines and potential sanctions, arguably increasing administrative burdens on the Commission and Member States but benefiting EU taxpayers and enhancing civil society’s confidence in budget integrity. In contrast, opponents highlight the risks to interinstitutional balance and prefer a clearer, less politicized discharge to safeguard national sovereignty and procedural stability.
Regarding agencies, calls for increased cyber security regulations and procurement reform embody a shift towards stronger governance and tighter regulation to meet emerging digital threats, balancing risks for agencies and taxpayers. Staffing proposals in gender equality institutions indicate a willingness to boost EU-level investment in social policy capabilities.
Looking ahead, the committee expects amendment submissions in February, followed by votes in March, setting the stage for continued negotiation on balancing thorough budgetary control with legal constraints. The differing perspectives indicate an ongoing tension in Parliament between expanding the oversight role towards political and systemic issues and restricting it to formal, legalistic budget scrutiny to preserve established institutional roles and interinstitutional equilibrium.