Piotr Serafin

Policy topics Piotr Serafin is active on

What Piotr Serafin has said (80)

• 2026-07-14 “(10:25:13 - 10:28:43): Honorable member Zdehovsky asked the question, what lessons, we could learn from the experience of application of the conditionality regulation in Hungary? I can at this point, I think this is a very political question and the question that also inspires reflection that I will share with you. I believe that the strongest point of the conditionality regulation is the fact that it puts clearly emphasis on corruption, fraud, and conflict of interest. When we have a conversation about these topics, then I believe also as the European Commission, we are on a very solid grounds. And we can also have sent sent powerful messages to the countries in which we are afraid those bad things are taking place. So, I think it will be also important in the future when we apply, hopefully not, but if we would need to apply the conditionality regulation to be very much clear, it is not about the different political visions. It is about, of the majority in the European parliament or of the European Commission, but it is clearly about our concerns about corruption, fraud, and conflict of interest. Question of honorable member Tavares about what guarantees there will be for the implementation. I'm pretty sure it will be assessed by the commission services, both in the context of the RF, but also in the context of the conditionality regulation. But I also have, again, a more general remark. In every democratic system, the strongest guarantees that the law is being obeyed are is also a strong system of checks and balances. And when I think, for example, about, what is going on right now in Hungary, I think about integrity authority, which we wanted to be in place. We wanted to have an independent body in place to observe whether corruption, fraud, conflict of interest is taking place or not. This institution was put in place, but it was officially declared by the government at the time in power. Yes. We there will be in in integrity authority, but it'll be deprived of the competencies. It will be castrated, I quote. And now we see that this independent body is going to, according to the new law adopted in Hungary, is going to get strong, powers to oversee those in power. From my perspective, application and the decision of the Hungarian government to join European, EPO, public prosecutor's office is another guarantee from this category of checks and balances. There will be another independent institutions overseeing the way in which the EU funds are being spent in Hungary. But I can also say about other measures, which are not covered by the conditionality regulation that will ensure that there is a strong system of checks and balances in place to control those in power. I talk about the we can talk about the free media. We can talk about all other elements, which we know from our democratic countries. Thank you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• 2026-07-14 “Thank you Thomas, but I also will not inspire any debate. I will concur with all the messages that you have passed. I can see that there is a very strong convergence of views and also approaches. The one that you have presented and the one that that we also have in the Commission. We do agree with you that it is absolutely critical to reach an agreement at the level of the heads of states of governments by the end of the year, that we need to do so in the collective interests of all the beneficiaries of the EU funds. We need those funds to be implemented as of 1st January 2028. We also agree with your assessment of the work of both the Cypriot and the Danish presidency. We indeed. In particular, in view of the partial general approaches adopted last June, we are in a good, solid place to go ahead with further negotiations, and I only want to to tell you Thomas, that the Commission will also assist you and is ready to assist you in your endeavor to reach a partial general approaches on other still outstanding files. This is still a work ahead of us. And finally, you said. You already have explained how important is the incoming October European Council and the honest debate on the new own resources? We fully concur with that opinion. The situation is, in our view, on the technical level at least, quite clear. We have the proposals of the Commission. We have the technical assessment of the ideas presented by the European Parliament. Now, indeed, we are approaching a critical time, a time of decisions. And as you also said, we count on you and we are ready to assist you. But we are fully aware that not everything is in the hands of the Irish presidency, that the success here depends on the collective will and the willingness to compromise of all Member States and all of the Council. And then, as I said at the beginning. Time is of essence. Thank you Thomas.”
  Own EU resources
• 2026-07-14 “(11:01:43 - 11:05:33): No, I don't think most questions were to me, but I will react to some of them. 1st, when it comes to the question of Honorable Member Freund, I was referring to the conditionality regulations. I was not commenting on the milestones in the RF plan. I was referring to the council implementing decision from December 2022, which has not changed and is not going to be changed. So it has to be implemented in the way in which it was formulated in December 2022. On the court case, you know that this is a position of the commission not to comment on the ongoing court cases. So that is the 1st comment, which I will make. But I can also add that we are convinced that the decision of the commission taken at that time was a correct 1. There were also some questions that refer to the future. The question of on the there was a question on the guarantees that the money that come from the EU budget are used properly within the budget recycle. And also the question on how the conditionality regulation is going to look like. So on the 1st point, I should say that we do believe that already in the current RF system, there are sufficient measures in place to make sure that the resources are spent on the intended purposes. But when it comes to the future, we are aware that there is a need to strengthen 1 dimension, I. E, cost and investments to be have more reassurances in place from the member states that the money that they get, they will get in the NRPP were actually spent on the intended investments. In the current system, in the RF system, we got reassurances only once at the beginning when the program is being agreed. In the MFF proposal, we have suggested that on top of that, there is also a cost verification in the middle of implementation and the end. I want to attract your attention to the fact that the council have eliminated the cost verification at the middle of the implementation process. Process. So that I believe could be also an issue for some further exchanges between legislative authorities. And then there was the question on the future model for the conditionality regulation. That is not going to be changed. But what we are going to what we proposed in the context of the MFF, in the context of the NRPP regulation, we did propose a possibility, which doesn't exist in the RF that in case the partial, the payment took place, but milestone ultimately, was not met, we can ask the money back. And we can also ask the money back in case that was the implementation of the milestone target, but then there was a reversal. So, we can also in such a situation ask for money back to the European Union budget. And on the question of EPO, I also want to say that within the remit of my competencies and this is the annual budget, I stay also with contact with the European Public Prosecutor Office and we are reflecting already about how to finance the accession of Hungary to the, EPOS of 2027. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• 2026-07-14 “(10:40:18 - 10:43:09): Thank you. Honorable member Ericsson, there was a question about the transparency of the process related to the conditionality regulation. And whether the criteria are clearly defined, yes, they are very clearly defined. And they have been defined in the context of the Council implementing decision adopted in December 2022. That decision is not only available publicly, but then within the context of the RF super milestones, there was even a way in which a precise process to go forward could be defined in the context of the RF. And then in the context of the conditionality regulation for which I'm responsible, we also have a debate about the PITS public interest trusts. And that is exactly the issue which relates also to Erasmus. Where we very specifically, we adopted a decision in December 2023, and we very specifically said, what are the concerns? Why we are afraid that there are no sufficient safeguards in the way in which public interest trusts operates for the European public funds? According to the still the council implementing decision in place, the commission is not allowed to enter into contractual obligations with public interest trusts. We know that the law, is being changed right now in Hungary. We know that ultimately public interest trust will be dismantled. We also know that when it comes to the public interest trusts that are in charge of the universities, there will be still 4 year in place. But in the meantime, when it comes to the measures that have to be communicated in the commission, they refer to the question of changes in structures that will ensure that there is an adherence to the rules on the anti corruption conflict of interest in order to protect the financial interest of the EU. There are more I think this this law is being right now maybe even adopted. So I think it is part of omnibus legislation. But still, what needs to happen, it has to be communicated to us in the context of the cancel in the context of the conditionality regulation. And then, it is the academic year is approaching the next academic year. So the sooner it is going to take place, I would say it's the better. Thank you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• 2026-07-14 “(09:54:11 - 09:58:31): Thank you, mister Choe. Thank you for the invitation to today's exchange. I will focus on the relevant developments in the context of the conditionality regulation. We have the conditionality regulation in place to protect the financial interest of the union, to protect the European taxpayers' money because it is the European taxpayer who is funding the EU budget against corruption, fraud, and conflict of interests. The conditional regulation was activated so far only once in December 2022, and it was activated precisely because the commission and the council at that time had justified concerns that the European taxpayers' money could not be sufficiently protected anymore in Hungary against corruption, fraud, and conflict of interest. Since this decision was adopted, we have been all awaiting actions of the Hungarian government to address the concerns as specified in the council implementing decision. We expected that in the interest of the European taxpayers, but also in the interest of legitimate beneficiaries of the EU funds in Hungary. Today, as stated by executive vice president Fito, we can clearly see that the newly elected Hungarian government aims to address these concerns and unblock the EU funds. All the concerns identified under the conditional use regulation are in substance covered also by the so called milestones and super milestones under the Hungarian recovery and resilience plan as described by executive vice president Fito. That's why by delivering on the RF super milestones, Hungary will also deliver on the reforms needed to the lifting of the measures under the conditionality regulation. I can assure you that the requirements for lifting those measures under the conditionality regulations have not changed and they will not change. What has changed is the willingness of the Hungarian government to address those issues and demonstrate that it remedied the situation that led to the adoption of measures. Therefore, we expect confidently that Hungary will submit a notification to the commission in the coming months together with evidence that the concerns under the conditionality regulation have been addressed. And then we will apply regular procedure. There is a month for the commission to assess the submission of the Hungarian government and there is also the council that will finally decide on the basis of qualified majority voting. A total of €4,200,000,000 of EU funding from cohesion programs can still be unblocked under this process. The key date to retain here is the end of 2026 to avoid the commitment of another €1,000,000,000. Actions have to be taken timely to allow the council to lift the measures by that date. Hungary also intends to address as a priority risks of conflict of interest on the part of the board members running public interest trust during the period of phasing out of these organizations. We want the students from these universities to take part in Erasmus plus mobility project during the next academic year. Under the supervision of executive vice president, Mincato, our teams are already coordinating with the Hungarian Erasmus plus national agency in Hungary so that we can restart as soon as everything is clear. For this to happen, Hungary needs to notify legislative changes in order to solve issues under the rule of law conditionality procedure. Let me conclude by a more general comment going beyond Hungary. In the next MFF, respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights will remain a prerequisite for receiving support from the union budget. We have therefore proposed strong safeguards to ensure that the union budget continues to be well protected as it is already the case today, including in the context of the RF and the cohesion funds and in all member states. In addition, the conditionality regulation will continue to apply to all EU funds. Thank you, Mr. Chair.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• 2026-07-14 “(10:12:29 - 10:14:37): Thank you. Thank you, chair. There was a question related to the timeline and the prospect of unblocking the funds. I can speak, of course, from the perspective of the conditionality regulation. Of course, the timeline is clear when it comes to the RF. This is the end of August. But the notification that is going to take place in the context of the RF regulation is not going to automatically activate the procedure under the conditionality regulation. So, we would need to get from the Hungarian government another notification in the context of the conditionality regulation. Now, it is in the hands of the Hungarian government when they would like to do it. What I have said and I can repeat that, of course, there is a tight timeline as well. Because we know that if the procedure is not closed under the conditionality regulation by the end of the year, another €1,000,000,000 could be decommitted. So the commission is ready to work together with the Hungarian government to make sure that this commitment by the end of the year is not going to take place. And according to the procedures, the Commission has 1 month and the Council has 1 month to make the assessment, the Commission assessment of the submission by the Hungarian government and the Council to proceed the council implementing decision. There is also a question of the Erasmus plus program and access to that program by the Hungarian students from the universities, which are right now governed by Pietz. Here again, the sooner it is going to take place, the better because I think that it is in the interest of Hungarian students, universities all around Europe to have Hungarian students from those universities, are governed by the PEAT as soon as possible back.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• 2026-07-02 “We all know that our policies that have long been at the very heart of the European integration, and they have not become any less important. I refer here to the cohesion policy that has been conceived as a counterpart of the single market. If goods, services, capital and people move freely across Europe, all regions must have the opportunity to benefit from what from that integration and also to converge. And I'm also referring to the Common Agricultural Policy, which is much more than the income support for farmers. It is an investment in Europe's food security and the resilience of our rural economy. In both cases, benefits extend well beyond the immediate beneficiaries. But we all know that Europe faces growing new expectations. Citizens expect. Security companies expect competitiveness. Our partners expect cooperation as our means are inevitably limited. The question is of of what we choose to finance. And that is indeed the most important question with which we are confronted today. I want to stress one aspect here, which we have called the power of together in several areas, acting together at the European level creates greater value than acting separately. Nobody would seriously suggest that each member state would be better off developing its own satellite system instead of Galileo. Nobody would argue that 27 earth observation systems would be a better idea than Copernicus. These programmes, As well as horizon. Nobody would argue that we would be better off by having 27 horizon. Horizon Europe does the trick. These programs demonstrate that spending together can allow us to spend better.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-02 “Of course, grants will remain indispensable in many areas, particularly where market incentives are insufficient. But we should also make full use of instruments that multiply the impact of public resources where possible. Why is this important? There are three reasons, in my view. First, because it allows us to have more investment with the same amount of public money. So the challenge here is not to spend more. It is rather to make every euro attract other euros from other sources of funding. Second, leverage brings other actors into the process, like private investors, national promotional banks and international financial institutions. We have those actors today with us in the in the room. So this is not only about the additional funding they provide, also their expertise and their sense of ownership. The result is often better projects and better outcomes. And thirdly, leveraging also allows us to support areas that are strategically important but not always easy to finance innovative start ups, scale ups, new technologies. In this way, the EU budget can play a catalytic catalytic role. It can reduce risks. It can help channel private capital towards European projects. And that is extremely important also in view of our work on the Savings and Investment union. There is another linkage between the EU budget and financial markets. Since the outbreak, outbreak of corona joint borrowing decided by member states has become a recurring feature of our response to unprecedented crisis. We started with sure and new. But member states have since entrusted the Commission with additional mandates like Safe and the support loans to Ukraine. Commission Kubilius, who will join us today, have seen the difference.”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed)
• 2026-07-02 “Thank you, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you on on this year's annual Budget conference. This event became an important meeting point for everyone interested in one of the most powerful policy tools of the EU, its budget. As we gather here today, there is another prestigious event taking place, and I'm not referring to the World Cup. I'm. I'm referring to Wimbledon. At first sight, tennis and the EU budget may not have much in common. But there is a point to this analogy modern tennis rewards power. Physical strength has become an increasingly important factor in success, but the best players also rely on technique. Knowing when to play volley when a drop shot can achieve more than brute force, etc. they know how to compensate for the lack of extreme power. The same logic should apply to public finances, and that is exactly what today's conference is about. And that is exactly what we mean by leveraging the EU budget. So it is not only about how much public money are at the disposal of the EU budget, but it is also about how can we generate more impact with every euro that we spend. I know that normally when we talk about the EU budget, the first question is how much? But I do not really want to talk too much about how much. And this is subject of the MFF negotiations. The position of the Commission is very well known. Today I would rather concentrate on two other important questions. The first one is on what do we spend? And the second one is how do we spend it? So let me start with the what question.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-07-02 “That's why the Commission proposed to reorient more of our spending to these so-called European public goods in various sectors defense, energy, space, transport, R&D, etc. in that way we proposed to move towards a more modern budget. As the discussions on our proposal progress, we need to be mindful of the link between having a frugal budget and having a modern budget. In other words, the link between how much and on what. The truth is that a more frugal EU budget may not necessarily be modern because the risk is that those new aspects of modernity will be the first ones to be chopped. And let me add another truth a more frugal EU budget may not necessarily be cheaper for the EU taxpayer, because in many areas, the alternative to European spending is not no spending at all. It is national spending, defense, energy security. R&d will have to be financed one way or another. The choice is whether we do it separately or together. Too often disunited approach means a higher bill, more duplication, fewer economies of scale. In such cases, spending together is not only more effective, it is also cheaper. So that was about the what for question. Now let me turn to the third one. How we spent. The challenge is to mobilize all available sources of investments, public and private, behind European priorities. We know there will never be enough of public resources in the EU budget, but thanks to Juncker plan, we have learned that the EU budget can do much more than simply provide grants. It can leverage investments.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-07-02 “When he became a defense commissioner, we had €1.5 billion until the end of 27 to spend on defense. And now, as you know, thanks to that tool borrowing on the financial markets, the EU budget is supporting investments at the scale of €150 billion today. That's what I want to tell you. There is a very solid demand for EU bonds. And this is not surprising since they offer good value for investors. And to describe how good value they offer, we can take inspiration from the village people. By the way, you know, their lead vocalist has passed away yesterday. And the song of the Village People YMCA. Don't worry, I'm not going to to dance. Ymca sums up very nicely what are the key features of EU bonds? Y stands for yields. Eu bonds offer a very attractive yield. M stands for markets. We now have a fully fledged developed market architecture for EU bonds with a very high degree of liquidity. C stands for country risk as EU yield bonds are multinational bonds, they come with an inbuilt protection against country risk. And finally, a actually I should say triple A because they are 888 bonds and therefore they are very safe. Ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget often starts and ends with numbers. But it is not only about that. It is also about deciding where European action can make the greatest difference, and about designing financial tools that allow every euro to go further. And that will be the topic of our today's conference. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• 2026-07-02 “Ladies and gentlemen, Let me welcome you to this year's Annual Budget Conference. This event has become an important meeting point for everyone interested in one of the most powerful policy tools of the EU: its budget. As we gather here today, there is another prestigious event taking place, and I am not referring to the World Cup. I am referring to Wimbledon. At first sight, tennis and the EU budget may not have much in common. But there is a point to this analogy. Modern tennis rewards power: physical strength has become an increasingly important factor in success. But the best players also rely on technique, knowing when to play a volley, when a drop shot can achieve more than brute force etc.. They know how to compensate for the lack of extreme power. The same logic should apply to public finance. And that is exactly what today's conference is about. And that is exactly what we mean by leveraging the EU Budget. It is not only about how much public money are at the disposal of the EU Budget, but it is also about how we can generate more impact with every euro that we spend. I know that normally when we talk about the EU budget, the first question is usually: how much? But I don't really want to talk too much about how much, as this is subject of the MFF negotiations and the position of the Commission is well known. Today I would rather concentrate on two other important questions. The first one is on ‘what' do we spend. And the second one is ‘how' do we spend it. Let me start with the ‘what' question. We all know that there are policies which have long been at the very heart of European integration and they have not become any less important. I refer here to the cohesion policy, that has been conceived as a counter part to the Single Market: if goods, services, capital and people move freely across Europe, all regions must have the opportunity to benefit from that integration and also to converge. And I am also referring to the Common Agricultural Policy which is much more than income support for farmers. It is an investment in Europe's food security and the resilience of our rural economy. In both cases, the benefits extend well beyond the immediate beneficiaries. But we all know that Europe faces growing new expectations. Citizens expect security, companies expect competitiveness, our partners expect cooperation. As our means are inevitably limited, the question is of what we choose to finance, and that is indeed the most important question with which we are confronted today. I want to stress one aspect here, which we have called ‘the power of together'. In several areas, acting together at the European level creates greater value than acting separately. Nobody would seriously suggest that each Member State would be better off developing its own satellite system instead of Galileo. Nobody would argue that 27 Earth observation systems would be a better idea than Copernicus. These programmes, as well as Horizons. Nobody would argue that we would be better off by having 27 Horizons. Horizon Europe does the trick. These programmes demonstrate that spending together can allow us to spend better. That is why the Commission proposed to reorient more of our spending to these so-called European public goods, in various sectors: defence, energy, space, transport, R&D, et cetera… In that way, we proposed to move towards a more ‘modern' budget. As the discussions on our proposal progress, we need to be mindful of the link between having a frugal budget and having a modern budget. In other words, the link between ‘how much' and ‘on what'. The truth is that a more frugal EU budget may not necessarily be modern. Because the risk is that those new aspects of modernity will be the first ones to be chopped. And let me add another truth: a more frugal EU budget may not necessarily be cheaper for EU tax-payers. Because in many areas, the alternative to European spending is not no spending at all. It is national spending. Defence, energy security, and R&D will have to be financed one way or another. The choice is whether we do so separately or together. Too often, a disunited approach means a higher bill: more duplication and fewer economies of scale. In such cases, spending together is not only more effective. It is also cheaper. So that was about the ‘what for' question. Let me now turn to the third one: ‘how' we spend. The challenge is to mobilise all available sources of investment – public and private – behind European priorities. We know: there will never be enough of public resources in the EU Budget. But thanks to the Juncker Plan, we have learned that the EU budget can do much more than simply provide grants. It can leverage investment. Of course, grants will remain indispensable in many areas, particularly where market incentives are insufficient. But we should also make full use of instruments that multiply the impact of public resources where possible. Why is this important? There are three reasons in my view. First, because it allows us to have more investment with the same amount of public money. The challenge here is not to spend more. It is rather to make every euro attract other euro from other sources of funding. Second, leverage brings other actors into the process, like private investors, national promotional banks, and international financial institutions. We have those actors today with us in the room. This is not only about the additional funding, they provide also their expertise and their sense of ownership. The result is often better projects and better outcomes. And thirdly, leveraging allows us to support areas that are strategically important but not always easy to finance: innovative start-ups, scale-ups, new technologies. In this way the EU budget can play a catalytic role. It can reduce risks, it can help channel private capital towards European projects. And that is extremely important in view of our work in the Savings and Investment Union. There is another linkage between the EU budget and financial markets. Since the outbreak of Corona, joint borrowing, decided by Member States, has become a recurring feature of our response to unprecedented crises. We started with SURE and NGEU, but Member States have since entrusted the Commission with additional mandates, like SAFE and the support loans to Ukraine. Commissioner Kubilius, who will join us today, has seen the difference. When he became the defence Commissioner we had 1.5 billion euro until the end of 2027 to spend on defence. And now as you know, thanks to that tool, borrowing on the financial markets, the EU Budget is supporting investments at the scale of 150bn euro. Today, there is solid demand for EU bonds. And this is not surprising, since they offer good value for investors. And to describe how good value they offer we can take inspiration from the Village People and their song YMCA. And don't worry, I will not start to dance. YMCA sums up very nicely what are the key features of EU bonds. • Y stands for Yield. EU bonds offer a very attractive yield. • M stands for Market. We now have a fully-fledged developed market architecture for EU bonds, with a very high degree of liquidity. • C stands for Country-risk. As EU bonds are multi-national bonds, they come with an in-built protection against country risk. • And finally A. Actually I should say triple A. Because they are triple-A rated bonds. And therefore they are very safe. Ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget often starts and ends with numbers. But it is not only about that. It is also about deciding where European action can make the greatest difference. And about designing financial tools that allow every euro to go further. And that will be the topic of our today's conference. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-06-17 “Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, Mesdames et Messieurs, Nous sommes ici pour franchir une étape importante dans la construction d'une Europe capable de prendre davantage en main son destin. Ce moment s'inscrit dans une réflexion ancienne, portée notamment par la France depuis décennies : celle d'une Europe capable d'assumer sa propre sécurité. Permettez-moi de commencer par adresser un message simple à nos amis français : vous aviez vu juste. La France a toujours été l'un des premiers pays à défendre la nécessité pour l'Europe d'assumer davantage de responsabilités en matière de défense et d'y consacrer les ressources nécessaires. Il y a encore quatre ans, l'idée d'un effort financier européen commun dans le domaine de la défense demeurait largement minoritaire. Dans la pratique, elle était principalement portée par la France. Aujourd'hui, cette vision est devenue une réalité politique européenne. L'accord SAFE que nous signons aujourd'hui en est une illustration majeure. Cent cinquante milliards d'euros pour l'Europe, quinze milliards pour la France, est-ce suffisant ? Certainement pas. On peut dire que c'est un petit pas pour la sécurité européenne. Mais un bond de géant pour l'histoire du budget européen. Parce que cette avancée ouvre le premier chapitre d'un engagement européen durable en faveur de la sécurité et de la défense. En effet, le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel consacrera une place importante à la défense. Cette évolution traduit une prise de conscience plus profonde : en Europe, nous avons compris que la souveraineté et la sécurité ne peuvent être dissociées. Certaines parties de notre continent doivent encore pleinement intégrer cette réalité. Mais ici en France, cette conviction est depuis longtemps établie. Je vous remercie.”
  Defence spending · EU competences on defence
• 2026-06-16 “Thank you. I have to admit that just a week ago, many people, including in the Commission, doubted whether an agreement on the legislative package in June was even possible. And yet you did it. And it is indeed an excellent achievement. And I think one of the biggest of the Cypriot presidency. That achievement is important for two reasons. First, it confirms that the ambition on simplification and modernisation of the European budget is shared not only by the Commission, but also by the member States. Secondly, it clarifies a lot for the beneficiaries of the EU budget, allowing already today to advance at the technical level preparations for the start of the new programmes in 2028. Of course, uncertainty is still there. We still do not have an agreement of both co-legislators, but the direction of travel is very clear. As you know, the president of the Commission has already congratulated President Christodoulides on the hard work of the presidency on this legislative package. I would like to thank and congratulate you, Madeleine, and your team here in Brussels in the permanent representation, but also in Nicosia. Thank you once again for your excellent work. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-06-16 “Dear Marilyn, dear presidency, dear ministers, let me start by thanking the the presidency for having for having brought us a step closer to reaching a timely agreement on the next MFF. It is clear that no proposal will fully satisfy everyone. I expect that nobody around this table will be happy. In fact, also, the Commission is not happy because we remain convinced that our proposal was a good one. But you know as well as as well as I do, that there are no grounds for criticizing the presidency. The presidency has done an excellent job and it should be praised for it. It has listened to a range of conflicting expectations. It has identified the main trends and set out ways to bring the member states position closer together. As I said, the Commission will continue to defend its proposal as the Commission. We cannot remain indifferent to a cut of 4% in spending on defence and competitiveness. At a time when we know that it is precisely in these areas that we must work together and carry out joint projects. This 4% cut will not result in savings, in public savings in public spending. This expenditure items will have to be met at national level anyway. However, we are missing out an opportunity for joint projects that would bring us greater security and more competitiveness for the same money.”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed) · Defence spending
• 2026-06-16 “We also need to preserve enough flexibility to react to evolving priorities and unforeseen events. It may be tempting to produce cuts by reducing the flexibility amounts, but this would not produce a long term relief, as we have seen time and time again. We need buffers in the budget to react swiftly to crisis. The presidency proposal also includes many good elements. I am glad to see that the Negro box preserves key features of our July proposal for a modernised structure and a simpler budget. As regards the financing side, I welcome the clear signal that new own resources are part and parcel of the equation. Making progress on new own resources is a necessary precondition for reaching a balanced deal. I hope that the European Council this week, now that it has also. The assessment of the European Parliament's new proposals will give a strong political push to further work during the Irish Presidency on new own resources. One final remark on timing. Let me repeat that it remains absolutely crucial that we reach an agreement by the end of 2026 with the war on the European continent. Protracted instability close by and our economy tanking, we cannot afford any delayed entry into force of the next MFF. Thank you Madeleine.”
  Own EU resources
• 2026-06-16 “Dear Marilena, dear Presidency, dear Ministers, Let me start by thanking the Presidency for having brought us a step closer to reaching a timely agreement on the next MFF. It is clear that no nego-box proposal will fully satisfy everyone. I expect that nobody around this table will be happy. In fact, also the Commission is not happy, because we remain convinced that our proposal was a good one. But you know as well as I do that there are no grounds for criticising the Presidency. The Presidency has done an excellent job, and it should be praised for it. It has listened to a range of conflicting expectations. It has identified the main trends and set out ways to bring the Member States' positions closer together. As I said, the Commission will continue to defend its proposal. As the Commission, we cannot remain indifferent to a cut of 4% in spending on defence and competitiveness. At a time when we know that it is precisely in these areas that we must work together and carry out joint projects. This 4% cut will not result in savings in public spendings. These expenditure items will have to be met at national level anyway. However, we are missing out on opportunity for joint projects that would bring us greater security and more competitiveness for the same money. We also need to preserve enough flexibility to react to evolving priorities and unforeseen events. It may be tempting to produce cuts by reducing the flexibility amounts. But this would not produce long-term relief as we have seen time and time again that we need buffers in the budget to react swiftly to crises. The Presidency's proposal also includes many good elements. I am glad to see that the nego-box preserves key features of our July proposal for a modernised structure and a simpler budget. As regards the financing side, I welcome the clear signal that new own resources are part and parcel of the equation. Making progress on new own resources is a necessary precondition for reaching a balanced deal. I hope that the European Council, this week, now that it has also the assessment of the European Parliament's new proposals, will give a strong political push to further work during the Irish Presidency on new own resources. One final remark on timing. Let me repeat that it remains absolutely crucial that we reach an agreement by the end of 2026. With the war on the European continent, protracted instability close by and our economy tanking, we cannot afford any delayed entry into force of the next MFF.”
  Defence spending
• 2026-06-16 “Thank you. Thank you, Madam Minister. As you said, is a decisive step. A decisive step to reach an agreement on the MFF. But as we all know, it is not the last step. It is indeed important to keep the MFF on the agenda of the European Council, because we need to have a political guidance and push for further steps in the process that come from the leaders. I believe that the box that you have prepared is a good starting point for the debate already this week. The debate on the size, the debate also on the structure of the next MFF. But apart from the expenditure side, there is also the revenue side. And I appreciate as the commission, the fact that you have kept in the box all five proposed elements of the own resources package as presented by the by the Commission. Let me also remind you that at the request of the European Parliament, supported by the president of the European Council. The Commission shared also technical assessment of digital, crypto and online gambling. Own resources. I hope that the incoming European Council will bring more clarity on the way forward. Also with respect to these new ideas and finally, more general comments, we need an agreement by the end of this year, not because of the political calendar in that or the other member states. We need it because that is a precondition for the EU programmes to start as of 1st of January 2028. So this is what we owe to the beneficiaries of the EU budget, starting with the farmers and ending with the researchers. We owe it to them in particular at a time. As I said at the beginning, when there is a war on the European continent, when there is a instability around us and where we need to inject an impetus for investments, because the EU budget is and will remain primarily an investment budget. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget · Own EU resources
• 2026-06-15 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 15.6.2026 Written question 1. In 2025, 27 air-chartered services were used by the President of the Commission or other Commissioners. Information on missions of Members of the Commission is available on the European Commission website [1] . The Commission does not provide information on behalf of other institutions. 2. The Commission publishes an overview of mission expenses and purpose per Member every two months in accordance with the Code of Conduct [2] . Information on missions of former Vice-President of the European Commission, Commissioner responsible for ‘Promoting our European Way of Life’ is publicly available [3] . 3. The clause ‘Terms of contract: The execution of the contract must be performed within the framework of sheltered employment programmes: No’ means that the contractor is not required to apply a specific type of work arrangement designed to fit the needs of persons with disabilities and to have a minimum number of employees with disabilities. However, according to the tender specifications, the contractor shall establish, maintain and promote an open and inclusive working environment, notably through the removal of all obstacles to recruitment and all potential discrimination based on disability. [1] S ee the Transparency section of the webpage of each Member: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en. [2] Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission (2018/C 65/06) C_2018065EN.01000701.xml [3] Mission expenses of the Commissioners”
  Climate efforts · Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2026-05-26 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 26.5.2026 Written question The Honourable Member may find in the annex a more detailed breakdown of the payments, including the respective amounts transferred and the precise dates on which the respective payments were transferred to Hungary, per budget line and multiannual financial framework programme for the period between December 2022 and December 2025. See annex : Annex”
  Conditions to access EU budget · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-05-26 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 26.5.2026 Written question The Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the Financial Transparency System [1] (FTS). The portal makes available to the public information on recipients of funds financed from the EU budget and implemented directly by the Commission (at headquarters or in EU delegations to non-EU countries) and other EU bodies such as executive agencies (‘direct management’) or implemented indirectly by other international organisations or non-EU countries (‘indirect management’), and beneficiaries of the European Development Fund. The annex contains an extract from the FTS website showing amounts awarded in 2024 to United Nations affiliated organisations, based on a list compiled from publicly available sources that may not be exhaustive. It indicates which organisations were awarded funding, the amounts awarded to each, and the overall total. The entities have been grouped, as far as possible, into the categories provided by the Honourable Member, in the absence of a definitive classification of these organisations. Please note that data for the year 2025 is not included, as it is currently being consolidated before the publication in June 2026 as part of the working documents of the draft budget for 2027. Data on funding to international organisations in 2026 will be made available in Working Document IX as part of the 2028 Draft Budget Procedure. See annex : Annex [1] https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html. The annual publications are based on Article 38 of the Financial Regulation (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1-222), and in accordance with the third paragraph of the article, data on recipients is not disclosed for very low value contracts below EUR 15 000 and where disclosure risks threatening the rights and freedoms of the persons or entities.”
  EU Development & Humanitarian Aid · Size of EU budget
• 2026-05-21 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 21.5.2026 Written question The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the information on missions expenses and third parties, which was provided in the answer to Written Question E-000189/25 [1] . Information on missions by the Members of the Commission for the year 2025 and subsequent years is or will be made publicly available on dedicated webpages which ensure transparency of missions for the public [2] for both the President and the Members of the Commission. This information also details the cost breakdown of mission elements — such as travel, accommodation, daily allowances, and miscellaneous expenses. The reason and cost of each mission is systematically published once the billing process is concluded. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. [2] See the dedicated transparency section of the websites of the Members of the Commission via the following link: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en.”
  Budget for EU politicians · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-05-21 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 21.5.2026 Written question In July 2025 the Commission put forward a new basket of own resources, including a proposal for a Corporate Resource for Europe (CORE) [1] . The CORE annual lump-sum contribution would be established as an own resource for the EU based on Article 311(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2] . This provision empowers the Council to establish new categories of own resources. Article 311(3) TFEU is a self-standing legal basis enabling the direct establishment of new own resources in the Own Resources Decision [3] . The Commission shared its revenue estimates per own resource and per Member State, inclusive of the underlying assumptions, with the Council and the European Parliament in the context of the ongoing interinstitutional decision-making process in relation to the EU’s future multiannual financial framework . CORE would be applicable to large companies and permanent establishments with a taxable presence in the EU with an annual net turnover above EUR 100 million. Therefore, CORE would not apply to small and medium-sized enterprises, which represent 99% of businesses in the EU. The CORE annual lump-sum contribution to be paid by large companies in scope would represent a very small fraction of their ‘net turnover’ — a maximum of 0.1%. The rather modest CORE contribution is a charge that recognises the benefits that companies operating and selling in the EU enjoy from the single market. [1] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/system-own-resources_en. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2008/art_311/oj/eng. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020D2053.”
  Own EU resources · EU industrial funding
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission takes the allegations regarding the former Commissioner for Trade very seriously and has referred the matter to the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) for appropriate follow-up, within its independent investigative function. OLAF has confirmed it has opened a case but is not in a position to share details on individual cases or probes beyond the information and data already made public. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights. OLAF fully respects the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence of the persons/entities concerned. The investigation of other criminal offences remains the competence of national authorities.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The former Commissioner for Trade became a Member of the Commission in November 2004, and his office ended in October 2008. Members of the College are subject to strict obligations arising directly under the Treaties as well as to the ethical obligations emanating from the Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission [1] . In accordance with the applicable rules, including Articles 245 and 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, former Members of the Commission are bound by certain life-long obligations even after their mandate. Especially, they must continue to behave with integrity and discretion and are also required to observe the obligation of professional secrecy. The Commission takes the allegations regarding the former Commissioner for Trade very seriously and has referred the matter to the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) for appropriate follow-up, within its independent investigative function. OLAF has confirmed it has opened a case but is not in a position to share details on individual cases or probes beyond the information and data already made public. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights. OLAF fully respects the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence of the persons/entities concerned. OLAF’s mission is to detect, investigate and stop wrongdoings related to EU funds. However, OLAF reports without undue delay suspected criminal conduct to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which has full competency to investigate and prosecute such offences. The investigation of other criminal offences remains the competence of national authorities. [1] Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, C(2018) 700 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018D0221(02). In 2008, the version Code of Conduct of 24 November 2004 was applicable, available at the following link: https://www.cvce.eu/obj/code_of_conduct_for_commissioners_24_november_2004-en-eb3c996a-b728-496e-b06c-49ef61f70d16.html.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-05-04 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written question The Commission presented its revenue estimates per own resource and per Member State, inclusive of the underlying assumptions, in fiches (working documents). The fiches were shared with the Council and the European Parliament in September 2025. These fiches have been produced by the Commission in the context of the ongoing interinstitutional decision-making process in relation to the EU’s future multiannual financial framework and are, as such, not public documents at this stage.”
  Size of EU budget · Own EU resources
• 2026-05-04 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written question As one of 35 equal members of the Board of Governors of the European Schools, the Commission attaches great importance to inclusive education. It supports this priority and endorsed the adoption of an Action Plan on Inclusive Education, created upon recommendation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It does not however manage the European Schools or intervene in individual cases. This Action Plan included the introduction of part-time schooling options, as a supportive short-term measure to enable a progressive integration into full-time education. In 2025 rules on part-time schooling were unanimously approved by the Joint Teaching Committee, in which parents, teachers, inspectors and pupils are all represented. The implementation of part-time schooling is based on an agreement among the school, family, and, where relevant, other professionals. This approach may be appropriate for pupils with temporary medical conditions, barriers related to a disability/other condition, or social-emotional needs. The Commission is not involved in such agreements which are handled by each school. The Commission relies on the Schools to offer an inclusive education and equal opportunities to the children of all EU staff. In 2024-2025, out of 29 173 pupils, 10 109 received support and 2 583 received intensive support, including pupils with diagnoses such as learning disorders, autism, vision impairment, mutism, degenerative illness, trisomy and deafness.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• 2026-04-28 “E-001221/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposed five new own resources and adjustments to the current own resources. This package is expected to generate EUR 65.6 billion (current prices) per year in average over the period 2028-2034 1 . The Commission presented the breakdown per own resource in the staff working document 2 accompanying the Communication ‘A dynamic EU budget for the priorities of the future: the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 3 ’ as well as in the factsheet on ‘New own resources 4 ’. In application of the principle of universality, the total revenue shall cover the total expenditure, thus there is no earmarking of the revenue generated by the own resources. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/system-own-resources_en, COM (2025)574. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025SC0570R(01), SWD (2025)570. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0570R(01), COM (2025) 570. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-20282034_en#factsheets.”
  Size of EU budget · Own EU resources
• 2026-04-16 “E-000945/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) Seal is meant to create incentives for private investors or for Member States to support the project financially. It is meant to flag the project proposal as being of interest for the European single market and of excellent quality. The STEP Seal has no connection with planning permissions or related judicial reviews unless this is specifically stated in the call for proposals. Consequently, the Commission does not track whether a project proposal is awarded the Seal prior or only after a planning permission has been granted. Should a planning permission be listed as a requirement in a STEP-relevant EU call for proposals, and the applicant project has not achieved it at the time of application, the applicant will simply not be awarded a STEP Seal.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• 2026-04-15 “E-000836/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission By bringing together EU funds under one coherent strategy, with cohesion and agricultural policies at its core, the Commission’s proposal on the National Regional and Partnership Plans 1 aims to address current and future challenges in a holistic, coordinated and consistent manner, which will bring simplification for both authorities and beneficiaries. A common set of rules will apply for shared management funds, including for programming, governance, financial implementation, assurance and transparency. Payments will be conditional upon the fulfilment of investment and reform milestones and targets linked to agreed priorities to deliver funding and results faster and more efficiently, with a focus on the results of EU spending. Furthermore, in what relates to simplification for Member States, the proposal relies on the single audit principle, striking a balance between an appropriate level of controls and simplification for stakeholders. Strong safeguards have been included to ensure the robustness of national control systems and effective action in case of issues, including where the applicable law is not respected. The Commission retains the possibility to block payments and protect the EU’s financial interests. Moreover, the Performance Regulation 2 proposal replaces the current complex and fragmented set of rules with a horizontal approach for key principles – climate and environment, ‘do no significant harm’, social policies and gender equality – applicable to all EU funding. A common framework links how funds are spent to the results delivered, using a standard set of performance indicators for each intervention field 3 . When preparing the proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework 4 , the Commission gave due consideration to recommendations by other EU institutions, including the European Court of Auditors. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-fund-economic-social-and-territorial-cohesion-agricultureand-rural-fisheries-and-maritime_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0545. 3 As defined in Annex I of the Regulation. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en.”
  Conditions to access EU budget · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-04-13 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 13.4.2026 Written question 1. The case was handled in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, with due respect of the right to be heard of the person concerned. On 29 January 2026, the College of Commissioners concluded the disciplinary procedure with a penalty commensurate to the established facts. 2. The Commission did not gather additional evidence in the course of the disciplinary proceedings.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-04-13 “E-000661/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the Financial Transparency System (FTS) 1 . The portal makes available to the public information on recipients of funds financed from the EU budget and implemented directly by the Commission (at Headquarters or in EU delegations to non-EU countries) and other EU bodies such as executive agencies ('direct management') or implemented indirectly by other international organisations or nonEU countries ('indirect management'), and beneficiaries of the European Development Fund 2 . A search for ‘Code Pink’ in the name of the beneficiary filter on the FTS produces no result. Please note that data for the year 2025 is not included, as it is expected to be published in June 2026. Code Pink is not registered in the Transparency register 3 . Therefore, there is no publicly available information about its participation in meetings, membership in expert groups or public consultations to which it may have contributed. The Commission requires registration of interest representatives in the Transparency register for their appointment to Commission expert groups or for meeting Members of the Commission, their members or Cabinet and/or Commission staff holding management functions. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html. The annual publications are based on Article 38 of the Financial Regulation (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1–222), and in accordance with the third paragraph of the article, data on recipients is not disclosed for very low value contracts below EUR 15 000 and where disclosure risks threatening the rights and freedoms of the persons or entities. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/european-development-fund-edf.html. 3 https://transparency-register.europa.eu/index_en.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · EU-US relations
• 2026-04-08 “P-000176/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Honourable Member will find all relevant information on the use of flights, the destinations and the purpose of the travel in 2025 for both the President and the Members of the Commission on dedicated webpages which ensure transparency of missions for the public 1 . The justification and cost of each mission is published once the billing process is concluded. 2. The mission expenses are covered from the Commission’s global envelope, which also covers other expenses. No specific budget is allocated for transport via private plane. The Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission 2 , in particular Annex 2, provides for the rules regarding the use of the College’s global envelope and travel on official business (missions) by Commissioners. The Commission draws the Honourable Members’ attention to its following provision: ‘As a general rule, the air taxi may be authorised only under exceptional circumstances, either when commercial flights are not available to reach a destination or when they cannot fit with the Member of the Commission's diary, or for security reasons. A careful check of all options should be made, including agenda planning, so that the air taxi is only envisaged as a last option’. 3. In 2025, there were no air taxis chartered by the Commission for which the costs were borne by Members or charged to a budget other than the EU budget. 1 See the dedicated transparency section of the websites of the Members of the Commission via the following link: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en. 2 Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission (2018/C 65/06), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018D0221(02).”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2026-03-27 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 27.3.2026 Written question EU funding is awarded based on clear eligibility, exclusion, selection and award criteria. The award of EU funds is conditional on the absence of any exclusion grounds laid down in Article 138 of the Financial Regulation [1] , including where an applicant for a grant has engaged in activities contrary to the EU founding values [2] , fraud, criminal organisation, terrorist offences and related activities, etc. Before award and during the implementation of a grant, as well as before disbursing payments, participants and recipients of EU funds and their affiliates are systematically checked against the Early Detection and Exclusion System database of the Commission which contains a list of all excluded persons and entities. Moreover, Article 14 of the Commission’s horizontal model grant agreement [3] requires beneficiaries to respect EU values. The Commission will act immediately on evidence of non-compliance by implementing appropriate measures against unreliable entities, such as the suspension of contract or payments, contract termination, recovery or exclusion from EU financing. All entities receiving or implementing EU funds are verified to ensure that they are not subject to the EU sanctions [4] . Any entity sanctioned by such measures is prohibited from receiving or implementing EU funds. For participation in sensitive actions (e.g. defence, space, cybersecurity), entities, including non-governmental organisations, are furthermore subject to the full set of measures in place to protect security or public order of the EU and its Member States. Under Article 136 of the Financial Regulation, or other security restrictions under sectoral basic acts (e.g. Article 22(5) Horizon Europe Framework Programme [5] ), entities may be subject to ownership/control assessments, facility restrictions, security clearances and other appropriate measures. [1] Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), OJ L, 2024/2509, 26 September 2024, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. [2] These values are enshrined in Article 2 Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF). [3] For the Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.LI.2020.433.01.0011.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2020%3A433I%3ATOC. [4] Article 215 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-03-26 “E-005080/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) play a key role in protecting the EU’s financial interests. In 2025, the Commission launched an in-depth review of the EU’s anti-fraud architecture (AFA) with the aim to strengthen and modernise the EU’s anti-fraud framework and better protect the EU budget. To tackle cross-border value added tax (VAT) fraud, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 1 to enhance cooperation and exchange of information on VAT matters by granting EPPO and OLAF a direct communication with the Eurofisc network, the European network of national VAT antifraud officials. With increased access to relevant VAT data, OLAF and EPPO will support Member States more effectively in ensuring faster recovery of evaded amounts. In the context of EU administrative constraints, the Commission will explore whether administrative arrangements could be put in place to allow the pooling of expertise and building of joint capacities for modern anti-fraud investigations involving different anti-fraud actors. This reflection occurs within the EU AFA review. Moreover, the Commission is currently conducting evaluations of the EPPO Regulation 2 and the OLAF Regulation 3 . These evaluations will examine how the current framework can be improved. Based on these, the forthcoming joint impact assessment will assess options for strengthening the protection of the EU's financial interests, including the recovery of EU funds lost due to fraud and other crimes affecting the EU budget. 1 Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (recast), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/904/oj/eng. 2 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R1939. 3 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0883.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-03-24 “E-004600/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission applies robust safeguards to ensure that entities involved in activities incompatible with EU values do not receive EU financial support at any stage of an award procedure. The Commission carries out rigorous selection processes, including different checks on applicants based on objective criteria, such as the exclusion criteria or the EU restrictive measures. The 2024 Financial Regulation (FR) recast 1 introduced an explicit exclusion ground on incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence, or similar activities contrary to EU values 2 . EU funded grant projects are subsequently monitored to ensure that beneficiaries respect EU values during the implementation phase, as explicitly required in the grant agreement 3 . Furthermore, the 2024 FR introduced the possibility to exclude or impose a financial penalty on beneficial owners and affiliated entities of the excluded entity that were involved in the misconduct of the excluded entity. This allows further protection of the EU budget by preventing that an excluded entity could continue to participate in award procedures, through a new company or existing affiliated entities. Based on these mechanisms, the Commission can immediately act 4 when it becomes aware of any evidence of breaches of EU values. The Commission will ensure effective implementation, including by raising awareness, establishing an internal network to exchange information, and reinforcing processes to take account of information from Member States and other sources where it can be used to assess beneficiaries’ and projects’ respect for EU values. Effective protection of the EU budget also relies on Member States actively contributing information to support the Commission’s efforts. The outcome of the review of the Anti-Fraud Architecture in 2026 will strengthen oversight and accountability to ensure a more efficient protection of the EU's financial interests. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. 2 Article 138(1)(c)(vi) of the FR requires that such misconduct negatively affects or risks affecting the performance of legal commitments. 3 See Article 14 of the Annotated Grant Agreement (https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf). The obligation to respect EU values is also contractually extended to other persons and entities linked to the beneficiaries, such as the affiliated entities, associated partners, subcontractors, recipients of financial support to third parties. Furthermore, measures may be taken also if persons having powers of representation, decision-making or control, or persons essential for the award/implementation of the grant breached EU values. 4 As part of these measures, the grant may be suspended, terminated or reduced and funds may be recovered, and the concerned entity may be excluded from receiving further EU funds in the future.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · EU policy on Islam
• 2026-03-03 “E-000053/2026 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission supports stakeholder participation in policy discussions in line with the Treaties and the applicable programme regulations and financial rules. The policy objectives, scope and eligibility conditions of this support is defined in the sectoral basic acts adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. For example, Article 11 of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) regulation 1 , as adopted by the co-legislator, specifically indicates that ‘operating grants shall support the functioning of non-profit making entities which are involved in the development, implementation and enforcement of Union legislation and policy’. The Commission observes full impartiality and does not require beneficiaries to undertake advocacy activities, nor does it instruct them to support specific positions 2 . Funding is awarded through transparent and competitive open calls for proposals. Applicants submit proposals describing their work programmes or activities in the areas indicated in the call. The work programme may mention, among others, applicant’s advocacy activities. Any opinions expressed and activities carried out remain the sole responsibility of the nongovernmental organisations. Civil society entities remain fully autonomous and free to establish their own views on all policy matters. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0783. 2 The Commission guidance on funding for activities (https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-funding-dev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eulaw_en.pdf) clarifies that the EU does not require or mandate, as a condition for EU funding, carrying out specifically detailed activities directed at EU institutions or their members.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU engagement with civil society · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-02-18 “E-004722/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Over the last five years, rapid economic and geopolitical changes have created new policy needs in defence, security, trade, and competitiveness, generating additional tasks and administrative pressures for the EU institutions. Within an administrative framework built on stable staffing, the Commission largely maintained unchanged staff levels, with only limited exceptions agreed by the co-legislators, while internal redeployment was insufficient to absorb all new tasks. The proposal for the administrative expenditure for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2028-2034 1 is calibrated to close the capacity gap stemming from these additional tasks conferred upon the EU institutions over the current MFF. This capacity gap is estimated at 2.500 full-time equivalents (FTE) for all institutions, comprising both officials and external staff, to be phased in over the first three years of the next MFF. Closing the capacity gap is essential to equip the institutions with the resources for addressing new needs, such as - among others - cybersecurity, AI, etc., and for allowing the Commission to take on efficiently the numerous new tasks since the start of the current MFF, such as the EU’s Foreign Investment Screening Mechanism 2 , Digital Markets Act 3 , Critical Raw Materials Act 4 , European Health Data Space 5 , Sustainable Products initiative 6 , General Product Safety Directive 7 , the Act in Support of Ammunition Production 8 . 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52024PC0023. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401252. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202500327. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401781. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0095. 8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0237.”
  Size of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2026-02-18 “E-004727/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission publishes an overview of mission expenses per Member of the Commission every two months covering all missions undertaken, in accordance with the Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission 1 . The Honourable Member will find all relevant information on the total expenditure incurred by the Members of the Commission in the current year for its participation in G7, G20 and COP30 meetings, on dedicated webpages which ensure transparency of missions for the public 2 . The Commission regrets to inform further the Honourable Member that the information technology tool used for managing missions does not enable the Commission to automatically extract the specific data requested, especially because preparatory meetings, technical working groups or other meetings may take place in the framework of other missions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0221%2802%29. 2 See the dedicated ‘transparency’ section within each website of the Members of the Commission via the following link: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2026-02-11 “E-004593/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission committed to reach climate neutrality, as an organisation, by 2030 1 . Cutting emissions from professional travel is an important part of the Commission’s greening action plan. The new Guide to missions and authorised travel 2 promotes rail travel as a sustainable choice, particularly for journeys under 550 km or longer when rail is feasible and efficient. Overnight trains may be considered as a greener alternative to flights, where such alternative exists. Pursuant to Article 110(2) of the Staff Regulations, the implementing rules adopted by the Commission apply by analogy to the agencies, including the European Environment Agency (EEA). The Commission informed the agencies of the adoption of its Decision setting out the Guide to missions and authorised travel on 14 May 2025, with these rules becoming applicable at the latest as of 15 February 2026 3 unless a derogation is requested. The EEA has not yet sought such a derogation, meaning it will adhere to the same sustainable travel principles as the Commission. Consequently, the EEA would incorporate rail as an official travel option. According to the Guide to missions and authorised travel, it is the duty of the mission performer’s line manager and authorising officer to ensure that the proposed travel is in line with these principles, thereby promoting harmonised and sustainable business travel practices within the agency. 1 Communication on Greening the Commission. C(2022) 2230 final. 2 Commission Decision C(2025) 2495 final of 13 May 2025 the general provisions for implementing Articles 11, 12 and 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and on authorised travel. 3 In accordance with Article 110 (2) second subparagraph of the Staff Regulations.”
  EU support of rail transport
• 2026-02-06 “E-004094/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The 20-years recognition ceremony is the only official career recognition for EU officials. From 2022 to 2024, the overall cost was EUR 340,000 for a total of 4,500 participants, i.e. an average individual cost of around EUR 75. The prices for all aspects related to the ceremony are defined by open competition, such as the latest procedure 1 . The maximum estimated value for the next four years covered by this call is EUR 464,000 for an estimated number of 5,800 medallists. 1 https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/655123-2025.”
  Budget for EU politicians · Size of EU budget · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-02-03 “E-003671/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the allegations. The Commission is not a in position to comment on individual cases that the European AntiFraud Office or the European Public Prosecutor's Office may or may not be currently conducting. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of any possible investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights. The Commission is actively pursuing measures to ensure equitable access for women entrepreneurs to EU-funded renewable energy projects, as outlined in the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 1 . This comprehensive strategy prioritises gender mainstreaming and encompasses targeted empowerment initiatives designed to bridge gender disparities in sectors such as renewable energy. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0152.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2026-01-27 “E-004149/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not have any information additional to what is publicly available regarding this case. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is responsible for conducting administrative investigations concerning fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU, as well as suspicions of serious misconduct by EU staff and members of the EU institutions. OLAF does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations. OLAF is independent from the Commission in the exercise of its investigative function. OLAF does not usually issue comments on cases that it may or may not be treating. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of any possible investigations and possible subsequent follow-up procedures, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights. Finally, the Commission recalls that the European Data Protection Supervisor, whose mandate is set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 1 , is tasked with monitoring and ensuring that EU institutions and bodies process personal data in compliance with the applicable data protection framework. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj/eng.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-01-26 “E-003438/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the information on missions involving the use of private charter flights by the Members of the Commission for 2024, which was provided in the answer to question E-000189/25. Information on the use of private charter flights by the Members of the Commission for the year 2025 is or will be made publicly available 1 for both the President and the Members of the Commission. The reason and cost of each mission is published once the billing process is concluded. Additionally, the choice of the airline and any particular flight for a mission is subject to a number of criteria including timetable, agenda constraints and cost-efficiency. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/mission.do?host=a2c7c963-a9ad-4c47-aa734bb46b06dd5d&missionsperiod=2025_4.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• 2026-01-23 “E-004226/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission recognises the necessity of ensuring security around the EU institutions, even if the issue does not fall directly under its responsibility. As part of its duty of care towards its employees and visitors, the Commission works closely with the Belgian authorities, at federal, regional and local level, to address security concerns and to improve security and safety around the EU institutions. The Commission cannot go into detail on security arrangements, but it does play the role of primary entry-point for all security and safety-related emergency situations in and around Commission premises in Brussels, and it liaises daily with the Belgian safety and security services (police, fire brigade, ambulance). 2. In the spirit of good and sincere cooperation, the Commission is committed to supporting Belgium and the Brussels Capital Region in addressing security threats and ensuring the safety of EU institutions and personnel. The Commission does not have the mandate to monitor formally the actions of Belgian authorities with regards to security around EU institutions.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-01-21 “E-004120/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not comment on the specifics of its security measures and installations. Its security policies and procedures are designed to ensure the highest level of protection for the Commission’s staff, visitors, and assets, and they are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the evolving security landscape and to address identified risks.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• 2026-01-21 “E-004170/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member will find all relevant information on the use of flights, the destinations and the purpose of the travel, since the beginning of the Commission’s mandate for both the President and the Members of the Commission on dedicated webpages which ensure transparency of missions for the public 1 . As a general rule, the air taxi may be authorised only under exceptional circumstances, either when commercial flights are not available to reach a destination or when they cannot fit with the Member of the Commission's diary, or for security reasons. A careful check of all options should be made, including agenda planning, so that the air taxi is only envisaged as a last option 2 . Following the European Green Deal, the Commission committed in its ‘Greening Communication’ 3 to reduce its overall carbon footprint by 60% from 2005 to 2030 (or 38% from 2019 to 2030). This includes an objective to reduce emissions from missions, taking into account these exceptional needs for the use of air taxis in the interest of the service. The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that the Information Technology tool used for managing missions does not enable the Commission to automatically extract this data. 1 See the dedicated transparency section of the websites of the Members of the Commission via the following link: https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en. 2 Annex 2 to Commission Decision C(2018) 700 final of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018D0221(02). 3 Communication to the Commission ‘Greening the Commission’, 5.4.2022, C(2022)2230: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-04/c_2022_2230_2_en_act_part1_v11.pdf.”
  Budget for EU politicians · Climate efforts
• 2026-01-14 “E-001923/2025 E-001958/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Honourable Member will find all relevant information on the use of air taxis by the President and Members of the Commission, the destinations, costs, justifications and the purpose of each travel, since 2019 on dedicated webpages which ensure transparency of missions for the public 1 . The information on specific trips includes information when an air taxi was used and what the average cost was per person (Members and staff) on the flight. 2. The Commission draws the Honourable Members’ attention to Commission Decision C/2018/0700 2 under which ‘As a general rule, the air taxi may be authorised only under exceptional circumstances, either when commercial flights are not available to reach a destination or when they cannot fit with the Member of the Commission's diary, or for security reasons. A careful check of all options should be made, including agenda planning, so that the air taxi is only envisaged as a last option’. 3. While considering these exceptional needs for the use of air taxis in the interest of the service and following the European Green Deal 3 , the Commission committed in its Greening Communication 4 to carbon neutrality by 2030 reducing first its overall carbon footprint by 60% from 2005 to 2030 (or 38% from 2019 to 2030 5 ). This includes an objective to reduce emissions from missions. The Commission has made significant progress with a 31% reduction 6 in its carbon footprint since 2019, and is on track to reach the 2030 objective, with a strong focus on sustainable buildings, greener mobility, and digitalisation, as well as exploring new initiatives such as carbon pricing and common purchase platforms for carbon removals. 1 See the transparency section within the Members of the Commission dedicated webpage https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners_en. 2 Annex 2 to Commission Decision C(2018) 700 final of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018D0221(02). 3 The European Green Deal Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent: See: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. 4 C(2022)2030 final of 5 th April 2022 Communication to the Commission – Greening the Commission See https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/24c26f7d-2c51-4f69-8b062d5be859c7fc_en?filename=c_2022_2230_2_en_act_part1_v11.pdf. 5 C(2022)2030 final of 5 th April 2022 Annexes to the Communication to the Commission – Greening the Commission See https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/7e10b3b4-06fd-4319-863bfee762dd6582_en?filename=c_2022_2230_1_en_annexe_acte_autonome_cp_part1_v9.pdf. 6 Data from the Draft EMAS Environmental Statement 2025 (results 2024), currently under external validation.”
  Budget for EU politicians · Climate efforts
• 2026-01-08 “E-004270/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The adverse opinion of the Court of Auditors (ECA) concerns the legality and regularity of the EU budget expenditure 1 , not the Resilience and Recovery Facility 2 (RRF), for which the ECA provided a qualified opinion 3 . The ECA’s error rate, determined only for the EU budget expenditure, is a measure of irregularities, not fraud. These irregularities are addressed during the entire life cycle of the programme through corrective measures taken by the Commission. Regarding EU budget expenditure, the ECA finds the highest error rate for Cohesion funds. In their implementation (under shared management), national authorities play a key role in ensuring the regularity of spending. The Commission conducts its own audits, based on a risk assessment per Member State. Cases of serious weaknesses and high levels of errors lead to reservations, reported in the Annual Activity Reports 4 , as well as to immediate remedial action plans. The Commission implements the Court’s recommendations to improve, wherever and whenever needed, the capacity and effectiveness of the national authorities. For example, in line with the ECA’s recommendations, the Commission updated its audit approach to cover more programmes and audit authorities in its on-the-spot re-performance audit work. In addition, the Commission agreed with national audit authorities an action plan 5 to enhance the programme authorities’ detection capacity. Under the RRF Regulation 6 , it is primarily the responsibility of Member States to protect the financial interests of the EU and ensure that the use of RRF funds complies with relevant EU and national law 7 . The Commission checks, via its own audit work, that Member States fulfil their obligations pursuant to the RRF Regulation and Financing Agreement. The Commission has the right to reduce proportionately the support under the RRF and recover any amount due to the EU budget in cases of serious irregularities, including fraud, corruption and conflict of interest affecting the financial interests of the EU that have not been corrected by the Member State. In addition, the Commission’s services closely monitor fraud cases thanks to an indepth cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor's Office and are following up on their recommendations. 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/multiple-reports. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/241/oj/eng. 3 https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/RV-2025-02/RV-2025-02_EN.pdf. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/how-it-works/annual-lifecycle/assessment/annualaccounts-and-reports_en. 5 Action plan to enhance detection capacity: A Member State drive initiative – CPRE_24-0020-00 of 16/12/2024. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0241. 7 Article 22 of the RRF Regulation.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2026-01-05 “E-004382/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union is an autonomous decentralised agency of the European Union. It operates in the context of the Multiannual Financial Framework, with fixed and constant resources, to support EU agencies and institutions in delivering on their commitment to multilingualism over a growing range of tasks. The Translation Centre reports to its Management Board, where the Commission has two representatives out of 72 members representing all Member States, EU institutions, bodies and agencies. Information presented to the Management Board by the Centre and available to the Commission does not point to a particularly high staff turnover nor to general staff discontent. Accordingly, the Commission is not able to confirm the accuracy of the article’s statements. 2. The Commission encourages the Centre to carry out regular staff well-being surveys and to act and report on the results to the Management Board. Moreover, the Commission stands ready to support the agency. For example, the Commission can provide psychological support for Centre’s staff via a service level agreement, in case of need. Also, ongoing discussions between the Commission and decentralised agencies aim to provide staff of the latter with the same level of protection against harassment as for Commission staff, based on Commission Decision C(2023)8630 on the prevention of and fight against psychological and sexual harassment.”
  Multilingualism in EU institutions
• 2025-12-12 “E-004057/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The multiannual financial framework (MFF) does not have earmarking by type of beneficiary, but several elements contribute to support small and medium enterprises (SME). A single portal will consolidate information on funding opportunities, simplifying access to and mapping of information. The European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) 1 will greatly simplify and accelerate access to EU funding, including for small businesses. Each window of the ECF shall support dedicated actions targeting start-ups, SMEs and small mid-cap companies. Support to SME can also be channelled by Member States via the national and regional partnership plans 2 for targeted investments. The Commission is committed to improve the business environment for SMEs by permanently anchoring the ‘think small first’ principle in policymaking. The ‘SME test’ is an important instrument to identify and assess the impact of Commission proposals on SMEs. The analysis of SME impacts first considers whether SMEs are disproportionately affected. If so, alternative mechanisms or flexibilities in approach that might help SMEs to comply should be considered. A compulsory annex, the SME check, has been introduced for all SME relevant new legislation. The Commission will ensure that SMEs are not disproportionately burdened through targeted simplification, funding access and cost-relief measures. The Steel and Metals Action Plan 3 (SMAP) launches ‘Omnibus’ packages to cut red tape and is part of a larger package including the Competitiveness Compass 4 and the Clean Industrial Deal 5 which reduce SME reporting by 35%. The proposed Regulation on steel 6 , implementing the SMAP, allows for quota adjustments to respond to market developments and prevent potential shortages affecting SMEs. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-competitiveness-fund_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-fund-economic-social-and-territorial-cohesion-agricultureand-rural-fisheries-and-maritime_en. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-steel-and-metals-action-plan_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/competitiveness-compass_en. 5 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0726.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) · EU industrial funding
• 2025-12-05 “E-003847/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission agrees on the importance to enhance the EU's budget agility, ensuring a collective capacity to address the unexpected challenges faced by the Member States. As shown in the Commission’s proposal on the long-term budget 2028-2034 1 , the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) must equip the EU with a simpler, more flexible and more strategic budget architecture. To this end, the Commission’s proposal focuses on several key improvements. Firstly, the Commission aims to simplify the budget structure by reducing the number of categories (headings) and programmes. Additionally, the proposal includes a reinforced ‘Flexibility instrument' and a ‘Ukraine Reserve' that can provide additional funds over and above the MFF ceilings. This will allow for both easier reprioritisation within a given programme and, if necessary, mobilisation of additional resources. Furthermore, by integrating reserves and cushions within the main programmes and maintaining larger unallocated margins, the EU will be better equipped to address emerging priorities and unexpected needs as they arise. Lastly, in case of severe crisis, serious hardship or serious threats thereof, a new extraordinary Crisis Mechanism will be available, offering loans to Member States backed by the EU budget. The activation of this mechanism will be decided by the Council with the involvement of the European Parliament. Crises may also be addressed through solidarity actions funding from the EU Facility, which replaces the current EU Solidarity Fund. Such amounts will top up Member States’ National and Regional Partnership plans, when reprogramming meets the thresholds set out in Article 34 of the proposal 2 . 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/multiannual-financial-framework_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en.”
  Size of EU budget · Conditions to access EU budget
• 2025-11-27 “E-003348/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission does not cover costs for beauty treatments, hairstyling, massage or physical personal training. 2. The answer to the question of the Honourable Member is No. 3. The answer to the question of the Honourable Member is No.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• 2025-11-25 “E-003339/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission A definition of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and the obligation to indicate in grant applications under direct management whether an applicant entity is an NGO came into effect in September 2024 with the Financial Regulation recast 1 . Information on funding received from the EU budget in direct management can be found in the public Financial Transparency System (FTS) 2 . It allows to specifically search for NGOs. Pursuant to the Commission´s validation rules 3 , the Commission does not check and validate the status of every single applicant. Nonetheless, the Commission systematically checks against supporting documents whether an entity is a private body and a non-profit organisation 4 , which are the main elements to qualify as an NGO under the validation rules. Before awarding EU funding, the Commission carries out rigorous selection processes, including several different checks on grant beneficiaries based on objective criteria, such as their compliance with exclusion criteria or the EU restrictive measures. Applicants also need to sign a declaration on honour, declaring whether they are in a situation of a grave professional misconduct. Under the Early Detection and Exclusion System, the Commission may exclude unreliable economic operators and organisations from EU funding and thus create a list of such entities based on grounds including incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence, before the award, during the implementation, and after the project ends. As mentioned in the Commission’s reply to the European Court of Auditor’s special report on transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs 5 , the Commission will explore the feasibility of incrementally publishing annual data in the FTS, and, therefore, increase the frequency of updates. Currently, quarterly updates 6 are carried out to reflect any additional or reduced amounts, as well as the amounts consumed. In line with Article 277(6) of the Financial Regulation, the Commission will increase completeness of information by extending the publication requirement to indirect and shared management as of the next multiannual financial framework, subject to availability of such data stored in the single data mining and risk-scoring tool 7 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/analysis.html. 3 EU Funding & Tenders Portal validation rules : https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/rules-lev-lear-fca_en.pdf. 4 Definition of non-profit entity from the validation rules: ‘entity that is non-profit making by its legal form or legal purpose (e.g. charitable organisations), or that has a legal or statutory obligation not to distribute profits to its shareholders or members’. 5 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAReplies/COM-Replies-SR-2025-11/COM-Replies-SR-2025-11_EN.pdf. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/faq.html. 7 Defined under Article 36(2)(d) of the Financial Regulation.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-11-21 “E-003526/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Any amendment to a grant agreement legally requires the mutual consent of both parties, and in the absence of such consent, no modification can take place. The grant agreement signed by both parties is, in itself, the legal base, within a defined period. Outside of this period (before or after) there is no legal base to amend. The Commission has no indications that the grants referred to in the question related to nongovernmental organisations receiving LIFE funding for the environment and climate action 1 and EU4Health funding 2 have been subject to misuse. The Commission has not found deviation from the applicable rules and has informed the European Parliament on the result of its verification of grant agreements. The Commission has taken additional steps to detect and prevent operating grants for work programmes that could entail a reputational risk. This includes the guidance on funding activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy 3 . In case of evidence of any wrongful conduct, such as breach of contractual obligations, irregularities, fraud, criminal activities, the Commission will use all available legal means to ensure that individuals and organisations involved do not receive EU financial support. The Commission has replied to all the related requests for access to information from the European Parliament so far, in accordance with the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission 4 , and is committed to continue the loyal collaboration with the European Parliament and to comply with all relevant legal requirements. 1 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003526_EN.html. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-fundingdev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eu-law_en.pdf. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2025-11-18 “E-003516/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission enforces EU law as the guardian of the Treaties, monitoring Member States' compliance. Between 2019 and 2025, it imposed EUR 226 million in financial sanctions against Greece for seven infringement cases. The Court of Justice of the EU imposes sanctions when a Member State fails to comply with a ruling (Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) or transposition obligations (Article 260(3) TFEU). Sanctions may include lump sums and daily penalties to incentivise compliance. The Commission proposes penalty amounts, but the Court decides the final figures. Even if a Member State complies during proceedings, the Commission maintains its claim for the lump sum. The Commission supports Member States in their implementation efforts through various compliance promotion activities, including new tools such as the transposition roadmap. The Commission's enforcement activities and Member States’ compliance with EU law can be followed through interactive maps and customisable graphs 1 . . For more details on the history of a case or to access the full database of infringement decisions, the infringement decisions' register 2 is open for consultation. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/home/en. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringementsproceedings/infringement_decisions/?langCode=EN.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-11-11 “P-004115/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Several Member States have long benefitted from corrections to reduce their net contributions to the EU budget, starting with the United Kingdom rebate in the mid-1980s. In many instances, they have been the result of negotiations to get a unanimous agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) or introducing new own resources. The EU budget is not a zero-sum game. It provides benefits for the EU as a whole, and not for each Member State individually, with positive collective, cross-border as well as indirect effects from budgetary interventions. Moreover, the Commission believes that lump-sum reductions to the Gross National Income (GNI)-based contributions as well as adjustments to other own resources increase the complexity and opacity of the own resources system. To make the revenue system more balanced, transparent and fair, the Commission proposes 1 for the next MFF 2 to discontinue all corrections to own resources, including the capping of the value added tax (VAT) base and the lump-sum reductions applied to the own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste and the GNI own resource. Furthermore, it does not propose again the Solidarity Adjustment Mechanism to the Emissions Trading System (ETS)based own resource. This proposal makes a move towards policies with more European added value while making the revenue system simpler, more transparent and fairer. 1 COM(2025) 574 final, Proposal for a Council Decision on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053. 2 COM(2025) 570 final/2, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034.”
  Own EU resources
• 2025-11-10 “E-002902/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Pursuant to Article 22 of the Regulation 2021/241 on the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) 1 , Member States are primarily responsible for protecting the financial interests of the EU with regard to the RRF funds. In Italy, the body designated to audit the RRF funds ex ante is distinct from the Italian Court of Auditors. This body is the Ispettorato Generale per il PNRR, located within the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Nonetheless, the Italian Court of Auditors is part of the governance of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP). The Italian Court of Auditors may carry out ex post audits on a risk basis and on the expenses linked to the RRF (not on compliance with milestones and targets). The Commission will assess the compatibility of this reform, which aims to boost the effectiveness of administrative action by mitigating the chilling effect associated with the risk of liability 2 , with obligations laid down in Article 22 of the RRF Regulation once the bill is adopted. Once a Member State adopts provisions that may relate to its audit and control arrangements, the Commission reassesses these arrangements, in light of the requirements of the Regulation, and may launch system audits, review reports or corrective measures. If the revised arrangements are considered inadequate, the Commission may downgrade the rating 3 of the RRF Plan, in which case no more payment can be made to the Member State until the related weaknesses or deficiencies have been addressed. In shared management, the Commission can impose financial corrections under the Common Provisions Regulation 4 or Common Agricultural Policy if the reform undermines the management and control systems used. Moreover, the European Anti-Fraud Office and European Public Prosecutor's Office carry out investigations related to fraudulent activities and other serious crimes or irregularities, each within the scope of their respective competence. The Commission can also act under the Conditionality Regulation 5 if a breach of the principles of the rule of law affects or risks affecting the EU’s financial interests, if there is no other instrument that can protect the EU budget more effectively, and if the other conditions of that Regulation are fulfilled. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0241. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9ccf6a60-8e2f-4193-868b30a24c9e37e0_en?filename=16_1_63949_coun_chap_italy_en.pdf. 3 Against the criteria 2.10 of Annex V of the RRF Regulation. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1060. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2092.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Rule of law and democracy in the EU (political compass)
• 2025-11-04 “E-003141/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The definition of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and the obligation to indicate in the grant applications under direct management whether the entity is an NGO only came into effect in September 2024 with the Financial Regulation recast 1 . Having an NGO status does not entail any preferential treatment, nor is it an eligibility criterion for receiving funding, aside from a few, very specific cases. Therefore, the NGO status as such is not checked and validated by the Commission. Only two of the NGO 2 attributes are systematically checked as part of the standard beneficiaries’ validation, notably whether an entity is a private body and whether it is a nonprofit organisation 3 . The entity France Terre d’asile is classified as an NGO in the Participant Register 4 . The Commission has no evidence that the NGO status of this entity is questionable. Registrants in the Transparency Register 5 are required to provide complete financial information about the current financial year or most recent financial year. The Transparency Register Secretariat, composed of staff from the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, monitors the content of the register, with the aim of achieving an optimal level of data quality therein, on the understanding that registrants are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the information they have provided. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509. 2 In accordance with the validation rules of the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, ‘non-governmental organisations’ are organisations which are voluntary, independent from government and non-profit, and which are not a political party of trade union: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/20212027/common/guidance/rules-lev-lear-fca_en.pdf. 3 Definition of non-profit entity from the validation rules of the EU Funding & Tenders Portal: ‘entity that is non-profit making by its legal form or legal purpose (e.g. charitable organisations), or that has a legal or statutory obligation not to distribute profits to its shareholders or members: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/rules-lev-lear-fca_en.pdf. 4 PIC 920504975 in the EU Funding & Tenders Portal – Participant register: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/orgdetails/920504975?order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=lastModified&keywords=terre%20d %27asile&isExactMatch=true&type=ORGANISATION&orgType=participant. 5 https://transparency-register.europa.eu/index_en.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-10-28 “P-003450/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The information concerning the reimbursed missions undertaken by the President of the Commission is publicly available 1 . The cost for this mission will also be made public once the billing process has been concluded. 2. On average thirteen passengers travelled on each flight. 3. In line with the data protection requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 2 , the Commission cannot share the requested personal data in the present case. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/mission.do?host=a2c7c963-a9ad-4c47-aa734bb46b06dd5d&missionsperiod=2025_4. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39-98: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj/eng.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2025-10-20 “E-003147/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently evaluating Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 1 , as required by Article 19(1) of the Regulation to prepare the review process. The Commission cannot commit to any specific contents of the review of the Regulation prior to the finalisation of this evaluation, which is due mid-2026. In parallel, the Commission has launched a structured reflection process for the review of the EU’s anti-fraud architecture, as outlined in the recent White Paper 2 on the subject. Both processes involve stakeholder consultation and provide an opportunity to collect input for a subsequent legislative review. The criteria that the Commission currently applies to draw up the list of successful candidates are clearly set in the vacancy notice which is published in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the external website of the Commission. The European Parliament and the Council were consulted on the draft vacancy notice before its publication. The Commission already takes into account the principle of gender equality in all its selection procedures. Implementing a possible obligation to provide a minimum number of suitable candidates, or a gender-balanced list, to be sent to the Parliament and the Council, may prove difficult in practice, as the number of eligible applications received after a publication is unpredictable. In this context, it should be stressed that merit remains the primary selection criterion. 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999, OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1, as amended. 2 White Paper for the Anti-fraud Architecture Review, COM(2025) 546 final.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Recruitment policies in the EU · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2025-10-13 “E-002854/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully committed to strengthening geographical balance, and work to address imbalances is ongoing. As outlined in the Mission Letter of the Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration, improving geographical balance remains a priority. In 2023, Joint Action Plans were agreed with each of the 15 underrepresented Member States (URMSs). While these Plans led to some slight positive trends, the 2024 assessment concluded that additional measures were needed. The Commission continues to implement the following measures: ensuring a more geographically balanced approach in selecting Blue Book Trainees; interviewing at least one candidate from an URMS when organising the selection of certain non-permanent posts; publishing non-permanent vacancies externally. Moreover, the Commission will extend the external publication to all temporary agent (TA) vacancies following the recently adopted TA decision C(2025)4716. With the New Recruitment Model, Commission services should interview a suitable candidate for Administrator posts from an URMS if one applies. In addition, the Commission intends to adopt General Implementing Provisions to Article 27 of Staff Regulations to enable the adoption of additional measures to strengthen geographical balance in the coming months. In 2024, the College of Heads of Administration (CCA) mandated an inter-institutional working group to identify and share the measures implemented to strengthen geographical balance, to exchange views on the results achieved, and to assess the feasibility of coordinated actions. As a result, it was decided to deepen collaboration between Institutions in the areas of outreach, data analytics and cooperation with Member States.”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• 2025-10-13 “E-001366/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Commission staff, as every European citizen, have the right to freedom of expression which is a fundamental right enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 1 and the European Convention of Human Rights, and embedded in the Staff Regulations 2 (Article 17a). Yet, this right is not absolute, and according to the EU Courts, a fair balance must be struck between staff members’ fundamental right to freedom of expression and their statutory duties as civil servants, such as those of loyalty, impartiality and confidentiality 3 . The latter are fundamental principles of, and ensure public trust in, the civil service. In case of breach of the statutory obligations set out in the Staff Regulations, staff members can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and penalties. The competent disciplinary authority imposed in the past penalties for the breach of the duty of loyalty, related to the nonrespect of the rules set out in Article 17a of the Staff Regulations. When a staff member is acting in their professional capacity (i.e., not in a private capacity as member of the general public) they are advised to seek internal means of expressions, e.g. express their personal views to the responsible hierarchy; approach the staff committee or a trade union; use the Commission internal online discussion forum, etc. However, staff members must avoid actions which may adversely reflect upon their position as a staff member 4 , i.e. refrain from any conduct that is detrimental to the dignity and respect due to the institution and its authorities and that may breach the relationship of trust between the staff and their institution 5 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng. 2 Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. 3 See for example judgment of the Court of 6 March 2001, Connolly v Commission, Case C‑274/99, paragraph 48: ‘In exercising their power of review, the Community Courts must decide, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, whether a fair balance has been struck between the individual's fundamental right to freedom of expression and the legitimate concern of the institution to ensure that its officials and agents observe the duties and responsibilities implicit in the performance of their tasks.’ 4 Article 12 of the Staff Regulations. 5 Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2017, Skareby v EEAS, Case T-585/16.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-10-08 “E-2622/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not allocated any funding to the art project mentioned in the question raised by the Honourable Member and exhibited in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The Commission funds the arts to promote EU values, including respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, to support cultural and creative sectors, foster societal cohesion, encourage innovation, and strengthen artistic freedom and working conditions for artists. Key principles include preserving artistic autonomy, fostering inclusive and diverse cultural participation, promoting cross-border collaboration through platforms and networks, and recognising the significant economic and social contributions of the arts.”
  EU-Ukraine relations · Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• 2025-10-08 “E-002216/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission As the Commission noted in its replies to written questions E-000411/2025 and P001177/2023, photographic coverage of College members’ activities across the EU is essential for informing citizens about the Commission’s work and ensuring transparency. All photos are provided to media free of charge on the Commission’s audiovisual portal 1 for news reporting or educational purposes. For the period from 1 December 2024 to 31 May 2025, the total expenditure for photographers was EUR 878 000, covering hundreds of events in all Member States and outside the EU. This includes salaries and travel costs. There is no expenditure for hairdressers charged to the EU budget. Make-up services are provided to prepare the Commissioners for their television studio interviews, press room appearances and video statements. Such services are included in the overall framework service contract to run the television studios at the Commission headquarters. For the period from 1 December 2024 to 31 May 2025, make-up service costs are expected to amount to EUR 56 000, in line with the dedicated budget foreseen under this contract. These services are used by all members of the College. Make-up services are also available for Commission staff when conducting television interviews, participating in video recordings and similar activities. The Commission is committed to transparency and sound financial management. Information regarding the procurement of such services is publicly available on the Financial Transparency System 2 . 1 https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Budget for EU politicians
• 2025-10-07 “E-003095/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully committed to respecting the linguistic diversity of the EU and cooperates closely with the different linguistic services of the EU institutions to that effect. 1. The Commission recognises the importance of supporting interpreters in adapting to technological advancements, including Artificial Intelligence. This involves engaging in dialogues with interpreters and industry experts, establishing adequate upskilling strategies, and ensuring that technological tools support and complement, rather than replace, human expertise. 2. The Commission is aware of concerns about the future of the interpreting profession and acknowledges the need to attract talented individuals. The Commission actively supports awareness campaigns and a wide array of initiatives to highlight the value of multilingualism and the opportunities available in the interpreting field. The interpretation services of the EU institutions recruit interpreters in line with their specific needs. 3. Specialised academic curricula are vital to ensure that institutions have access to qualified interpreters to meet their multilingual needs. The Commission values the well-established cooperation between EU institutions and universities to train interpreters in language combinations required by the institutions. It provides support through networks, consortia, training assistance, bursaries and grants.”
  Multilingualism in EU institutions
• 2025-10-03 “E-002868/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to transparency in its activities, applying strict rules concerning interest representation and publishing information on all meetings held with interest representatives. This applies regardless of whether the interest representatives are from the EU or from a third country, and irrespective of where the meeting is held. As of 1 January 2025, these transparency rules also apply to all Commission staff with management functions 1 . To protect the EU’s international relations, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations are not covered by these rules, with transparency maintained through press releases and social media where possible. Article 163 of the Financial Regulation 2 provides for the principle of transparency which must be respected throughout all phases of the process. Contacts with tenderers are allowed exceptionally in the circumstances provided by Article 172, also considering the type of procurement procedure. These contacts must always take place in writing and all records of them must be kept in the procurement file. Records of the meetings and contacts with tenderers in a procurement procedure are subject to the rules on access to documents. As a general rule, the date of the meeting is accessible after the signature of contract, however the minutes of the meeting and other content related information may be refused if they fall under the exceptions provided in art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 3 . The content of tenders or specific offers of a tenderer benefit from a presumption of non-accessibility for a period of five years, but they can be protected even longer with additional specific justification. NGO funding contracts, like other funding contracts, are not public documents. The Commission has provided access to the European Parliament in full compliance with the applicable legal framework 4 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202403081. and https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202403082. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj/eng. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-09-22 “E-002969/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission All policy programmes financed by debt issuances are determined in line with the relevant procedures outlined in the treaties. This includes the use of the procedure under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 1 , which allows for swift EU responses in exceptional circumstances, as in the case of the short-term employment schemes 2 and the Security Action for Europe 3 programmes. In line with the joint declaration made in December 2020 by the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission 4 , the European Parliament is able to fully exercise its role as the budgetary authority. In addition, the Commission regularly and transparently informs the European Parliament and the Council on its borrowing operations, through a series of reports 5 covering all EU borrowing and lending programmes and through regular interinstitutional meetings throughout the year. The Commission also provides information to investors and other external stakeholders on its borrowing activities and on the general institutional framework of the EU, which includes the European Parliament. Such information can be found in the general investor presentation in the Commission’s webpage 6 as well as in the specialised offering circular publicly available in the Luxembourg Stock Exchange website 7 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_122/oj/eng. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/eu-borrower-investor-relations/sure_en. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/eu-borrower-investor-relations/safe_en. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.CI.2020.444.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2020%3A444I%3AFU LL. 5 They include semi-annual report on borrowing and lending operations, quarterly report on borrowing and lending operations sent to the European Parliament and the Council on a voluntary basis, annual report on contingent liabilities (COM(2024) 507 final), annex to the Annual Budget on borrowing-and-lending operations, and budgetary transparency report. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/eu-borrower-investor-relations/investorpresentation_en. 7 https://www.luxse.com/issuer/UE/24055.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU political integration
• 2025-09-16 “E-003036/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The proposed Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource (TEDOR) is not a tax but a revenue source for the EU budget that builds on the Tobacco Taxation Directive 1 . The own resource does not define the scope of tobacco taxation. It solely specifies that a certain share or revenues from tobacco taxes will go to the EU budget. Therefore, the proposal 2 for a Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource concerns manufactured tobacco and tobacco related products released for consumption as defined in the provisons of the proposed in the Tobaco Taxation Directive. The revised Directive will not harmonise taxation rules on tobacco for oral use, known as snus. However, nicotine pouches fall within the scope of the Directive and will be accounted for in the calculation of the base for the Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource. For a matter of equal treatment of Member States aiming at a fair collection of the Tobacco Excise Duty Own Resource, without pre-empting the result of the ongoing negotiations, the Commission has no intention to propose any exemption to Member States for the application of the Directive and the collection of the related own resource. 1 Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco, OJ L 176, 5.7.2011, p. 24–36. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2025:574:FIN.”
  Regulation on New Oral Nicotine Products · Smoking regulation
• 2025-09-15 “E-002739/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is neither involved in nor informed of European Anti-fraud Office’s (OLAF) and European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s (EPPO) operational decisions and therefore cannot comment on specific cases. OLAF conducts its investigative work in full independence, in accordance with Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 1 . Likewise, the EPPO is fully independent from the Commission and all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 2 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/883/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1939/oj/eng.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Rule of law in Malta
• 2025-09-11 “E-003055/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) 1 seeks to establish an investment capacity to bolster European competitiveness in technologies and strategic sectors critical to the EU competitiveness. Efficient processes, input from relevant stakeholders, and a solid governance structure will be key to its success. The Commission will ensure effective management and accountability of the ECF, vis-à-vis the budgetary authority, making use of its prerogatives as regards its internal working methods and procedures. In particular, the leadership of the ECF and the participation of the various Directorates-General equipped with the relevant expertise will be confirmed by the Commission in due course and in time to ensure a smooth operational transition towards the new set-up. The operational timing of the drafting of the work programmes is to be set. The final texts adopted by the co-legislators as part of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) package will certainly be a key determining factor. At this stage, the Commission can confirm the ambition to prepare work programmes in a timeframe allowing an adequate transition to the next MFF period, including in terms of visibility for potential beneficiaries and key stakeholders. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0555.”
  Size of EU budget · EU industrial funding · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-09-10 “E-002773/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member may find in the Annex a more detailed breakdown per programme with specific dates on which payments to Hungary were made and what amounts were transferred. The data has been sourced from ABAC (Accrual-Based Accounting System 1 ), the Commission´s financial management information system and covers the timeframe from December 2022 until December 2024. This is to ensure that only fully audited data of already closed financial years are shown. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/eu-budget-glossary-2019_en.pdf.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-09-10 “E-003104/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The own resource based on e-waste is not a tax, but a national contribution based on statistical data. As such there is no direct cost for the Swedish taxpayer. Member States are however free to put in place measures or initiatives to increase the collection of e-waste. The Commission has not conducted a formal impact assessment on the administrative costs for Member States. However, it believes that the administrative burden is limited as Member States already have the obligation to provide data necessary to calculate the own resource to Eurostat in the context of the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment 1 . The choice to propose an e-waste own resource is linked to its possible positive impact on the EU’s competitiveness and environmental policy. A new own resource based on the amount of non-collected e-waste would help protect the environment and support the Union’s strategic autonomy in critical raw materials. E-waste represents one of the fastest growing waste streams. Critical raw materials such as copper, platinum, and rare earth elements can be recycled when waste is managed effectively. At the same time, e-waste contains hazardous materials such as heavy metals and chemical substances, which pose severe environmental and health risks, if not properly collected and treated. Despite progress in recycling, the collection rate remains significantly below the policy targets set out in the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment. In relation to plastic bags (e.g. shopping bags), they are already covered by the own resource on the existing plastic packaging waste generated in each Member State that is not recycled (EUR 0,80 per kilogram). 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0019.”
  Own EU resources · Climate efforts
• 2025-09-09 “E-003019/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The 2021-2027 multi-annual financial framework (MFF) budget for the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) programmes is 17% lower, in current prices, compared to the previous MFF. Over 2021-2025, it has been reinforced with EUR 10 million from the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor programme 1 in 2023. There were few minor transfers (about EUR 1 million a year) from the Euratom programme to Horizon Europe. There were thus no significant changes. The Commission acknowledges that Member States might have different views on the role of nuclear energy. However, a sound scientific and technical basis for the safe operation of reactors and management of radioactive waste is crucial for those Member States that include nuclear energy as part of their energy mix, and for those that need reassurance that nuclear power plants in neighbouring countries respect the highest safety standards. In addition, the Euratom programme supports research and innovation in other related fields, including health and medicine. Therefore, the European public at large benefits from Euratom-funded research. Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty 2 provides that Community research and training programmes have to be adopted by unanimity in the Council. This ensures that any research activity foreseen is in the interest of and approved by all Member States. Moreover, during implementation, in the preparation of work programmes, the Commission is assisted by a programme committee of Member States to achieve the largest possible agreement. The procedure used requires approval from said committee before the Commission can adopt the work programmes. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/iter_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:11957A007.”
  Nuclear energy
• 2025-09-05 “E-003102/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission remains firmly committed to ensuring the EU’s continued financial support to Ukraine for as long as it takes. As a matter of fact, the proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 1 is designed to enable the EU to cater for Ukraine's exceptional and unpredictable needs in the context of Russia's war of aggression, while ensuring that Ukraine is adequately supported towards its EU accession path. In line with its responsibilities under the Treaties, the Commission will assess all possible scenarios concerning the timeline of the MFF negotiations with a view to ensuring continuity of financial assistance. The timely agreement on the MFF has always proven essential to ensure predictability and continuity in the EU’s priorities, and support to Ukraine is a clear case in point. In this context, the Commission counts on the close cooperation of the European Parliament and the Council to reach an agreement on the 2028–2034 MFF package, thereby ensuring that the necessary resources can be mobilised without interruption. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term) · Size of EU budget
• 2025-09-01 “P-002530/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The elements described are too broad for the Commission to determine a link to a specific measure under the Spanish recovery and resilience plan. They may refer to target 31 under measure C2.I2 (Construction of social rented housing in energy-efficient buildings). However, this target is part of the ninth payment request and has not yet been assessed, nor has Spain submitted the related evidence. In any case, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure they protect the financial interests of the Union (Article 22.1 of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RFF) Regulation 1 ), including making corrections and, where necessary, taking legal action to recover misappropriated funds (Article 22.2.b of the RRF Regulation, with accompanying provisions in the RRF Financing Agreement). 2. There is no legal obligation for Member States to report irregularities related to the Recovery and Resilience Facility through the Irregularity Management System (IMS). However, all Member States have the option to use the IMS on a voluntary basis. So far, Spain has not reported possible irregularities related to this matter in the IMS, though it may still do so later in line with national procedures. 3. Protecting the EU’s financial interests relies notably on national control systems and judicial authorities. They must collect data on final recipients of funds for audit purposes and act in cases of suspected fraud. The Commission cooperates with these authorities, can suspend payments, impose financial corrections, and recover disbursed funds. If a serious irregularity is detected and not rectified by the Member State, the Commission intervenes and cooperates with the European Anti-fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, OJ L 57, 18.2.2021.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Rule of law in Spain
• 2025-09-01 “E-002791/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is bound by the EU Treaties, which enshrine values of equality and nondiscrimination. The Commission implements EU interventions and funding activities accordingly. The Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 1 sets expenditure targets for climate and biodiversity, and tracks expenditure supporting gender equality. It also requires strengthening the assessment of gender equality. Currently, sectoral regulations include objectives related to climate action and gender equality. For the next MFF, Article 33 of the Financial Regulation 2 requires that programmes and activities be implemented in line with the principle of gender equality, and that gender-disaggregated data be collected, where appropriate. Under the Financial Regulation, the award of EU funds is subject to respecting the legal requirements of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination 3 . There is no requirement that a recipient of EU funding endorses any ideology. Under Article 138 of the Financial Regulation, applicants are excluded from participating in award procedures or from implementing EU funds if they are found guilty of grave professional misconduct, which includes having engaged in incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons or a member of a group or activities that are contrary to the values under Article 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 4 . Specific award criteria are set to assess the quality of the proposals in line with the objectives and priorities of the relevant EU programmes. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020Q1222(01). 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202402509. 3 See Article 163 of the Financial Regulation for procurement and Article 191 of the Financial Regulation for grants. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_2&format=PDF.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2025-08-28 “P-003079/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission According to the Financial Transparency System (FTS) public website 1 , Check First participates in one completed and one ongoing project. For the completed project, the beneficiary contracted amount is EUR 105 629. For the ongoing project, beneficiary’s contracted amount is not available in the Commission´s financial management system, however the commitment contracted amount relates to: EUR 3 270 000. Please see the Annex for further terminology information and project details as well as FTS website consultation/extraction information. The Commission does not interfere with the independence of fact-checking organisations. When applying for EU funding, these organisations are required to provide evidence regarding their adherence to the highest ethical and professional standards such those prescribed by the European Fact-Checking Standard Network 2 . 1 The Financial Transparency System, https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html. 2 Code of Standards – European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), https://efcsn.com/code-ofstandards/.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-08-28 “E-002824/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The new Connecting Europe Facility, as part of the proposals on 16 July 2025 in relation to the next multiannual Financial Framework, will contribute to finance the completion of the Trans-European Networks and foster the EU’s clean transition in energy and transport. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the need to decouple from Russian fossil fuels have underlined the vital importance of a genuine Energy Union and well-integrated EU infrastructure networks. The Connecting Europe Facility will give a renewed impulse to these essential investments in Europe’s resilience and security, including by supporting projects in the least connected parts of the Union, such as islands and the outermost regions. It will invest in cross-border interconnectors and grids, cross-border transport connections, offshore networks, renewable energy sources and storage and alternative fuels infrastructure, supporting the Union’s climate ambitions. The Facility will also fund dual-use civilian-military transport projects to enable seamless military mobility throughout the EU, a prerequisite for a stronger and better prepared European Defence Union. The proposed financial envelope for the implementation of the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2028- 2034 is set at EUR 81.4 billion in current prices, with EUR 51.5 billion for the specific objectives on transport and military mobility and EUR 29.9 billion for the specific objectives on energy.”
  EU funding for transportation · EU transport infrastructure integration
• 2025-08-28 “E-002515/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Gross National Income (GNI)-based contributions from Member States are the largest revenue source for the EU budget. As outlined in the Communication ‘A dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034’ 1 , a modernisation of EU financing is proposed, including an enhanced new own resources package that will diversify the revenue sources to the EU budget. The power to levy and set taxes is a national competence. The EU does have autonomous powers of establishing new categories of own resources to finance the EU budget. It must be agreed unanimously by all Member States and approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional traditions. The EU budget is not a simple accounting exercise of who pays and who receives. It serves as a collective investment tool, addressing cross-border challenges and delivering European added value in areas like competitiveness, climate resilience, security and cohesion. The EU budget creates an added value for all, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. With its reduced number of programmes, harmonised rules, stronger focus on performance and increased synergies and flexibility, the Commission’s proposal for the multiannual financial framework 2028-2034 2 aims at more efficient allocation of resources by simplifying procedures and reducing administrative burden for beneficiaries and Member States. This will enable the allocation of resources to high-impact projects, support efficient spending programmes, and optimize administrative processes, ultimately maximizing value of every euro invested. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0570. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/multiannual-financial-framework_en.”
  Own EU resources · Size of EU budget · Accounting and auditing of EU budget