Luxembourg, 10 February 2026
On Tuesday, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has issued two opinions on the European Commission’s legislative proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF). The first focuses on the new Global Europe Regulation, and the second on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response. The aim of these two proposals is to shape how the EU finances its external action, crisis response and emergency preparedness from the next long-term budget.
The proposed Global Europe Regulation would enter into force in 2028, and would merge several external action instruments from the 2021-2027 period. These include international partnerships, the European Neighbourhood, pre-accession assistance, facilities for Ukraine, the Western Balkans and Moldova, and funding for humanitarian aid. The proposal is to allocate €200.3 billion for 2028-2034 (a nominal increase of around 70 % compared to the current MFF), including €25 billion for humanitarian aid.
Global Europe would also serve as the framework for Ukraine’s reconstruction and pre-accession support, and for mobilising further public and private investment. Up to €100 billion could be provided as loans or – through the Ukraine Reserve – as grants or provisioning for budgetary guarantees.
The auditors highlight potential consequences of the proposal that could impact the financial management of EU funding.
- The proposed allocation of €200.3 billion is not backed up by a quantitative analysis. The proposal provides the flexibility to re-allocate resources across geographical areas and policy objectives, but might also result in an unfocused approach to funding or limit the predictability of the amounts available for partner countries.
- The large volume of subsidised loans envisaged for Ukraine would increase EU borrowing, and without provisioning, losses would be covered directly by the “headroom” built into the EU budget, which would entail considerable risk.
- Unless clearly defined, the greater flexibility of implementation, notably the possibility of direct award for strategic investments, could weaken the principles of competition, transparency and equal treatment.
- Allowing private entities to participate in the management of budgetary guarantees could further expose the EU budget to potential (contingent) liabilities.
The auditors also urge the Commission to make use of past experience to enhance performance orientation, accountability and transparency in the design of “performance-based plans” with enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood partners, particularly under the “financing not linked to costs” approach. In addition, they note that, despite the substantial amounts involved, the procedure for adopting “policy-based loans” and “performance-based plans” provides for little formal involvement by the European Parliament and the Council. Finally, in view of the restrictions that some implementing bodies have repeatedly placed on the ECA’s access to audit documentation, the auditors recommend explicitly embedding the ECA’s audit rights in the new regulation.
The Commission wishes to extend the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) into the 2028-2034 period, but with a significantly larger budget and wider scope. Thus the proposal would include bringing funding for health emergency preparedness and response (HEPR), under the same umbrella and potentially widen participation to non-EU countries. It would also introduce a new “EU crisis coordination hub”, and grants would be delivered, by default, through financing not linked to costs. The indicative total budget for the UCPM and HEPR is €10.7 billion.
The auditors raise concerns about:
- the proposal’s complementarity with other EU programmes;
- the lack of a cost analysis justifying the expanded budget; and
- the impact of broad flexibility without pre-defined budget allocations between civil protection and health emergencies, and between prevention, preparedness and response.
They also question how the crisis coordination hub would operate alongside existing structures, draw attention to weaknesses in performance indicators, warn of compliance risks linked to financing not linked to costs, and ask for their audit rights to be explicitly set out in the new regulation.
Background information
On 16 July 2025, as part of preparations for the EU’s next long-term budget, the European Commission presented a series of legislative proposals for EU financial rules and instruments. The European Parliament and the Council approached the ECA for its views ahead of their own examination of the proposals. It is in this context that the EU auditors have provided independent expert advice on the proposed regulations.
The opinions being published today form part of a broader series examining the proposals for the 2028-2034 MFF. The ECA has already issued opinions on the proposed European Competitiveness Fund, Horizon Europe, MFF Regulation, EU’s new own resources, new common agricultural policy, and will publish further opinions on the MFF proposals in the course of February and March. All opinions are published on the ECA website, first in English and shortly afterwards in the other EU languages.
Related links
Source – ECA