Opportunities for the post-2027 multiannual financial framework.
Date: 2025-07-23
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU budget, EU expenditure, budgetary expenditure, financial management, financial transparency, multiannual financial framework, own resources, performance measurement, report, rule of law

Review 

 

EN 

Opportunities for the 
post-2027 Multiannual 
Financial Framework 

 

2 

Paragraph 

01-08

09-42

09-17

09-12

13-15

16-17

18-22

20

21-22

23-25

26-34

26-27

28-31

32-34

35-40

36-37

38-40

41-42

Contents 

Main messages 

A closer look 

EU budget focus and impact 

Measuring performance 

EU Added Value 

Leveraging the EU budget to increase the EU’s financial capacity 

EU budget simplification 

Simplification of the EU budget and budgetary instruments 

Simplification of the rules governing EU budgetary expenditure 

EU budget flexibility 

A budget that delivers on EU policy priorities 

The European Semester and a policy-based budget 

Financing not linked to costs: the RRF experience 

The principle of rule of law in the EU budget 

The financing of the EU budget 

The challenges related to EU borrowing 

The EU’s own resources 

Accountability arrangements 

Abbreviations 

Glossary 

ECA team 

3 

Main messages 

01 The Commission’s communication “The road to the next multiannual financial
framework (MFF)” (“the Communication”) is a key milestone for the design of the 
post-2027 MFF. The Commission intends to present its proposal for the new MFF in 
July 2025. The Communication highlights the policy challenges that the next MFF will 
face and provides guidance on the preparation of the MFF proposal. 

02 This review is not an audit but presents our views on the main principles of the
Communication. They are based on our knowledge and audit experience concerning 
EU budgetary revenue and expenditure. We set out opportunities for the Commission 
to take into account when finalising the MFF proposal and that can be considered by 
the European Parliament, the Council and national governments. In the second 
semester of 20251, we plan to present our views on the Commission’s package of 
proposals for the next MFF. 

03 In the Communication, the Commission notes that the European Union’s (EU)
budget should be more focused and have greater impact. In our view, while we do not 
consider the RRF a performance-based instrument, the next MFF will provide an 
opportunity to design a new performance measuring framework more focused on 
results and data reliability (see paragraphs 09-12). Additionally, we stress the 
opportunity to agree on a definition of EU added value and to take account of it 
systematically in funding decisions (see paragraphs 13-15). We also believe that there 
is scope to improve methodologies for estimating investment mobilization and for 
demonstrating additionality through EU budgetary guarantees (see paragraphs 16-17). 

04 We support the Commission’s intention to simplify the EU budget. However, this
should not come at the expense of accountability in the use of EU funds. The 
integration of any new instruments within the EU budget is necessary to streamline 
the EU’s financial landscape (see paragraphs 18-22). 

05 The Commission warns that as the EU tackles the challenges posed by a series of
crises, the pressure for quick and effective EU-level response mechanisms will 
increase. In our view, the next MFF brings the opportunity to examine the flexibility of 
the EU budget to ensure both a sufficient degree of predictability and the ability to 
react promptly and proportionately to changing circumstances (see paragraphs 23-25). 

1  ECA 2025+ Work Programme. 

4 

06 We highlight the opportunity to strengthen the link between EU funds supporting
the reform of recurring structural challenges, while taking into account national and 
regional specificities (see paragraphs 26-27). As regards financing not linked to costs, 
we refer to our extensive work on the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the lessons 
to be learned from its design and implementation. We identified weaknesses 
concerning the focus on performance, the funding of zero-cost measures, the 
definition of payment and eligibility conditions, the need for clear supervision and 
control responsibilities and the protection of the financial interest of the EU including 
compliance with EU and national rules (see paragraphs 28-31). Our work has also 
identified opportunities to strengthen the principle of rule of law in the next MFF (see 
paragraphs 32-34). 

07 The financing needs will be high if new priorities need to be financed and existing
policies remain at their current expenditure levels, while meeting the increasing 
borrowing-related obligations. If the possibility of borrowing is considered in the next 
MFF, it would be important to clearly establish the financing needs and sources, 
mitigate risks, and prepare a repayment plan in advance. At the same time the EU's 
main revenue streams should be stable and simplified where possible (see paragraphs 
35-40).

08 We highlight the importance of external audit to ensure proper accountability
and transparency in a context where the expectations on the EU budget to deliver are 
high (see paragraphs 41-42). 

5 

A closer look 

EU budget focus and impact 

Measuring performance 

09 In its Communication, the Commission notes that a stronger focus on
performance has helped align EU policy objectives and its spending 2. An EU budget 
with a stronger focus on performance requires a reliable measurement of results and 
impact. We often3 reported on the insufficiency of information on the impact of        
EU action, since the performance frameworks tend to focus on outputs. Furthermore, 
performance data submitted by member states were not completely reliable4. 

10 The Commission stresses in its Communication that, while the EU budget has
promoted horizontal priorities, such as climate action, biodiversity and gender 
equality, and helped develop a stronger performance framework, there is still room for 
improvement5. 

11 We found that the Commission Annual Management and Performance Reports
were overly positive on the progress made towards mainstreaming targets6. 

12 We also identified that the extent to which cross-cutting priorities have been
incorporated into the spending programmes varies significantly, with gender equality 
being the least integrated. Only the climate objective has specific budget targets and 
monitoring mechanisms, but we considered that the EU budget’s contribution to 
climate and biodiversity was overstated7. 

2 The Communication, page 8. 

3 2019, 2020 and 2021 annual reports on performance. 

4 2023 annual report, chapter 3, paragraph 3.59. 

5 The Communication, page 9. 

6 Report on the performance of the EU budget – Status at the end of 2021, paragraph 1.43. 

7

Ibid., paragraph 2.9-2.12. 

6 

EU Added Value 

13 The Commission states that the future EU budget should focus on common
challenges where spending at European level generates the highest EU added value8. 

14 While the principle of subsidiarity is defined in the Treaty, there is no definition of
EU added value in the current EU legislation9. In our opinion 01/2010, we pointed out 
that, to be fully effective, the concept of EU added value should be understood in the 
same way by all EU institutions, and articulated in an appropriate political declaration 
or EU legislation. EU added value can only be measured effectively if it is clearly 
defined and applied consistently. 

15 We noted that, although the Commission identified the concept of EU added
value as a guiding principle in the spending review exercise for the current MFF, it did 
not include an assessment of the EU added value of EU programmes10. 

Leveraging the EU budget to increase the EU’s financial capacity 

16 According to the Communication, the EU needs to make better use of its budget
to leverage private and public financing. There is further scope for increasing the 
additionality of EU spending through InvestEU, the successor to the European Fund for 
Strategic Investments (EFSI)11. 

17 Our recent audit on EFSI12 concluded that it contributed substantially to
addressing the EU’s investment gap. However, the methodology used to calculate the 
investment mobilised had weaknesses resulting in a 26 % overestimation of the 
reported amount. Furthermore, the additionality of the investments the EFSI mobilised 
was insufficiently demonstrated. 

8  The Communication, page 2. 

9  ECA Briefing Papers of February 2018, paragraph 33, and July 2018, paragraph 26. 

10  Ibid. 

11  The Communication, pages 7 and 8. 

12  Special report 07/2025, Executive summary, paragraph IV. 

7 

Box 1 

Opportunities for a more focused budget with greater impact: 

(1) Measuring performance

(a) To design a performance framework based on reliable information, that

focusses on results and impact rather than outputs.

(b) To improve the reporting on mainstreaming targets in the Annual

Management and Performance Report and programme statements.

(c)

In case horizontal priorities are defined, to systematically set up
monitoring mechanisms to track expenditure.

(2) EU added value

(a) To clearly define the concept of EU added value in the legislation and

apply it consistently and systematically when allocating EU funds to
programmes and initiatives.

(b) To ensure that the EU added value of EU spending is evaluated ex post.

(3)

Leveraging the EU budget to increase the EU’s financing capacity

(a) To improve the methodology for estimating the amount and

demonstrating the additionality of the investment mobilised by EU
budgetary guarantees.

EU budget simplification 

18 According to the Communication, fragmentation of the EU budget, coupled with
complexity and rigidity, weighs on the effectiveness of EU funding13. 

19 Simplifying EU budget instruments, rules and procedures can increase
transparency, reduce the administrative burden and improve fund absorption. 
However, this should not come at the expense of accountability, effectiveness, 
efficiency, and economy. 

13  The Communication, page 6. 

8 

Simplification of the EU budget and budgetary instruments 

20 In our special report 05/2023, we highlighted that the EU’s current financial
landscape is a complex patchwork of various instruments, many of which were created 
in response to crises and therefore without adequate prior evaluation. This has led to 
diverse governance arrangements and in some cases inadequate public accountability 
arrangements. 

Simplification of the rules governing EU budgetary expenditure 

21 The ECA has long advocated for simpler rules, which could lead to more efficient
spending, while also reducing the risk of irregularities. Our annual reports have 
repeatedly demonstrated that the risk of error is higher for expenditure subject to 
complex rules. In our special report 28/2023, we concluded that public procurement 
has not become simpler to administer and the related administrative burden is 
perceived as heavy by both, bidders and contracting authorities. Our analysis showed 
that current contract award procedures take significantly longer than they did ten 
years ago. At the same time, in our annual reports we identified irregularities in public 
procurement procedures as one of the main contributors to the error rate. 

22 The complexity of the rules together with the late adoption of regulatory
framework and operational programmes, overlapping of program periods14 and the 
parallel implementation of multiple funding streams can also impede the timely 
absorption of EU funds. We noted previously that absorption of funds would be 
particularly challenging over the 2021-2027 period, following the introduction of the 
RRF15. In 2023, total payments for shared management funds under the Common 
Provisions Regulation accounted for only 3.2 % of the total amount of the 2021-2027 
MFF. Moreover, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development payments under 
the new Common Agriculture Policy, which started in 2023, showed an absorption rate 
of only 1 % at the end of the first year16. 

14  Special report 17/2018, paragraphs III, IV, 14-22. 

15  Special report 13/2024, paragraph 44. 

16  2023 annual report, chapter 2, paragraph 2.70. 

9 

Box 2 

Opportunities for simplification 

(1) To ensure that the EU’s financial landscape is simplified, by consolidating or

including any new instruments inside the EU budget.

(2) To decrease the complexity of the management and control systems needed

to manage EU funds while ensuring accountability.

(3) To simplify further the public procurement arrangements with a view to

reducing the administrative burden and irregularities.

EU budget flexibility 

23 In the Communication, the Commission recognises the importance of the in-built
flexibilities and re-programming mechanisms as means to address the major recent 
crises17. 

24 It is also important that the next MFF’s flexibility arrangements ensure
accountability and transparency in the use of the EU funds and strike a balance 
between predictability and flexibility18. 

25 In a forthcoming special report, we will present our views on the flexibility
mechanisms of the EU budget and provide recommendations in this area. 

Box 3 

Opportunities for EU budget flexibility 

(1) To provide sufficient information on the flexibility needs to support
decision-making for the design of the future EU MFF flexibility.

(2) To simplify the MFF flexibility framework.

17  The Communication, pages 10 and 11. 

18  EPRS report: How flexible is the EU budget? 

10 

A budget that delivers on EU policy priorities 

The European Semester and a policy-based budget 

26 In the Communication, the Commission states that, in aligning policy objectives
with spending priorities, the European Semester framework strengthens the impact of 
common EU action. According to the Commission, the newly proposed 
Competitiveness Coordination Tool, together with a streamlined European Semester 
focused on reforms and investments at national level, will form part of a mechanism to 
inform decisions on investments and reforms at both EU and national level19. 

27 In our special report 16/2020, we concluded that full or even substantial
implementation of Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) by member states was 
low. We also noted that the link to EU fund-supported reforms was not developed 
enough. With the RRF, member states were required to include reforms and 
investments in their national recovery and resilience plans that address “all or a 
significant subset” of the challenges identified in the relevant CSRs. The Commission’s 
assessment concluded that these plans contributed to this objective. However, we 
have noted previously that some important elements of the CSRs – largely related to 
recurring structural challenges – remained unaddressed20. Furthermore, in the 
recovery and resilience plans, we found a lack of harmonized approach in setting 
milestones and targets, which affected comparability across member states and posed 
a risk of unequal treatment21. 

Box 4 

Opportunities for the European Semester 

(1) To strengthen the link between EU funds supporting the reform of recurring

structural challenges in member states and CSRs.

(2) To ensure that expected reforms take into account national and regional
specificities while guaranteeing equal treatment of member states.

19  The Communication, page 5. 

20  Special report 10/2025, paragraph 75. 

21  Special report 21/2022, paragraph 90. 

11 

Financing not linked to costs: the RRF experience 

28 The Commission considers that the next EU budget should place greater focus on
performance, and that the delivery model of financing not linked to costs improves the 
performance of EU spending22. The main instrument under this model is the RRF. Our 
audits revealed weaknesses regarding its design, implementation and effectiveness, as 
well as accountability. Our recent review of this topic23 provided an overview of key 
observations arising from our work on the RRF as well as lessons for the next MFF. 

29 The RRF Regulation refers to the Fund’s “performance-based nature”. We
consider that the RRF focuses on implementation progress rather than on results and it 
is therefore not a performance-based instrument24. Furthermore, the RRF also involves 
the funding of zero-cost measures, which were not explicitly provided for in the legal 
framework25. They generally concern reforms that, in our view, could alternatively be 
promoted by setting conditionalities when funding investments26. 

30 Our work shows that the RRF does not have a sufficiently robust compliance
framework and there are some challenges in ensuring the protection of the EU’s 
financial interests27. Ambiguities in the RRF legal framework and vaguely defined 
milestones and targets led to differing interpretations when assessing their fulfilment. 
The Commission mainly relies on the member states’ systems to prevent, detect and 
correct cases of serious irregularities and non-compliance with EU and national rules28. 
It nevertheless implements the RRF in direct management with the member states as 
beneficiaries. Furthermore, our experience with other EU spending programmes 
showed that the member states systems have insufficiently prevented non-compliance 
with EU and national rules. This constitutes a significant risk29. 

31 Traceability of funds spent is an important element for the effective protection of
the EU financial interests. Except for serious irregularities, the RRF Regulation does not 

22  The Communication, page 9. 

23  Review 02/2025. 

24  Ibid., paragraph 11. 

25  Special report 22/2024, paragraph 103 and recommendation 2. 

26  Special report 15/2017, recommendation 1. 

27  Review 02/2025, paragraph 15. 

28  Review 02/2025, page 10. 

29  Special report 07/2023, paragraph 34. 

require member states to recover funds in cases where EU funds have not been spent 
in line with EU or national rules or where measures have not been fully completed. 
There is also no co-financing requirement under the RRF. In our view, co-financing 
might increase a member states or recipient’s commitment and sense of ownership30. 

12 

Box 5 

Opportunities concerning financing not linked to costs31 

(1) To clearly link funding to results. If this is not possible, such a system should

not be applied.

(2) To ensure that performance-orientation goes beyond specifying payment

conditions, such as milestones and targets, and includes all elements needed
for the assessment of effectiveness and efficiency.

(3) To avoid zero-cost measures and consider other alternatives, such as

enabling conditions linked to reforms relevant to the investments supported.

(4) To ensure that the payment conditions are unambiguous and include

compliance with EU and national rules.

(5) To clearly define the Commission and member states’ supervision and control
responsibilities to ensure proper accountability, transparency and compliance
with the national rules. This involves defining minimum requirements for
member state controls and Commission checks before the implementation
begins. This could be ensured by defining the roles and responsibilities of the
member states similarly to the shared management mode, where they hold
significant responsibility in securing the EU financial interests.

(6) To require full traceability of funding.

(7) To enable the recovery of funding in cases where funds provided are

disproportionate to achievements or where funds have not been spent in line
with EU or national rules.

30  Review 02/2025, paragraph 78. 

31  See also review 02/2025, paragraphs 8-23. 

13 

The principle of rule of law in the EU budget 

32 The Commission recognises the importance of the principle of rule of law in
protecting the financial interests of the EU. It also acknowledges the need to 
strengthen the link between the recommendations in the Rule of Law Report and 
financial support under the EU budget in the next MFF32. 

33 In our special report 03/2024, we observed that the Conditionality Regulation
enhanced the EU's framework for protecting its financial interests against breaches of 
the rule of law. However, we concluded that a member state’s formal compliance with 
remedial measures may not necessarily result in effective improvements. There is also 
a risk of remedial measures being reversed, or of deterioration in other aspects of the 
rule of law. 

34 In our review 02/2024, we underscored the importance of the Rule of Law Report
as a preventive tool, but identified areas for improvement, including transparency and 
accountability through more publicly available information on methodology and 
assessment. We also stressed the need for clear, actionable recommendations, as well 
as effective follow-up and implementation of those recommendations. 

Box 6 

Opportunities for strengthening the rule of law 

(1) To ensure that additional protective measures address any gaps identified

that undermine the effectiveness of the rule of law framework.

(2) To make more information publicly available on the rule of law reporting

methodology and the Commission’s assessment, to enhance transparency
and accountability.

The financing of the EU budget 

35 Financing existing policies at current levels, while adding new priorities and
meeting the increasing borrowing-related obligations will put significant pressure on 
EU finances. In addition to funding from current own resources instruments could be 
financed by using money raised in the capital markets, increasing the current level of 

32  The Communication, pages 11-12. 

14 

own resources, deciding on new own resources, improving the collection of custom 
duties33 and Value Added Tax34 or by reprioritisation. 

The challenges related to EU borrowing 

36 The Communication refers to the repayment of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU)
and the need for additional resources to fund an ambitious EU budget35. EU debt and 
exposure have increased significantly over the current MFF period36, primarily due to 
borrowings for the NGEU instrument. The repayment of these loans will commence by 
2028 and must be completed by 2058. The amount of principal and interest to be 
repaid over the next MFF was estimated at €25-30 billion per year. Furthermore, due 
to an increase in interest rates, in 2023 the Commission estimated that the additional 
costs of borrowing for NGEU grants in this MFF would range from €17 to 27 billion37. 

37 This will put substantial pressure on future EU budgets38. Any increase in
borrowing requires the establishment of a sound debt management strategy and risk 
mitigation. In our special report 16/2023, we observed that the Commission swiftly 
established a debt management system for the NGEU borrowing. However, we 
recommended that the Commission sets clear objectives and improve performance 
measurement and reporting. The Commission considers that it has implemented these 
recommendations. 

The EU’s own resources 

38 In its Communication, the Commission comments on modernising revenue
collection for the EU budget, and its revised proposals for the Emissions Trading 
System (ETS) and Carbon -Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the own 
resource linked to company profits in the corporate sector39. 

33  Special report 04/2021. 

34  Special report 08/2025. 

35  The Communication, page 12. 

36  2023 annual report, chapter 2. 

37  Ibid. 

38  Review 02/2025, paragraphs 23. 

39  The Communication, page 12. 

15 

39 We have highlighted in the past the increasing complexity and diversification of
the EU's revenue streams. The introduction of new own resources brings challenges, 
including fluctuating revenues and the need for robust accounting and audit 
mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability. We have also noted the need 
for consolidated legislative acts for making own resources available and suggested that 
the Commission retain inspection powers to ensure that the CBAM-based own 
resource is calculated correctly and collected40. In light of all the changes proposed we 
reiterate our assessment from previous opinions regarding the complexity of the 
system of EU financing41. 

40 The introduction of new own resources requires a consistent legal framework and
timely support to the national administrations. This is essential to ensure the reliability 
of both estimates and the data on which new own resources are based. In our report 
on the new own resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste, we found 
that member states were inadequately prepared, and the data used to calculate the 
own resource were insufficiently comparable and reliable. 

Box 7 

Opportunities concerning the financing of the EU budget 

(1) EU borrowing

(a)

If the possibility of borrowing is considered, to clearly establish the
financing needs and sources, mitigate risks, and draw up a repayment
plan in advance.

(2) Own resources

(a) To ensure that the EU's main revenue streams are stable and simplified,
e.g. by means of consolidated legislative acts for making available all
own resources.

(b) To strengthen the collection mechanisms for the custom duties and

Value Added Tax.

(c)

To ensure that the data used to calculate potential new own resources
are comparable and reliable.

40  Opinion 04/2023, paragraphs 18-22. 

41  Opinion 03/2022 paragraph 19, opinion 02/2012 paragraph 6 and opinion 02/2006 

paragraph 6. 

16 

Accountability arrangements 

41 Independent external audit is an essential element of ensuring transparency and
accountability and improve decision making. In our special report 05/2023, we 
provided an overview of the instruments over which the ECA has audit rights and those 
over which it does not. The latter are instead subject to other public or private external 
audit arrangements, meaning that we are unable to perform our role of external 
auditor of the EU in full with the consequence that there would be no full democratic 
scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council. 

42 The Commission and the EU legislative authorities should develop principles for
effective accountability and transparency in respect of all EU finances, including full 
democratic oversight. It is important that the ECA’s role be established clearly and with 
full audit rights in any legislative act governing any new instrument, facility or tool that 
is decided upon, whether within or outside the next MFF. 

Box 8 

Opportunities concerning external audit 

(1) To ensure that the ECA has a clear mandate to audit all EU instruments, and
that the legal framework of new instruments enables ECA to audit EU
spending at all levels down to the final beneficiaries and recipients.

(2) To invite ECA to audit all bodies created through agreements outside the EU
legal order to implement EU policies, with temporary board representation
until legal changes allow a full audit mandate.

This review was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 
5 June 2025. 

For the Court of Auditors 

Tony Murphy 
President 

17 

Abbreviations 

CBAM: Carbon border adjustment mechanism. 

CSRs: Country specific recommendations. 

ECA: European Court of Auditors. 

EFSI: European Fund for Strategic Investments. 

ETS: Emissions trading system. 

EU: European Union. 

MFF: Multiannual Financial Framework. 

NGEU: NextGenerationEU. 

RRF: Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

18 

Glossary 

Additionality: Principle that EU funding, particularly through the ESI funds, must 
supplement national spending rather than replacing it. 

Annual report: ECA annual audit report containing a statement of assurance on 
the reliability of the EU accounts and the regularity of underlying transactions, 
which the ECA is required to provide to the European Parliament and the Council in 
accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Budget: Statement of projected revenue and expenditure covering a fixed period. 

Budgetary guarantee: Commitment to use the EU budget to compensate for any 
losses incurred if a beneficiary fails to meet its obligations, such as by defaulting on a 
loan. 

Conditionality Regulation: Regulation setting out rules to protect the EU budget from 
breaches of the rule of law in member states. 

Country specific recommendations: Annual guidance which the Commission issues, as 
part of the European Semester, to individual member states on their macroeconomic, 
budgetary and structural policies. 

EU added value: Additional value generated by EU action compared with member 
state action alone. 

European Fund for Strategic Investments: Support mechanism launched by the EIB 
and the Commission, as part of the Investment Plan for Europe, to mobilise private 
investment in projects of strategic importance for the EU. 

European Semester: Annual cycle which provides a framework for coordinating the 
economic policies of EU member states and monitoring progress. 

InvestEU: Mechanism to mobilise private investment in projects of strategic 
importance for the EU. Succeeded the European Fund for Strategic Investments         
in 2021. 

Mainstreaming: Systematically taking account of specific priorities (e.g. gender 
equality, climate protection) in all policy making and implementation. 

Multiannual financial framework: The EU's spending plan setting priorities (based on 
policy objectives) and ceilings, generally for 7 years. It provides the structure within 
which annual EU budgets are set, limiting spending for each category of expenditure. 

19 

NextGenerationEU: Funding package to help EU member states recover from the 
economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Recovery and Resilience Facility: The EU’s financial support mechanism to mitigate the 
economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and stimulate recovery, and 
meet the challenges of a greener and more digital future. 

 
 
 
 
20 

ECA team 

This review was carried out by Chamber V, headed by ECA Member Jan Gregor. The 
task was led by ECA Member Jan Gregor, supported by Werner Vlasselaer, Head of 
Private Office and Radka Papouskova, Private Office Attaché; Paul Sime, Principal 
Manager; Leonidas Tsonakas, Head of Task; Slobodan Dimitrovski, and Kimberly Galea. 
Cathryn Lindsay provided linguistic support. Valérie Tempez provided the secretarial 
assistance. 

From left to right: Werner Vlasselaer, Paul Sime, Radka Papouskova, Leonidas Tsonakas, 
Valérie Tempez, Jan Gregor, Kimberly Galea and Slobodan Dimitrovski. 

 
 
 
COPYRIGHT 

© European Union, 2025 

The reuse policy of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is set out in ECA Decision 
No 6-2019 on the open data policy and the reuse of documents. 

Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), ECA content owned by 
the EU is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 
(CC BY 4.0) licence. As a general rule, therefore, reuse is authorised provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. Those reusing ECA content 
must not distort the original meaning or message. The ECA shall not be liable for any 
consequences of reuse. 

Additional permission must be obtained if specific content depicts identifiable private 
individuals, e.g. in pictures of ECA staff, or includes third-party works. 

Where such permission is obtained, it shall cancel and replace the above-mentioned 
general permission and shall clearly state any restrictions on use. 

To use or reproduce content that is not owned by the EU, it may be necessary to seek 
permission directly from the copyright holders. 

Software or documents covered by industrial property rights, such as patents, 
trademarks, registered designs, logos and names, are excluded from the ECA’s reuse 
policy. 

The European Union’s family of institutional websites, within the europa.eu domain, 
provides links to third-party sites. Since the ECA has no control over these, you are 
encouraged to review their privacy and copyright policies. 

Use of the ECA logo  

The ECA logo must not be used without the ECA’s prior consent. 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-849-5426-1 

ISSN 2811-8197 

doi:10.2865/5432801 

QJ-01-25-039-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO CITE 

European Court of Auditors, review 03/2025: “Opportunities for the post 
2027 Multiannual Financial Framework”, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025. 

 
 
 
The Commission’s communication “The road to 
the next multiannual financial framework 
(MFF)” is a pivotal document for shaping the 
post-2027 MFF. It outlines the policy 
challenges and provides guidance for the 
upcoming MFF proposal, which is expected in 
July 2025. This review is structured around the 
main themes of the Communication. We 
identify opportunities based on our 
knowledge and audit experience concerning 
EU budgetary revenue and expenditure. Our 
aim is to contribute to the ongoing debate on 
the next long-term EU budget. 

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 
1615 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG 

Tel. +352 4398-1 

Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/contact 
Website: eca.europa.eu 
Social media: @EUauditors