Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct payment, types of intervention in certain sectors and rural development and annual performance reports and Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 as regards data and interoperability governance, suspensions of payments annual performance clearance and controls and penalties (COM(2025) 236 final – 2025/0236 COD)
Date: 2025-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU direct payments, EU financing arrangements, activity report, aid to agriculture, rural development, sanction (EU), suspension of payments, systems interconnection




C_202600038EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/38


16.1.2026






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct payment, types of intervention in certain sectors and rural development and annual performance reports and Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 as regards data and interoperability governance, suspensions of payments annual performance clearance and controls and penalties


(COM(2025) 236 final – 2025/0236 COD)


(C/2026/38)


Rapporteur: 
John COMER

Co-rapporteur: 
Arnold PUECH d’ALISSAC






Advisors


Frank ALLEN (to the rapporteur)
Roch-Marie STERN (to the co-rapporteur)




Legislative procedure



EU Law Tracker





Referral


European Parliament, 16.6.2025
Council of the European Union, 25.6.2025




Legal basis


Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




European Commission documents



COM(2025) 236 final – 2025/0236 COD

Summary of COM(2025) 236 final




Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)



SDG 8 – Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all


SDG 10 – Reduce inequality within and among countries


SDG 12 – Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns


SDG 15 - Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss





Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted in section


8.9.2025




Adopted at plenary session


18.9.2025




Plenary session No


599




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


120/0/1




1.   RECOMMENDATIONS

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) would highlight the following:








1.1.


Increased and improved digitalisation should be a key strategy for achieving simplification of the CAP, by enabling the use of digital tools for data collection, monitoring and payment processing. Consequently, Member States must prepare a specific plan for enhancing digitalisation and further streamlining and standardising IACS-based procedures, improving user friendliness, interoperability and services to farmers.












1.2.


Digitalisation can be a burden on farmers who lack digital skills and equipment, especially older farmers and farmers in remote locations. Member States need to actively promote and support farmer digital skill training. Digitalisation must be farmer-friendly and easy to understand and operate. Financial support for upskilling and training should be provided as required. A dedicated helpline should be made available to assist farmers in dealing with problems associated with the administrative burden. Every effort must be made to eliminate the need for farmers to employ private consultants to complete application forms.












1.3.


Each CAP Strategic Plan should contain a specific plan for reducing the administrative burden of applying for payments, by shortening application forms, extensively using prepopulated forms and using the most up-to-date digital technology to access the relevant data. Each Member State needs to actively implement this policy.












1.4.


New farmers setting up for the first time in an agricultural holding as head of the holding should be granted the same terms and conditions regarding support for investments to comply with EU legal requirements as those given to young farmers, provided that they are active farmers.












1.5.


If a farming company, a farming holding or a group of farmers operating on the same farm incorporates two or more young farmers in different years, it should be eligible for more than the five years of complementary income support for young farmers.












1.6.


The annual payment for small farmers should not exceed EUR 5 000 (index-linked) where Member States grant a payment to small farmers by way of a lump sum or amounts per hectare replacing direct payments. Conditionality controls and penalties should not apply to these payments.












1.7.


The number of on-the-spot field inspections should be significantly reduced by increased use of modern technology while protecting the financial interests of the Union.












1.8.


Member States may include the possibility for aid applications and payment claims to be corrected after they have been submitted, without an effect on the right to receive aid, provided that the mistakes to be corrected have been made in good faith – and recognised as such by the competent authority – and provided that the correction is made either before the applicant is informed of being selected for an on-the-spot check or before the competent authority has taken its decision. Applicants who have committed an obvious omission or obvious mistake should be alerted to this fact so that the correction can be made without penalty.












1.9.


Farmers who, due to unforeseen circumstances, have been unable to participate in a risk management tool system should not be discriminated against by being given a lower rate of compensatory payments.












1.10.


In exceptional circumstances, where the scale of a natural disaster, adverse climatic event or other catastrophic event is so great that the funds available are inadequate to provide reasonable compensation to farmers, the Commission – in association with the Member State – must provide extra emergency funding. Crisis payments must not reduce allocations for basic income support.












1.11.


Member States should have discretion to apply an alternative payment system instead of per hectare payments for area-specific disadvantages imposed by mandatory requirements, if deemed appropriate to local conditions.












1.12.


Much of the complexity of the CAP lies in the implementation of the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs). There is a need to fully evaluate and revise the GAECs so that they are farmer-friendly and support food security in the EU by facilitating the production of quality food consistent with good environmental practice.












1.13.


Support for investments in irrigation should not be dependent on the interpretation of the ‘less than good’ status of the water body by each Member State or region, as this creates distortions between Member States and between regions. The needs of other ecosystems must be respected.




2.   EXPLANATORY NOTES


Arguments in support of recommendation 1.1









2.1.


Remote sensing and integration of digital databases can improve monitoring and make it simpler. Satellite-based systems used for observation of agricultural areas and subsidy monitoring complemented with artificial intelligence can have a major impact in the simplification process. Confidentiality of data must be protected, and this activity should not be privatised. Farmers should not lose control of their own data. Member States must act swiftly to modernise their digital infrastructure to reduce the administrative burden on farmers. Farmers should only have to submit data once through a single system.





Arguments in support of recommendations 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7









2.2.


Greater digitalisation could lead to the emergence of ‘two speed’ EU agriculture, with the risk of some segments of farmers falling behind or just leaving farming altogether. All the issues linked to increased digitalisation must be systematically remedied. Farmers’ digital skills must be updated with a special emphasis on those who lack digital skills. The simplification and shortening of application forms would be very positive for farmers in dealing with the administrative burden. Funding must be provided to facilitate knowledge sharing, communication, advice and support for farmers. Each Member State needs to actively implement this policy. Every effort must be made to eliminate the need for farmers to employ private consultants to complete application forms. ‘Fear of audit’ by the Commission is one of the causes of overregulation at Member State level and should also be addressed at horizontal level in the EU.





Arguments in support of recommendations 1.4 and 1.5









2.3.


The number of farms and farmers is continuing to decline in the EU and at least half of EU farmers are over 55. We must make every effort to make farming more attractive by encouraging and incentivising new farmers and young farmers to take up farming. The challenge of generation renewal is enormous.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.6









2.4.


There is pressure on small farms, as over the last 10 years four million holdings have disappeared in the EU. To develop a socially cohesive rural community we need a mixture of large, medium and small farmers. At the present time, many small farmers need special support to survive. A reasonable farming balance is essential to maintain a socially and environmentally vibrant rural society.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.8









2.5.


The CAP needs to be made more user-friendly. Where mistakes or omissions have occurred and where the competent authority recognises that the mistakes have been made in good faith, farmers should be allowed to make corrections to applications already submitted without penalty.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.9 and 1.10









2.6.


In cases of natural disaster, adverse climatic events or other catastrophic events, compensation for farmers must be fair and equitable. Crisis payments must not reduce allocations for basic income support. Farmers must have a reasonable income to continue in farming and, when catastrophic events occur, help must be provided as soon as possible so that farmers can survive. We cannot ignore the challenge of maintaining food production in the EU. Food security is a vital consideration in the future development of EU agriculture, with a special emphasis on the urgency of dealing with the negative impact on agriculture of climate change.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.12









2.7.


Cross-compliance was created in 2003 and implemented for the first time in 2005, and its objective is clear: to establish common basic requirements for Member States to improve the agri-environmental conditions of agricultural land. Now, in 2025, GAEC standards are no longer equivalent between farmers in the different Member States and no longer represent common and fair standards between Member States, due to differences in the Commission’s assessments of national strategic plans. For example, the implementation dates of the different GAECs differ between Member States, and the measures implemented for GAECs 1, 2 and 9 are not uniform between Member States.












2.8.


In 2025, these requirements, which have been consolidated over the years, are all respected by the vast majority of farmers. Indeed, the European Court of Auditors’ Report (no 13/2020) on the Biodiversity of Agricultural Land estimates that around 99 % of farmers comply with cross-compliance rules and that only 1 % of the farmers inspected have had a reduction in aid due to non-compliance with cross-compliance rules. The environmental requirements are therefore well understood by farmers.












2.9.


The vast majority of farmers (e.g. 92 % in France) subscribe to eco-schemes, whose environmental ambitions are always higher than those of cross-compliance, in accordance with Article 31(5a) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (1). Oliver Moore of ARC2020 – in an article published on their website in March 2025 using data from 12 Member States – reports that the overall target area for eco- schemes (70 % of farmed area) has been largely achieved but that these tend to be low impact environmental schemes.












2.10.


The massive agricultural protests that started at the end of 2023 have exposed the incompatibility of some GAECs with the agricultural practices implemented by farmers to assure the availability of supplies. To address the need for consistency between unachievable GAECs and the CAP objectives, in 2024 the Commission simplified several GAECs, such as GAECs 1, 7 and 8. These simplifications have resulted in several GAEC standards being inoperative and non-binding for farmers. For GAEC 8, the simplification measure entailed the abolition of the standard. For the others, the Commission has allowed derogations amounting to an abolition of the standards, since the constraints have been removed for farmers. These measures are all a step in the right direction.












2.11.


GAECs today are very complex, with many derogations and special cases, and many calculations need to be carried out to verify their compliance. As a consequence:






—


many honest mistakes are being made by farmers, leading to sanctions, even though their practices in the field are beneficial for the environment, climate and biodiversity;










—


several calculation tools have been put in place by the national and regional administrations; these often contain errors or cause delays in the examination of requests. This has an impact on the one hand on farmers’ trust in the administration concerned and, on the other hand, on the amount and timing of payments to farmers, sometimes placing them in financial difficulty even if they are complying with GAEC rules;










—


farmers have to pay for additional agricultural advisory services to fill in their CAP declaration – a process which is becoming longer and more expensive;










—


administrations have to set up a complex system of checks, leading farmers to be inspected several times a year under the CAP, and creating a sense of injustice, even when farmers are complying with GAECs.
















2.12.


While 99 % of farmers comply with cross-compliance, it should be noted that one of the nine GAECs is new and in most EU countries has only been implemented since 2024 or 2025: GAEC 2 on the protection of wetlands and peatlands. No information is available yet regarding GAEC 2’s impact or proper functioning, and protection of these particularly carbon-rich areas remains necessary.





Arguments in support of recommendation 1.13









2.13.


In areas with water scarcity, the quantity criterion excludes subsidies on storage, which is necessary for irrigation in the summer without pumping water from rivers. Irrigation is essential for the installation of young farmers, for adaptation to climate change and for maintaining the productive potential of areas that, without production, would become neglected, which might lead to fires. The needs of other ecosystems need to be respected.




3.   PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION


Amendment 1

linked to recommendation 1.1






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(1a)






in Article 6, the following paragraph is added:










 





‘4.
   
Increased digitalisation must be a key strategy for achieving simplification of the CAP by enabling the use of digital tools for data collection, monitoring and payment processing.’








Reason

To make administration easier and more straightforward.

Amendment 2

linked to recommendation 1.6






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(9)


Article 28 is replaced by the following:












(9)


Article 28 is replaced by the following:









‘Article 28




‘Article 28






Payments for small farmers




Payments for small farmers





Member States may grant a payment to small farmers, as determined by the Member States, by way of a lump sum or of amounts per hectare replacing direct payments under this Section and Section 3 of this Chapter. Member States shall design the corresponding intervention in the CAP Strategic Plan as optional for farmers.


Member States may grant a payment to small farmers, as determined by the Member States, by way of a lump sum or of amounts per hectare replacing direct payments under this Section and Section 3 of this Chapter. Member States shall design the corresponding intervention in the CAP Strategic Plan as optional for farmers.




[...]


[...]




The annual payment for each farmer under the first subparagraph shall not exceed EUR 
2 500 
.


The annual payment for each farmer under the first subparagraph shall not exceed EUR 
5 000  (index-linked)
.




[...]’;


[...]’;





Reason

Designed to encourage and help maintain smaller farmers and also to support the social and economic elements of rural society.

Amendment 3

linked to recommendation 1.5






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(9a)






in Article 30, paragraph is replaced by the following:










 





‘3.
   
The complementary income support for young farmers shall be granted for a maximum duration of five years, starting from the first year of submission of the application for the payment for young farmers, and subject to conditions to be determined by the CAP legal framework applicable for the period after 2027 when the five-year period goes beyond 2027. Member States shall ensure that no legal expectations of beneficiaries are created for the period after 2027. If a farming company, a farming holding or a group of farmers operating on the same farm incorporates two or more young farmers in different years, it can be eligible for longer than five years.’;









Reason

To help young farmers and encourage generational renewal.

Amendment 4

linked to recommendation 1.9






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(11)


in Title III, Chapter II, the following Section is added:












(11)


in Title III, Chapter II, the following Section is added:








‘Section 4


‘Section 4






Complementary crisis payments






Complementary crisis payments







Article 41a




Article 41a






Complementary crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events under direct payments




Complementary crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events under direct payments






1.   [...]




1.   [...]






4.   Member States shall establish the applicable support rates for compensating the loss of production. Those rates shall be higher for farmers who are covered by an insurance scheme or another risk management tool. Indexes may be used for calculating the loss of production.




4.   Member States shall establish the applicable support rates for compensating the loss of production. Those rates shall be higher for farmers who are covered by an insurance scheme or another risk management tool. Indexes may be used for calculating the loss of production. 
Farmers who, due to unforeseen circumstances, are unable to participate in a risk management tool system should not be discriminated against by being given a lower rate of compensatory payment, bearing in mind the need for farmers to have a reasonable income to continue in farming.








5.   [...]’;




5.   [...]’;






Reason

Achieving fairness and equity in crisis compensation payments.

Amendment 5







Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(15)


Article 70 is amended as follows:












(15)


Article 70 is amended as follows:














(c)


paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:












(c)


paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:










‘8.   Where support under this Article is granted to agri-environment-climate commitments or commitments to convert to or maintain organic farming practices and methods as laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/848, Member States shall establish a payment per hectare
, or where appropriate, per beehive, as defined in the delegated act referred to in Article 56, point (b), of this Regulation
. [...]’;






‘8.   Where support under this Article is granted to agri-environment-climate commitments or commitments to convert to or maintain organic farming practices and methods as laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/848, Member States shall establish a payment per hectare. [...]’;







Reason

Payment per beehive does not simplify the procedure but, on the contrary, makes it more complex for administrations.

Amendment 6

linked to recommendation 1.11






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(16a)






in Article 72, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:










 





6.
   
Payments under this Article shall be granted annually per hectare. Member States may decide on alternative payment methods if they are deemed more appropriate to local conditions.








Reason

Making the system as farmer-friendly as possible.

Amendment 7

linked to recommendation 1.4






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(17)


in Article 73, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:












(17)


in Article 73, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:









‘5.   Where Union law results in the imposition of new requirements on farmers, support may be granted for investments to comply with those requirements for a maximum of 36 months from the date on which they become mandatory for the holding.




‘5.   Where Union law results in the imposition of new requirements on farmers, support may be granted for investments to comply with those requirements for a maximum of 36 months from the date on which they become mandatory for the holding.





For young farmers setting up for the first time in an agricultural holding as head of the holding support for investments to comply with the requirements of Union law may be granted for a maximum of 36 months from the date of setting up, or until the actions defined in the business plan referred to in Article 75(3) are completed.’;


For young farmers setting up for the first time in an agricultural holding as head of the holding support for investments to comply with the requirements of Union law may be granted for a maximum of 36 months from the date of setting up, or until the actions defined in the business plan referred to in Article 75(3) are completed. 
New farmers setting up in farming for the first time as head of the holding should also be given similar terms, provided that they are active farmers.
’;





Reason

Every possible support must be given to young and new farmers to ensure the continuation of a vibrant agriculture sector.

Amendment 8

linked to recommendation 1.13






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(17a)






in Article 74, paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 are deleted;











Reason

Support for irrigation cannot be granted if the status of the water body has been classified as ‘less than good’ in the relevant river basin management plan for reasons related to water quantity; however, this classification is opaque and unequal between countries/regions.

Amendment 9







Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(19)


in Article 76(5), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:












(19)


in Article 76(5), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:








‘Member States shall ensure that support is granted only for covering losses which exceed a threshold of at least 20 % of the average annual production or income of the farmer in the preceding three-year period, or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period excluding the highest and lowest entry. Sectoral production risk management tools shall calculate the losses either at holding level, at the level of the holding’s activity in the sector concerned or in relation to the specific area insured.


‘Member States shall ensure that support is granted only for covering losses which exceed a threshold of at least 20 % of the average annual production or income of the farmer in the preceding three-year period, or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period excluding the highest and lowest entry. Sectoral production risk management tools shall calculate the losses either at holding level, at the level of the holding’s activity in the sector concerned or in relation to the specific area insured.




For permanent crops and in other justified cases for which the calculation methods referred to in the first subparagraph are not appropriate, Member States may assess the losses on the basis of the average annual production or income of the farmer over a period that does not exceed eight years, excluding 
the highest and lowest entry
.


For permanent crops
, for arable land
 and in other justified cases for which the calculation methods referred to in the first subparagraph are not appropriate, Member States may assess the losses on the basis of the average annual production or income of the farmer over a period that does not exceed eight years, excluding 
the two lowest entries
.




[...]’;


[...]’;





Reason

To make crop insurance more efficient and permit a better adaptation to climate change, which has led to more volatile yields for all crops.

Amendment 10

linked to recommendation 1.9






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(20)


in Title III, Chapter IV, Section 1, the following Article is added:












(20)


in Title III, Chapter IV, Section 1, the following Article is added:









‘Article 78a




‘Article 78a






Crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events under rural development




Crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events under rural development






1.   [...]




1.   [...]






4.   Member States shall establish the applicable support rates for compensating the loss of production. Those rates shall be higher for farmers who are covered by an insurance scheme or another risk management tool. Indexes may be used for calculating the loss of production.




4.   Member States shall establish the applicable support rates for compensating the loss of production. Those rates shall be higher for farmers who are covered by an insurance scheme or another risk management tool. Indexes may be used for calculating the loss of production. 
Farmers who, due to unforeseen circumstances, are unable to participate in a risk management tool system should not be discriminated against by being given a lower rate of compensation payment, bearing in mind the need for farmers to have a reasonable income to continue in farming.








5.   [...]’;




5.   [...]’;






Reason

To ensure equity and balance in crisis compensatory payments and ensure that farmers remain in the business.

Amendment 11

linked to recommendation 1.10






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(26)


in Title IV, the following Article is inserted:












(26)


in Title IV, the following Article is inserted:









‘Article 96a




‘Article 96a






Maximum financial allocations for crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events




Maximum financial allocations for crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events






1.   [...]




1.   [...]






2.   [...]’;




2.   [...]





 





3.
   
In exceptional circumstances, where the scale of the natural disaster, adverse climatic event or catastrophic event is so great that the funds available in Annex XV, Tables 1 and 2, are inadequate for providing reasonable compensation to the farmers, the Commission, in association with the Member State, must provide extra emergency funding. Crisis payments must not reduce the allocations for basic income support.
’;






Reason

Special compensatory payments will be needed where, in an exceptional crisis, existing funds are insufficient for enabling farmers to survive.

Amendment 12

linked to recommendation 1.3






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(26a)






in Article 107(1), the following point is added:










 









‘(i)






a specific plan for reducing the administrative burden of applying for payments by shortening application forms, extensively using prepopulated forms and using the most up to date digital technology to access the relevant data.’;











Reason

CAP simplification must reduce the administrative burden by modifying the application process.

Amendment 13

linked to recommendation 1.2






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(27a)






in Article 114, the following paragraph is added:










 




‘Digitalisation can be a simplification measure, but its introduction can also be a burden and a cost for some farmers who lack the relevant skills in an ageing farmer society. Member States need to actively support farmer digital skill training, knowledge sharing, more general training and communication. Financial support should be provided as required. A dedicated helpline should be made available to assist farmers in dealing with problems associated with the administrative burden. Every effort must be made to eliminate the need for farmers to employ private consultants to complete application forms.’;








Reason

Increased digitalisation is part of the future, and farmers need training and upskilling to deal with it. This new system must be farmer-friendly and easy to understand and operate and must reduce the need to employ private consultants.

Amendment 14

linked to recommendation 1.1






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(4)


in Title II, the following Chapter is added:












(4)


in Title II, the following Chapter is added:








‘Chapter III


‘Chapter III






CAP data and interoperability governance






CAP data and interoperability governance







Article 13a




Article 13a






Authority in charge of data governance under the CAP




Authority in charge of data governance under the CAP






1.   [...]




1.   [...]






3.   The Roadmap shall contain in particular the following elements:




3.   The Roadmap shall contain in particular the following elements:











(a)


[...]












(a)


[...]














(c)


identification of possible synergies with other EU and national interoperability initiatives.












(c)


identification of possible synergies with other EU and national interoperability initiatives.








 




Member States must prepare a specific plan for enhancing digitalisation and further streamlining and standardising IACS-based procedures, improving user-friendliness, interoperability and services to farmers.






To the extent possible, Member States shall base their assessment of needs and the design of the measures on the principle that data is collected only once and re-used.


To the extent possible, Member States shall base their assessment of needs and the design of the measures on the principle that data is collected only once and re-used.





4.   [...]’;




4.   [...]’;






Reason

To reduce the administrative burden and make the system more user-friendly and easy to understand and operate.

Amendment 15

linked to recommendation 1.8






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment




 










(13a)






in Article 59, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:










 





‘6.
   
Member States may, in their management and control systems, include the possibility for aid applications and payment claims to be corrected after they have been submitted, without an effect on the right to receive aid, provided that the elements or omissions to be corrected have been made in good faith – and recognised as such by the competent authority – and provided that the correction is made either before the applicant is informed of being selected for an on-the-spot check or before the competent authority has taken its decision in respect of the application. Applicants who have committed an obvious omission or obvious mistake should be alerted to this fact so that a correction can be made without penalty.’;









Reason

To make the system more farmer-friendly, accepting how dependent farmers are on EU payments.

Amendment 16

linked to recommendation 1.7






Text proposed by the European Commission


EESC amendment










(14)


in Article 60, paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added:












(14)


in Article 60, paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added:









‘Where a beneficiary has been selected for an on-the-spot check on an aid application or on a payment claim or on conditionality pursuant to Article 83, Member States shall, to the extent possible and taking account of the associated risks, not select that beneficiary for a subsequent check and control sample for that year, except when the circumstances require a second control in order to ensure the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union. This provision shall not reduce the level of checks.’;




‘Where a beneficiary has been selected for an on-the-spot check on an aid application or on a payment claim or on conditionality pursuant to Article 83, Member States shall, to the extent possible and taking account of the associated risks, not select that beneficiary for a subsequent check and control sample for that year, except when the circumstances require a second control in order to ensure the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union. This provision shall not reduce the level of checks. 
The increased use of modern technology should significantly reduce the number of on-the-spot field inspections. Every effort should be made to reduce the number of on-the-spot field inspections while protecting the financial interests of the Union.
’;






Reason

To reduce the administrative burden on farmers and the Member State authorities.


Brussels, 18 September 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/38/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)