1.Underlines that the next MFF must equip the Union with the necessary financial means to respond to a rapidly evolving geopolitical, economic and social environment, while delivering on both long-standing policies and emerging priorities; insists that the EU budget must remain an investment budget capable of supporting citizens, regions and businesses, in particular SMEs, while strengthening the Union’s resilience, competitiveness and social cohesion;

2.Calls for the 2028-2034 MFF to be set at 1,27 % of EU gross national income (GNI), while the NGEU debt servicing – equivalent to an additional 0,11 % of EU GNI – should be excluded from the 1,27 % and accounted for over and above the ceilings; reiterates that the next MFF must be more ambitious in size, as the current level of financing does not match the Union’s political ambitions, and must be protected from inflationary shocks; stresses that this level constitutes the minimum necessary to enable the Union to deliver on its Treaty commitments, respond to citizens’ expectations, and address major challenges, including the return of large-scale warfare in the EU’s neighbourhood, evolving security threats, a highly challenging economic and social backdrop, a competitiveness gap and the worsening climate and biodiversity crises;

3.Strongly opposes any approach leading to the fragmentation of the single market or re-nationalisation of the EU budget and firmly rejects any move towards an ‘à la carte’ Union; considers that the Commission’s approach of ‘one plan per Member State’ undermines the EU policies enshrined in the Treaties, creates unnecessary competition between beneficiaries, jeopardises the European dimension of spending, weakens multilevel governance, challenges the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and reduces transparency;

4.Calls for an increased envelope for heading 1 to at least maintain funding at the level of the current MFF; calls, therefore, for strong, distinct and adequate funding for the common agricultural policy (CAP), the common fisheries policy, the cohesion policy, the European Social Fund and home affairs; insists, in this context, on fully allocating the non-ringfenced amounts under the NRPPs to these policies, thereby ensuring greater predictability for final beneficiaries; reiterates the need to maintain a horizontal implementation framework and rules for these policies, including rule of law conditionality, in order to ensure coherence and avoid fragmentation; calls for the establishment of regional chapters in accordance with Member States’ institutional frameworks, and for the full involvement of regional and local authorities in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes under heading 1, based on the principles of shared management, multilevel governance and partnership;

5.Welcomes the significant reinforcement of the policies included in heading 2, in line with Parliament’s long-standing calls, which represents a doubling compared to the current period and which will better equip the Union to respond to future challenges in an increasingly unpredictable global environment; recognises the need to reinforce the Union’s capacity to act in key strategic areas, including competitiveness, defence and security, research and innovation, the twin transition, infrastructure, health and crisis preparedness, education and culture;

6.Calls, therefore, for an adequate reinforcement of priority programmes under heading 2, including the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), Horizon Europe, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Erasmus+, AgoraEU, EU Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM+), with earmarking for EU4Health and LIFE-related actions under the ECF;

7.Welcomes the increase in resources for heading 3 as a signal of the Union’s commitment to strengthening its role as a global actor; considers, however, that the proposed level remains insufficient given the scale of global challenges;

8.Calls, therefore, for an adequate reinforcement of heading 3 that allows the EU to support future enlargement, address rising needs related to development, humanitarian crises and peace-building, provide support to Ukraine and other partners, and uphold Union values, human rights and democracy worldwide while strengthening multilateralism; insists that humanitarian aid must continue to be ring-fenced, delivered through a coherent framework with an adequately resourced annual baseline; calls for a reinforcement of the envelope for overseas countries and territories, taking into consideration the recent threats to the territorial integrity of Greenland and the broader geopolitical context;

9.Underscores that the next MFF must focus on financing European public goods with discernible added value compared to national spending, such as cross-border projects; recalls that European citizens and businesses are demanding EU action; calls for targeted, strategic investment of EU funds to meet their needs in priority areas such as housing, energy and security;

10.Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for an enhanced Flexibility Instrument and calls for it to be supplemented by additional sources including unspent margins and reflows from financial instruments, without prejudice to sector-specific rules; calls for a dedicated solidarity reserve for natural disasters to be mobilised over and above the MFF ceilings as a last resort to finance the Union’s response to specific needs within the EU following damage caused by natural disasters;

11.Expresses serious concern that the Commission’s proposals shift key policy and budgetary decisions to Commission work programmes adopted without co-legislative involvement; insists that all substantive policy choices must be determined in the relevant basic acts, in full respect of Parliament’s prerogatives as co-legislator and budgetary authority; stresses that simplification must not come at the expense of transparency, democratic accountability or Parliament’s oversight role; is extremely concerned about the widespread use of financing not linked to costs for a substantial portion of programmes under the next MFF and warns that without adequate safeguards this approach entails substantial risks and weakens auditability;

12.Underlines that compliance with Union values and the rule of law is an essential prerequisite for access to EU funds; insists on the importance of a seamless and coherent EU values toolbox covering democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the entire EU budget; insists on a robust approach to ensure that legitimate final recipients are not penalised for rule of law breaches by their governments;

13.Strongly reiterates the crucial need for sustainable, predictable and resilient revenue for the EU budget pursuant to Article 310 TFEU that should match the expenditure side and the strategic priorities and identified financing needs of the EU; reaffirms Parliament’s strong commitment to the introduction of new own resources, not only for NGEU debt repayment but also to finance the Union’s enhanced policy ambitions; welcomes the Commission’s efforts to identify new own resources and to put forward certain calibrations to traditional own resources; supports the broader ‘basket approach’ proposed by the Commission and calls on the Council to unblock the stalemate observed since 2020 on a basket of new genuine own resources to reach a level of revenue of at least EUR 60 billion per year; underlines the importance of the Commission’s proposal for a novel type of crisis mechanism which could offer the Union the ability to respond swiftly to unexpected developments; underlines that Parliament will only approve a long-term budget, including the revenue side, that is fit for purpose for the Union in a changing world;

14.Considers that the positions set out in this interim report constitute Parliament’s mandate for the MFF negotiations and are to be taken into account by the Council in accordance with Article 312(5) TFEU in order to obtain Parliament’s consent; stands ready to work constructively and engage in meaningful negotiations with the Council to deliver a long-term budget that addresses the Union’s needs; calls for a swift agreement to be reached between the institutions by the end of 2026 to allow for a timely adoption of the MFF and to enable the implementation of spending programmes from 1 January 2028;

15.Demands that the European Parliament be involved in all the stages of the MFF process, as required by the Treaties in Article 312(5) TFEU; considers that the Council must take due account of Parliament’s position set out here to secure Parliament’s consent in accordance with Article 312 TFEU;

16.Recalls its position that, ‘in a fast changing world where people rightly expect more from the Union and where the Union is confronted with a growing number of crises and global challenges, the next MFF must be endowed with increased resources compared to the 2021-2027 period, moving away from the historically restrictive, self-imposed level of 1 % of EU GNI’; regrets that the Commission, instead of presenting a genuinely ambitious proposal, hides behind a headline figure of EUR 2 trillion in current prices, which in reality amounts to only EUR 1,763 trillion in 2025 constant prices, equal to 1,26 % of EU GNI, with 0,11 % being allocated to NGEU repayments; deplores that this results in a token increase for EU programmes of less than 0,01 percentage points of EU GNI, effectively freezing the budget in real terms; highlights that the phasing-out of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) will further substantially reduce the Union’s overall spending power; considers that this proposed level will neither enable the Union to deliver on its commitments enshrined in the Treaties nor respond to the significant geopolitical challenges ahead, including the climate and biodiversity crisis which is best dealt with at Union level, as well as the cost of living crisis;

17.Calls for the 2028-2034 MFF to be set at 1,27 % of EU GNI, excluding NGEU repayments; considers that NGEU debt servicing should be treated separately from appropriations for EU programmes within the future MFF architecture bringing the total amount to 1,38 % of EU GNI; stresses that this level is the absolute minimum to enable the Union to deliver on its commitments, respond to geopolitical challenges and achieve its strategic objectives;

18.Regrets that the NGEU repayment as presented by the Commission integrates annual instalments under the MFF ceilings from 2028 onwards; stresses that the repayment plan must ensure that NGEU debt servicing does not crowd out essential EU spending or compromise the Union’s ability to address future crises; therefore, recalls its long-standing position that appropriations linked to the repayment of NGEU should be accounted for over and above the ceilings;

19.Strongly supports the proposed technical adjustment method that accounts for actual inflation, which is essential to safeguard the EU budget’s purchasing power in periods of inflationary shocks; welcomes this mechanism, which is critical to protect EU programmes so that citizens do not suffer from inflation;

20.Calls, in this context, for the level of funding to be secured for EU programmes and policies, as set out in Annexes I and II to the present resolution; calls for the relevant commitment and payment ceilings to be adjusted accordingly;

21.Notes that heading 1 on ‘Europe’s social model and quality of life’ is allocated EUR 797,2 billion in 2025 prices, after excluding the amount provided for the repayment of NGEU, representing 45 % of the total 2028-2034 MFF; expresses deep concern that this is a decrease compared to the EUR 810,1 billion allocated in the 2021-2027 MFF, which amounted to 65 % of the total; considers this substantial cut unacceptable given the critical importance of maintaining the Union’s long-standing policies;

22.Regrets that the proposed NRPP Regulation (COM(2025)0558), which merges different policies into one plan per Member State, generates significant uncertainty regarding funding predictability for final beneficiaries, creates unnecessary competition for financial resources between beneficiaries and policies and politicises the distribution of EU funds, risking increased complexity and trade-offs between priorities; insists that the ‘one plan per Member State’ approach implicitly erodes the European dimension of the EU budget and the objectives of common EU policies, leads to excessive centralisation challenging the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, excludes regional and local authorities and relevant stakeholders from a meaningful role in shaping priorities, and undermines multilevel governance and the territorial dimension of spending; considers that the non-ringfenced amounts under the NRPPs should be fully allocated to offer predictability to final beneficiaries; warns, in addition, that the significant reduction in funding for heading 1 also threatens to undermine EU policies enshrined in the Treaties and the Union’s objectives of strengthening its economic, social and territorial cohesion, safeguarding its democratic processes, the rule of law and social rights, and ensuring food security and a fair standard of living for farmers and fishers as well as the protection of the environment and biodiversity; reiterates the need to avoid fragmentation and maintain the horizontal implementing framework, including overarching rules and principles such as respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should apply uniformly across the policies covered under the NRPP, while ensuring coherent and consistent implementation provisions;

23.Stresses that it is imperative to maintain the European dimension of the EU budget as a fundamental instrument for achieving common objectives, expressing Union solidarity and providing European public goods; underlines that the EU budget must remain the financial backbone supporting the deepening of Union integration, avoiding fragmentation or the re-nationalisation of key Union policies, promoting territorial, economic and social cohesion across all EU regions, including by addressing persistent structural constraints affecting peripheral, insular and outermost regions, and ensuring fair competition and equal opportunities for all territories across Member States, leaving no one and no region behind; considers, furthermore, that the EU budget should contribute to tackling the cost of living crisis and growing inequalities as well as to achieving the EU’s climate and biodiversity objectives, through investments in relevant key areas;

24.Rejects any move towards an ‘à la carte’ Europe where differentiated participation and a combination of policies which have different objectives, time horizons and delivery logics undermines the unity and coherence of EU policies and programmes; is deeply concerned that a single instrument with multiple layers of objectives, safeguards and reporting requirements may increase complexity, weaken accountability and undermine effective implementation; warns that such an approach whereby Member States decides on the specific allocation of EU funds would fragment the single market, create unfair competitive advantages, and erode the principle of solidarity that underpins European integration and upwards convergence;

25.Calls for separate, sufficient and clearly ringfenced funding for the CAP, the common fisheries policy, the cohesion policy and the European Social Fund to enhance long-term territorial resilience, social cohesion and trust in the European project as well as upwards convergence;

26.Deplores the proposed reduction in funding for the post-2027 CAP; calls for a dedicated and robust budget for the CAP in the next MFF to be ring-fenced with an amount of EUR 433,01 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 385,12 billion in 2025 constant prices) to ensure food security and sovereignty, competitiveness and a fair standard of living for farmers, and to enable them to transition to more sustainable practices, including sustainable land and water management; calls for a reinforced, accountable and more agile unity safety net under the horizontal framework of the NRPP; stresses the need to fully preserve the integrity of the internal market and ensure a level playing field between farmers in different Member States; calls for the continuation and reinforcement of measures that guarantee the viability of rural areas, also through LEADER and community-led local development; underlines that addressing climate, environmental, biodiversity loss and other challenges affecting rural areas, the agricultural sector and food security, contributes to the economic viability and competitiveness of the sector and of rural areas and to the long-term stability of agricultural production; emphasises the need to support tailored investments, including those fostering social inclusion that make agriculture more attractive to young people, women and new farmers;

27.Regrets the significant reduction in the budget as well as the diffusion of fisheries funding into several budgetary headings; calls for assurances that the ring-fenced allocation for fisheries and aquaculture in the MFF amounts to at least EUR 7,29 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 6,50 billion in 2025 constant prices), with a view to addressing the challenges of these sectors; underlines, furthermore, that the additional financing for the external dimension of fisheries under heading 3 should amount to EUR 1,69 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 1,50 billion in 2025 constant prices) including for sustainable fisheries partnership agreements and regional fisheries management organisations; reiterates that the common fisheries policy contributes to a stable income and long-term prospects for fishers, while protecting sustainable marine ecosystems, which underpin the sector’s competitiveness; calls for particular attention to be paid to the EU fishing fleet to improve safety and security, including by tackling illegal fishing and improving working conditions, energy efficiency and sustainability and allowing for the modernisation of the Union’s fleet and generational renewal; calls, furthermore, for the next MFF to ensure dedicated and visible financing, over and above the funding for fisheries, for Union ocean-related policies, including the Ocean Pact;

28.Recalls that cohesion policy is a legally enshrined Treaty-based priority of the Union; stresses that cohesion policy must continue to act as the Union’s main territorial investment instrument and as a pillar of the EU growth model, based on the effective involvement of regional and local authorities through their full participation in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national plans and the tailoring of investments to their needs and implemented under a model based on the partnership principle, with the involvement of economic and civil society actors and multilevel governance with a total budget of EUR 306,93 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 274,34 billion in 2025 constant prices) for structural and investment funds;

29.Calls for cohesion policy to remain a distinct policy with a dedicated and robust budget ring-fenced in the next MFF with a total amount of EUR 248,37 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 222,00 billion in 2025 constant prices) for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), EUR 46,99 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 42,00 billion in 2025 constant prices) for the Cohesion Fund and EUR 11,57 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 10,34 billion in 2025 constant prices) for Interreg; underlines that allocating this amount to cohesion policy is a necessary condition not only for ensuring the financing of long-term cohesion objectives and fostering convergence, but also for funding the new objectives and priorities within this policy;

30.Regrets that the shortcomings of the RRF, which were also identified by the European Court of Auditors, were not addressed by the Commission when proposing the NRPP Regulation and calls for a shared management approach in which local and regional authorities take responsibility for designing, programming, implementing and monitoring actions;

31.Calls for the establishment of regional chapters in accordance with the Member States’ institutional framework; calls for the full involvement of regional and local authorities in the design, monitoring and implementation of funds, based on shared management, multilevel governance and the partnership principle as they are currently understood; stresses the need for clearly defined resources, partnership rules and a strong territorial focus, with regions acting as managing authorities, including through direct negotiations with the Commission on the definition of milestones and targets and their implementation, as well as more direct access to EU funding for regional and local authorities;

32.Stresses the need for adequate support for the Union’s response to demographic challenges; calls for adequate resources to be ensured, within the relevant programmes, for measures contributing to the tackling of such challenges, in particular for regions and disadvantaged areas affected by regional disparities and an ageing population, in full respect of the Union’s competences and the principle of subsidiarity;

33.Recalls the unique challenges that island, cross-border and mountain regions in the EU face and calls for tailored solutions to address these needs; calls for the Commission and the Member States to ensure that their distinct geographic constraints and economic and environmental realities are duly taken into account in the design and implementation of the regional chapters;

34.Notes that the financial programming of the EU Facility, which allows for additional flexibility for the policies it covers and which falls entirely within the purview of the budgetary authority, will benefit from substantial financial resources allocated to it to face unforeseen crises;

35.Notes the introduction of Catalyst Europe in the Commission’s proposal, which could mobilise up to EUR 150 billion in affordable EU-backed loans to enable Member States to undertake strategic investments beyond their allocated national envelopes; believes that this mechanism represents an important step towards addressing the investment gaps in decarbonisation, digitalisation, and economic resilience; emphasises that Catalyst Europe would be accessible to all Member States, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion, as well as European competitiveness;

36.Considers that, in order to ensure the full and effective application of Article 349 TFEU, specific funding for the outermost regions must be established within the 2028-2034 MFF; calls, therefore, for a POSEI with a separate sufficient financial allocation for specific measures, including for aquaculture and fisheries that play a key role in food security, employment and local development;

37.Emphasises that the 2028-2034 MFF should play a pivotal role in reducing inequality, poverty and social exclusion, by supporting the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, its action plan and its headline targets; is deeply concerned that the availability and affordability of decent housing in Europe is decreasing at an alarming rate, in a context of declining overall investment in housing supply across many Member States, with public and private funding remaining below what is needed to meet demand; calls for a strategic, responsible and efficient deployment of investments in decent, sustainable and affordable housing, through the use of EU funds, including via measures under the ERDF, and the use of Catalyst Europe loans and targeted investments under the ECF, as well as InvestEU national compartments, enabling greater housing investment with a view to implementing the European Affordable Housing Plan;

38.Calls for the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) to remain a stand-alone and separate programme with a dedicated financial envelope of EUR 124,19 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 110,73 billion in 2025 constant prices) for promoting upwards social convergence, quality employment and equal opportunities; stresses that the ESF remains a key financing instrument for investing in education, employment and skills development, fostering equality and providing for people in vulnerable situations and those most in need in our societies, delivering on the targets of the EPSR action plan; deeply regrets the narrow social dimension of the proposed NRPP Regulation; calls for clarity and predictability to be guaranteed for final beneficiaries and the responsible managing authorities;

39.Underlines that the MFF must support the complete and swift implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum to ensure adequate reception conditions, fast and efficient asylum procedures, integration, and return and readmission procedures, in full compliance with international human rights law; insists that the next MFF must provide the necessary resources to adequately address the major challenges of the Union in the field of asylum, migration, integration, border management and internal security, and the effective protection of the EU’s external borders, including for border infrastructure, as well as physical, electronic and intelligence measures, when and where relevant; considers that the proposal put forward by the Commission does not adequately respond to these requirements and calls for an increase in the amounts for asylum and migration policies, border management and security to EUR 38,04 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 34,00 billion in 2025 constant prices); calls for the expansion of direct funding streams within the EU Facility for local and regional authorities, building upon the model of the current thematic facility of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund;

40.Recognises that all of the EU’s eastern border regions face heightened economic, social and security challenges due to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and other geopolitical threats, including hybrid threats; stresses the need for comprehensive MFF support to strengthen their defence, preparedness, resilience and security, as well as their economic, social and territorial development; therefore calls for a comprehensive response across EU programmes and sustained EU level support, including financial assistance under the national plans;

41.Welcomes the significant reinforcement of heading 2 on ‘Competitiveness, prosperity and security’, which is allocated EUR 522,2 billion in 2025 prices in the 2028-2034 MFF, representing 30 % of the total MFF compared to EUR 224,8 billion or 17 % in the current period; notes that this more than doubling of resources reflects the Union’s commitment to research, innovation, strategic autonomy, strategic industrial sectors and infrastructures, water resilience, emerging technologies, biotech, the green and digital transition, critical raw materials, energy security, space, defence, transport and military mobility, creative industries, education, culture, democracy and fundamental rights, economic and social resilience, technological sovereignty and support for SMEs, startups and scale-ups; acknowledges that this substantial increase responds to Parliament’s long-standing calls for greater investment in these areas and stresses that it should be implemented in a manner that ensures strategic coherence and maximises EU added-value;

42.Underscores that the ECF needs to be a targeted funding instrument to fill a funding gap in the current MFF; underlines the key role of the ECF in strengthening the Union’s competitiveness, as the capacity of the Union’s companies to compete on global markets, strengthening its economic and industrial sovereignty, long-term productivity, strategic autonomy and resilience, including access to critical raw materials, and in achieving the twin transition; calls, in this regard, for a budget of EUR 264,35 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 234,00 billion in 2025 constant prices) for the ECF; insists that the consolidation of programmes must not reduce transparency or limit Parliament’s ability to ensure appropriate funding for specific policy objectives; insists that despite programme mergers, budget lines must remain sufficiently detailed to enable meaningful parliamentary oversight and maintain visibility of funding for individual priorities; considers it important to ensure that the ECF, including LIFE actions, are implemented through transparent governance arrangements enabling tracking of overall spending, objectives and results and avoiding unnecessary fragmentation; recalls its position that competitiveness must foster economic growth, as well as promote quality, stable and well-paid jobs as underlined in both the Draghi and Letta reports and that a well-trained workforce is key to a future-proof European economy and, therefore, funding for reskilling and upskilling of workforce is needed, including in sectors faced with significant transformations;

43.Notes that the EU budget alone cannot fill the investment gap and, therefore, there is a need to maximise synergies between public and private investment, use de-risking, financial instruments and budget guarantees as powerful and effective tools to achieve EU objectives and policy goals, and simplify and harmonise the EU investment architecture; strongly insists that it is necessary to have an InvestEU instrument larger in size than the current programme and available from the outset and that the budget should provide more flexible and accessible InvestEU national compartments, especially for SMEs, and calls for the establishment of robust EU-level financial instruments and risk-sharing mechanisms under the ECF that can ensure a stable flow of investment and crowd in private capital;

44.Recalls the importance of supporting SMEs as they are the backbone of the European economy, have a strong territorial focus and are a main driver for growth across the Union; stresses the importance of an adequate investment level in SMEs; stresses that the EU budget should enable SMEs to access funding more swiftly and readily, close the innovation and investment gap with global competitors and contribute to sustainable growth, job creation and strategic autonomy;

45.Highlights that the green and digital transition is inextricably linked to Europe’s long-term prosperity, well-being, sustainability, growth and competitiveness; underlines that the ultimate success of the twin transition will depend heavily on ensuring that transition is just and inclusive for workers, regions and businesses, and that it contributes to social justice for all, with particular focus on the most vulnerable, in order to ensure that no one is left behind; insists therefore, that the 2028-2034 MFF must continue to support the twin transition; regrets that the proposal for the 2028-2034 MFF does not include a stand-alone instrument and calls for relevant funds under the next MFF to nevertheless support a just transition; highlights in addition the need for synergies and complementarity among cohesion policy funds and the ECF;

46.Stresses the need to step up Europe’s industrial and technological defence base; recalls that defence industrial policy must be open and foster competition, and that dual-use technologies, military mobility and critical infrastructures are pillars of the Union’s geopolitical projection and European deterrence; calls for clearly identifiable and adequately funded defence-related allocations; calls for any defence-relevant investments, including under the NRPP, to follow coherent eligibility criteria, including requirements related to clear European added value and coherent with the principles of European preference, interoperability, security of supply and industrial resilience;

47.Notes that the proposed budget for Horizon Europe still falls short of the needed Union contribution to achieve the 3 % research and development (R&D) spending target and calls for a budget for Horizon Europe of EUR 200 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 177,01 billion in 2025 constant prices); underlines that increased investments in EU research and innovation, including much greater private investments, reflect the Union’s existential need to close the innovation gap with our global competitors and thereby bring sustainable growth and competitiveness back to Europe, since this remains the bedrock of our prosperity and is crucial for maintaining our social model; recalls that EU R&D spending cannot substitute sustained national public investment in R&D; stresses that collaborative research, open competition, and scientific and technological excellence must remain at the heart of the framework programme, and welcomes the Commission’s decision to continue dedicated support for widening actions and for transition countries in order to enhance geographical balance; underlines that the framework programme, including its widening actions, should primarily aim to foster excellence in research and innovation across the whole Union and to fully unlock Europe’s talent potential;

48.Recalls the importance of the CEF in addressing the missing links in the European energy and transport sector and of its contribution to boosting economic growth, jobs, and competitiveness in the EU; notes that the clean energy transition, and cross-border structural investment to improve energy security and critical energy infrastructure in Europe are indispensable and constitute a prerequisite for ensuring a secure and affordable supply of energy across the Union; recalls the crucial importance and added value of EU investment in developing clean energy infrastructure and accelerating grid modernisation and cross-border interconnection, including for renewables; welcomes the highly necessary increase in CEF transport and military mobility; notes that funding for transport infrastructure, as well as decarbonisation and digitalisation solutions, is now dependent on close synchronisation between the CEF, ECF and NRPP; calls for a CEF allocation of EUR 91,29 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 81 billion in 2025 constant prices) in order to adequately support energy, transport and military mobility;

49.Stresses that the LIFE programme plays a central role in mainstreaming the EU’s environmental objectives and commitments; considers, therefore, that actions currently supported under the LIFE programme, such as targeted, long-term and high-quality support for nature conservation, biodiversity restoration, climate adaptation, pollution prevention and environmental governance should continue in a clear manner, with dedicated funding of EUR 3,39 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 3 billion in 2025 constant prices) under the ECF, so as to ensure predictability, stability and continuity of funding, including for local and regional authorities and so that the implementation on the ground remains effective and visible to beneficiaries and citizens; stresses, in addition, that the EU Facility should also implement LIFE-related actions to achieve the current level of financing of the LIFE programme;

50.Stresses that the health of European citizens remains a priority; highlights that a healthy population and a strong health sector are fundamental drivers of Europe’s competitiveness, economic resilience and well-being; underlines that sustained and predictable investment in health is essential to strengthen the resilience of health systems, support and retain a skilled health workforce, reduce inequalities in access to care across Member States and ensure the Union’s preparedness for future health crises; expresses strong concern about the dilution of the EU4Health programme, shifting most health policy, prevention, and health system-strengthening actions into the ECF; calls therefore for EUR 10,05 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 8,90 billion in 2025 constant prices) of funding to be earmarked under the ECF for specific EU4health priorities;

51.Reiterates that adequate resources should be devoted to fighting gender-based violence and to supporting sexual and reproductive health and services, women’s rights organisations, and EU initiatives and bodies promoting true equality among people, regardless of their gender, age, sexual orientation or race; points out, in this regard, the Commission’s communication OJ C, C/2026/1383, 4.3.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/1383/oj. following Parliament’s resolution of December 2025 Texts adopted, P10_TA(2025)0338. on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘My Voice, My Choice’;

52.Takes note of the proposal to shift the crisis preparedness and health emergency response from the current EU4Health programme into the more general crisis response capabilities of the EU, complemented by new cross-sectoral crisis coordination functions and actions relating to civil-military cooperation, creating integrated and resilient European civil protection; underlines the EU’s role as a hub for coordinating and improving the Member States’ preparedness and capacities to respond immediately to large-scale, high-impact emergencies and reiterates its call to ensure adequate funding for preparedness and rapid crisis response, ensuring the UCPM+ remains the primary EU-level framework for general-purpose crisis response; calls for a budget for UCPM+ of EUR 12,42 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 11 billion in 2025 constant prices);

53.Reiterates that Erasmus+, as one of the flagship programmes of the Union, plays a central role in promoting European values, cross-border cooperation and youth engagement and recalls that, in the context of the Draghi and Letta reports, strengthening human capital, labour mobility and skills, including through university and apprenticeship exchanges, is identified as an essential component of Europe’s competitiveness and resilience; calls for an Erasmus+ budget of EUR 47,39 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 42 billion in 2025 constant prices);

54.Stresses that investment in democratic resilience and cultural vitality is an integral part of the Union’s strategic autonomy; welcomes, in this context, the proposal for the new AgoraEU programme, recognising its broadened scope and its unique European added value as the Union’s only programme dedicated to the cultural and creative sectors and media pluralism, as well as to supporting democratic participation and promoting European values; calls for a budget of EUR 10,72 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 9.5 billion in 2025 constant prices) for AgoraEU;

55.Calls for a budget of EUR 0.89 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 0,79 billion in 2025 constant prices) for the Justice Programme, including support for the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice, the roll-out of new cross-border instruments, and emerging initiatives to reduce cross-border legal fragmentation, in particular in light of emerging challenges, including online crime and hate speech;

56.Notes that heading 3 ‘Global Europe’ is allocated EUR 190 billion in 2025 prices in the 2028-2034 MFF, representing a significant increase from EUR 121,5 billion in the current period while maintaining its 10 % share of the total MFF; considers that this essential reinforcement of EUR 68,5 billion is absolutely crucial, as it demonstrates the Union’s commitment to strengthening its role as a global actor and reliable partner in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment; expresses concern, however, that this level of funding remains insufficient to finance pre-accession support and external action given the scale of global challenges, including rising development needs and inequalities, humanitarian crises, an unprecedented number of crises, conflicts and overall fragilities, decarbonisation, global health and the need to support Ukraine and other partners; therefore considers it necessary to increase the budget allocation for the Global Europe instrument to EUR 225 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 198,63 billion in 2025 constant prices);

57.Regrets the lack of thematic targets covering critical areas which would allow the co-legislators to set strategic priorities; stresses the need to involve civil society partners as well as local and regional actors; stresses that this increased allocation is essential to secure the Union as a credible global actor; calls for the necessary funds to support enlargement and accession processes and to promote and uphold the Union’s values and interests worldwide, including through mutually beneficial partnerships; stresses that predictable and adequate funding supports stability, resilience and sustainable development and contributes to addressing the root causes of migration by fostering economic opportunities, quality education and vocational training, and job creation in partner countries, thereby strengthening long-term security; calls for provisions to be negotiated under the relevant legislative procedure to ensure that the implementation of EU funds under the Global Europe instrument does not ignore persistent human rights violations in partner countries, and recalls the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence for humanitarian and development aid;

58.Warns that the merger of programmes could lead, once again, to weakened parliamentary oversight and involvement and reduced funding visibility for specific priorities, as occurred with Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe; calls for clear and meaningful accountability and reporting mechanisms within the Global Europe framework; insists that the pillars, as well as thematic programmes, countries and instruments within them, including pre-accession funds, maintain clear and separate budget lines to ensure transparency in allocations and that requests for transfers within pillars of a significant amount be subject to prior approval by Parliament; considers it essential to allow de-commitments under Global Europe to return to the budget line of origin; deems it necessary for the Commission to provide a clear breakdown between programmable and non-programmable funding and recalls that Global Europe must be mainly composed of geographic programme actions;

59.Recalls that humanitarian aid, with ring-fenced funding, safeguarded and implemented in line with Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 concerning humanitarian aid Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (OJ L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1996/1257/oj)., remains Europe’s most visible and principled expression of solidarity and must continue to uphold the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence; reiterates its position that the principled and needs-based nature of humanitarian aid requires that its predictable funding be delivered through a coherent framework with an adequately resourced annual baseline with a dedicated nomenclature, complemented by an adequate reserve to cater for emergency actions;

60.Emphasises the importance of guaranteed access to the reserve of the Global Europe cushion, which should be available in addition to, and outside of, the EUR 25 billion indicative allocation for reinforcements in the case of unexpected needs, which are growing due to factors such as climate change; calls for the EUR 25 billion for humanitarian aid over the 2028-2034 period to be regarded as a guaranteed minimum, and not as a ceiling, in view of the increasing number and duration of humanitarian crises;

61.Welcomes the fact that the mobilisation of the Global Europe cushion is to change compared to NDICI – Global Europe, as, under the next MFF and Financial Regulation 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 (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj). rules, any mobilisation above 10 % of the annual allocation will have to be approved by Parliament and the Council; insists, however, on its previous calls that the Commission inform Parliament in due time before any mobilisation of the cushion and take into consideration its observations on the nature, objectives and financial amounts envisaged;

62.Underlines that a sufficiently resourced Global Europe instrument is essential for the consistency of the Union’s external action and for the EU to act as a reliable and long-term partner, on an equal footing with partner countries; reaffirms that allocations under Global Europe should align with the objective of EU development cooperation policy as stated in Article 208 TFEU, namely the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, as well as with the European Consensus on Development and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;

63.Calls for meaningful accountability and reporting mechanisms; is concerned by the widespread use of ‘financing not linked to costs’ in the implementation of the Europe pillar through performance-based plans and insists that these funds should be disbursed based on compliance with fundamentals of the enlargement process, including the rule of law;

64.Considers that enlargement represents an opportunity to strengthen the Union and that the next MFF is pivotal for preparing the Union and the candidate countries for their accession; welcomes the decision to grant Ukraine and the neighbouring Republic of Moldova candidate country status; insists on the need to deploy the necessary funds to support their accession processes and the accession processes of the Western Balkans countries; welcomes the commitment of Global Europe to provide robust financial support to candidate countries as a key instrument for anchoring them firmly to the EU and advancing their preparation for accession; calls for a dedicated allocation for each candidate country to be guaranteed with specific budget lines;

65.Reiterates its full support for Ukrainians in their fight for freedom and democracy and deplores the terrible suffering and impact resulting from Russia’s unprovoked and unjustifiable war of aggression; welcomes the fact that the proposal to implement the Ukraine Support Loan has been adopted as part of the Union’s support to Ukraine; underlines that debt service costs arising from the borrowing for the Ukraine Support Loan were not accounted for in the proposals for the next MFF; insists that these debt service costs be placed entirely over and above the ceilings of the next MFF and outside of the funding already planned under the Ukraine Reserve;

66.Notes with concern the decreased official development assistance (ODA) target from 93 % to 90 % in the Commission proposal; stresses that the Commission should not be able to change this target via delegated acts;

67.Stresses the need to secure sufficient funding for the common security and defence policy (CSDP) and the Rapid Deployment Capacity; underlines that civilian CSDP missions are strategic for the Union and support the Union’s security interests and external action objectives, as well as those of its partners; therefore, calls for an allocation of EUR 3,76 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 3,34 billion in 2025 constant prices) for the budget for the common foreign and security policy, which covers the CSDP;

68.Underlines that the overseas countries and territories represent unique and strategic assets that benefit the Union as a whole; believes that the allocation proposed by the Commission does not correspond to the challenges faced by overseas countries and territories and calls for an allocation of EUR 2,08 billion in current prices (equivalent to EUR 1,85 billion in 2025 constant prices), taking also into consideration the recent threats to the territorial integrity of Greenland, with which cooperation can significantly help the Union to advance its strategic autonomy;

69.Insists that EU funding for conflict prevention, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction constitutes a direct investment in the Union’s long-term stability and security, particularly in its Eastern and Southern neighbourhoods; commends the role of the UN and its agencies in conflict zones and calls for the EU to strengthen its political and financial support for multilateralism; demands that the next MFF provide dedicated, adequate and predictable funding to the UN and its agencies, whose work is of fundamental importance to the civilian population, particularly in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and the wider region; calls for the EU to play an active role in peacebuilding and in addressing the effects of the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and supporting rebuilding efforts; calls for dedicated funding in this regard in the MFF; underlines that all EU funding must be in line with EU values and rules, in particular the Financial Regulation;

70.Calls for the continuation of resourcing for and meaningful engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs), especially local actors and women’s rights organisations, and for structured dialogue supported by dedicated funding streams tailored to the needs of CSOs and human right defenders; calls for external action funding to be implemented, while taking into account the fundamental role of local and regional governments thanks to effective, clear and consistent multilevel governance and partnerships;

71.Insists that the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group be recognised as the Union’s primary strategic financial partner within the Global Europe architecture to maximise the impact of heading 3 resources; calls for a strong investment partnership with the EIB to leverage the EU budget, mobilise private investment and enhance the budgetary guarantee and blending framework, ensuring the effective delivery of the instrument’s objectives, particularly relating to competitiveness, resilience and promoting private-sector access to funding in partner countries; acknowledges the complementary role of other implementing partners such as national promotional banks and institutions, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Council of Europe Development Bank;

72.Underlines the need for Union policies to be underpinned by a well-functioning administration; insists that, post-2027, sufficient financial and staff resources be allocated from the outset and throughout the MFF period so that Union institutions, bodies, decentralised agencies and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, notably when their mandate is extended, can ensure effective and efficient policy design and high-quality delivery and enforcement, provide technical assistance, continue to attract the best people from all Member States, thus ensuring geographical balance, and have leeway to adjust to changing circumstances; underlines the need for gender balance to be ensured within the administration at all levels;

73.Calls on the Commission to provide additional information on the funding and staff for EU decentralised agencies in the next MFF; considers that, for some agencies, the proposal of stable funding and staff will continue to undermine their ability to fulfil their mandates; reiterates Parliament’s long-standing position that new tasks should be financed through fresh appropriations, and that redeployments from programmes and other priorities must be exceptional; acknowledges the need to assess and avoid potential overlaps or duplications between agencies and identify opportunities for synergies and cooperation in order to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently;

74.Notes with concern that the Commission’s self-imposed stable staffing has proven counterproductive to meeting operational requirements; acknowledges that, for the 2028-2034 MFF, the Commission has requested additional posts, particularly regarding the cybersecurity requirements in terms of staff; insists that the staffing needs of all institutions and bodies have to be taken into account when establishing additional posts; highlights the particularly alarming situation whereby some EU agencies receive inadequate operational funding, severely limiting their capacity to fulfil their mandates, comply with the Regulation laying down measures for a high common level of cybersecurity at the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2023/2841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 laying down measures for a high common level of cybersecurity at the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union (OJ L, 2023/2841, 18.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2841/oj). and deliver on policy objectives and enforcement as well as their regulatory obligations; stresses that, in light of the increasing challenges to be addressed, the EU institutions and bodies need to offer an attractive work environment to secure high-level talent applications;

75.Stresses the importance of the European Schools system as a flagship model that sets high common educational standards across the Member States and offers an internationally recognised qualification that promotes academic excellence, learner mobility and a shared European identity; calls, therefore, for support and predictable funding to meet its currently not covered long-term structural costs and expanding responsibilities, and for its visibility, transparency and budgetary certainty to be ensured;

76.Assumes that the Commission proposal duly reflects actual needs across all institutions, bodies and agencies and, for that reason, does not propose a further increase; fully intends, however, to defend the Commission proposal and to secure the necessary funding for a strong, efficient and high-quality European public administration based on the principle of equality of the Union citizens, at the service of all Europeans;

77.Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a Flexibility Instrument to be constituted not only of a fixed amount but also of additional funds from revenue relating to fines and decommitments; considers, in the light of its position of 7 May 2025, that the Flexibility Instrument should receive funds from additional sources, namely unspent margins from previous years, the annual surplus from the previous year and reflows from financial instruments, together with future margins as a last resort; considers also that it should be heavily frontloaded; calls for a simplification and rationalisation of procedures in the mobilisation of special instruments and, therefore, considers the existence of the Single Margin Instrument to be obsolete and calls for its features to be incorporated into the Flexibility Instrument; considers that external assigned revenue and amounts made available again under specific revenue and decommitment rules in programme-specific provisions could be exempted from this general rule;

78.Restates that there should be a second special instrument, the Solidarity Reserve for Natural Disasters, amounting to EUR 4 billion per year in 2025 constant prices to be mobilised over and above the MFF ceilings, dedicated to ensuring solidarity in the event of natural disasters, which should complement the proposed cascade mechanism for crisis situations and should be governed by rules allowing for rapid disbursement and, where appropriate, pre-financing mechanisms in clear coordination with all relevant instruments, including UCPM+, thereby contributing to resilience and crisis preparedness; considers that both special instruments should be able to carry over unspent amounts throughout the MFF period, to guarantee flexibility;

79.Notes that the Commission proposes EUR 88 billion for the Ukraine Reserve within the MFF regulation to finance pre-accession assistance, recovery and reconstruction efforts; considers that this amount could provide substantial support; welcomes the placing of the Ukraine Reserve over and above the MFF ceilings to cater for Ukraine’s exceptional and unpredictable needs; observes, however, that should the conflict continue, this allocation would be insufficient to meet Ukraine’s needs; calls for an increase and frontloading of the Reserve, with a view to providing additional support to Ukraine; stresses that the financing structure for Ukraine should remain coherent, transparent and effective, fully supporting the country’s accession path while clearly distinguishing pre-accession assistance and reconstruction needs;

80.Recalls that the current MFF has been underfunded, which required an MFF revision in 2024; notes that while there is increased flexibility in the 2028-2034 MFF proposal, the overall amounts in the Commission proposal are still not sufficient;

81.Regrets that the proposed MFF regulation does not include a mid-term review clause; insists that the MFF regulation must require the Commission to present a review of the functioning of the MFF, by July 2031 at the latest, taking full account of the economic situation at that time, as well as the latest macroeconomic and employment projections and relevant global developments; is also of the view that such a compulsory review should, as appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of this Regulation in accordance with the procedures set out in the TFEU; stresses that any such revision should not reduce pre-allocated national envelopes, as set out in the NRPP Regulation;

82.Recalls that European elections will take place in 2034; considers that the date of publication of the proposal for the following MFF Regulation, i.e. 1 July 2033, is significantly later than usual in the MFF life cycle; calls for the proposal for the post-2034 MFF to be published by July 2032 at the latest;

83.Takes note of the Commission’s narrative that its proposals seek to increase flexibility and simplification in the next MFF; acknowledges that flexibility is essential for responding to unforeseen challenges, but stresses that it cannot be used at the expense of accountability, predictability, transparency and policy coherence; warns that flexibility without transparency would widen the democratic accountability gap and undermine public trust in the EU;

84.Regrets that the Commission’s simplification proposals primarily benefit its own processes rather than final beneficiaries, thereby exacerbating the democratic deficit in the Union; recalls that Parliament has consistently argued for simplification for final beneficiaries, including lowering the administrative burden associated with accessing the EU budget and making spending more efficient; insists that simplification must not compromise programme quality or democratic accountability, nor be used as a pretext for undermining multilevel governance and partnership principles or constructive dialogue with key stakeholders and social partners, as taking their proper application into account will increase the effectiveness of EU spending and will be essential for the success of the MFF; echoes the Court of Auditors’ concern that the Commission’s approach will lead to simplification in relation to the Commission’s interactions with Member States, while increasing or shifting administrative burden to national, regional and beneficiary levels; underlines that simplification will require, where possible, the harmonisation of rules and reporting requirements between EU, national and regional levels; stresses that Parliament will put forward all the transparency mechanisms necessary to fulfil its role as the guardian of citizens’ interests;

85.Believes that the current NRPP proposal could lead to the ‘renationalisation’ of some EU policies, due to a lack of a horizontal approach and the increased flexibility granted to the Member States in implementing the Union budget based on a national approach; calls for ensuring that the budget remains an investment budget, which maintains a focus on EU added value and ensures a strong horizontal approach;

86.Underlines that the widespread use of flexibility and performance-based instruments in the next MFF must be accompanied by strengthened multilevel governance; considers that the meaningful involvement of local and regional authorities, as well as social and economic partners, in the design, implementation and monitoring of Union-funded actions is essential to counterbalance Commission-centric implementation, reduce the democratic accountability gap and ensure that spending responds to real territorial needs; insists that adequate scrutiny by elected representatives at EU, national and regional levels, where relevant, should accompany such instruments and that Parliament’s budgetary and discharge role be preserved;

87.Recalls that the Court of Auditors found that the so-called performance-based model, built on the experience of the RRF, revealed weaknesses in its design, implementation and effectiveness; notes with concern that the MFF proposals include widespread use of financing not linked to costs (FNLC) for a substantial portion of the instruments under the next MFF; is extremely concerned about such a major shift towards a new model of implementation; draws attention to the fact that, without adequate safeguards to ensure sound financial management in the implementation of Union funding or clear steps to address the shortcomings identified in previous or existing performance-based instruments, this approach entails substantial risks and weakens auditability; underlines that a solution needs to be found to address the divergences between cost estimates connected to milestones and targets and the real costs of projects, as this misalignment risks undermining the implementation of agreed Union-wide political priorities; considers that any possible increase in efficiencies cannot come at the expense of the protection of the financial interests of the Union; underlines, in particular, that large-scale and complex projects should remain cost-based, as their scope, duration and multilevel financing require detailed financial reporting and verifiable expenditure data to ensure proper monitoring and accountability; calls for the continued and expanded use of simplified cost options, in particular for smaller or medium-scale investments, as effective and proportionate tools to reduce administrative burdens, increase accessibility for smaller beneficiaries, and maintain accountability and traceability in the use of Union funds;

88.Insists that data on incurred costs must remain available to the discharge authority in order to verify efficiency and ‘value for money’ in the Union budget; warns that, without cost transparency, parliamentary scrutiny risks becoming a formalistic exercise unable to safeguard the sound financial management of the budget; calls on the Commission to ensure systematic follow-up to the findings and recommendations of the Court of Auditors;

89.Insists on the need for greater coherence in the monitoring and implementation of EU spending programmes and in the mainstreaming of important EU objectives and commitments; underlines that the proposal for a Performance Regulation is a first step towards putting in place a horizontal expenditure tracking and performance monitoring framework for the budget that aims to reduce administrative burden; considers that this approach, if adequately implemented, may lead to strengthened democratic oversight; stresses that a comprehensive inclusion of horizontal principles in a single framework would allow for meaningful tracking and better reflect the Union’s political priorities; insists that the performance framework must prioritise impact indicators that measure actual outcomes for citizens; stresses that the proposed Performance Regulation must ensure that reporting indicators are mandatory where relevant and comparable across all Member States and management modes; warns that, without such comparability, the discharge authority will be unable to assess relative effectiveness or identify underperforming programmes; underlines that performance indicators must be explicitly derived from the objectives of each programme and should capture outputs, outcomes and impacts; emphasises that climate-related expenditure must be integrated into the MFF to accurately monitor and track funding and its impacts;

90.Stresses that the EU budget plays a vital role in supporting the EU’s fundamental values of democracy and pluralism, enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; welcomes the recently published EU strategy for civil society, which recognises the important role of CSOs in providing advice, support and expertise in the development and implementation of EU legislation and policies; underlines, in this regard, the need to ensure long-term, predictable and sufficient funding for CSOs;

91.Recalls that, as required by the Financial Regulation, programmes and activities should, where feasible and appropriate and in accordance with the relevant sector-specific rules, be implemented to achieve their set objectives while respecting working and employment conditions under applicable national law, Union law, the conventions of the International Labour Organization, and collective agreements, taking into account the principle of gender equality and without doing significant harm to the environmental objectives of the Union;

92.Stresses that all funding must be in line with the Commission Guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy; recalls, in this regard, the Commission’s statement of 1 April 2025 on the current LIFE programme;

93.Notes the overall structure of four MFF headings, as proposed by the Commission, down from seven headings in the current MFF; notes with concern that the Commission proposes to reduce the number of EU programmes from 60 to 19, introducing a lack of clarity between objectives and budgetary nomenclature, undermining transparency and accountability; stresses that Parliament’s position on the structure of these new MFF programmes will be determined during the co-decision procedure for the relevant sectoral legislative acts; insists that the proposed budget nomenclature and the amounts allocated to each budget line must reflect all the specific objectives of and within each programme, with a view to ensuring transparency, predictability and accountability and to providing the budgetary authority with the information necessary to establish the annual budget and oversee its implementation;

94.Deplores, in this regard, the fact that the budgetary nomenclature proposed in the sectoral legislation is woefully inadequate; underlines that the simplification of the budgetary structure must not come at the expense of transparency or the ability of the budgetary authority to exert efficient scrutiny and take informed decisions; insists that the nomenclature must remain sufficiently detailed to reflect programme objectives set out in the basic acts, preserve the visibility of EU actions in all policy objectives and priorities, and enable Parliament to fully exercise its scrutiny role; calls for a more granular nomenclature to allow for a meaningful annual budgetary procedure, draft amending budgets and discharge procedure; reiterates that the annual budgetary procedure is the core democratic mechanism for allocating funds within the MFF;

95.Notes that budgetary transfers under the Financial Regulation already provide flexibility during budget implementation; stresses that the Commission can currently transfer considerable amounts between policy areas without budgetary authority approval, limiting oversight; in the absence of a sufficiently detailed budget structure, calls for new rules setting both a maximum amount and percentage per budget line for transfers without approval; considers that transfers from other Union institutions below a certain threshold could be exempted from the objection procedure as a simplification measure;

96.Emphasises the need for robust governance ensuring parliamentary accountability, oversight and control, alongside an effective anti-fraud architecture; raises, furthermore, concerns as to how the Commission will obtain sufficient assurance at EU level on the legality and regularity of expenditure, recalling that such clear assurance is indispensable for Parliament to exercise its role as discharge authority; rejects any approach that limits Parliament to a consultative or information-only role in the mobilisation of any instrument or fund under the next MFF; stresses that budgetary flexibility must not circumvent the prerogatives of the budgetary authority and that all redeployments, reprogramming and mobilisation of cushions or other reserves must be subject to Parliament’s approval; considers that genuine flexibility requires both rapid response capacity and democratic legitimacy, which can only be achieved through Parliament’s full participation in decisions on the allocation and use of resources;

97.Expresses its concern about the lack of predictability in EU funding that might result from excessive flexibility mechanisms and recurrent redeployments; recognises the need for enhanced flexibility in allocating resources within certain programmes, but stresses that this must not compromise long-term policy objectives, funding predictability or Parliament’s prerogatives; underlines that while the current MFF has suffered from insufficient flexibility to adjust to evolving priorities, the next MFF must strike a better balance between investment predictability and adaptability; emphasises that certain policy areas require greater funding stability than others; firmly rejects recurrent redeployments as a means to finance Union priorities, as they undermine programme implementation and jeopardise the delivery of agreed policy objectives;

98.Notes the proposed increase in borrowing and lending under the next MFF; considers that the budgetary authority must carefully monitor the impact of this approach on the MFF headroom or other guarantees; demands that borrowing and lending operations respect the powers of the co-legislators and the budgetary authority;

99.Reiterates its call for a reinforced investment partnership with the EIB Group to leverage the EU budget, mobilise private investment and de-risk important policy areas such as climate, competitiveness, housing, social entrepreneurship, and innovation, defence and the external dimension; stresses that this and similar partnerships with other implementing partners leveraging the EU budget in all policy areas and de-risking investment where relevant, should maintain tailored instruments to facilitate access for SMEs, mid-caps and cross-border consortia, while ensuring robust governance, transparency and Union added value; reiterates the importance of adequate financing for technical assistance, jointly developed by the EIB and the Commission, for implementing authorities in order to help ensure timely implementation and the additionality of investments, in particular through building administrative capacity and developing investment pipelines, and calls for adequate funding to ensure the continued impact;

100.Reiterates its long-standing position that all EU-level spending should be brought within the purview of the budgetary authority, thereby ensuring democratic control, transparency and the protection of the Union’s financial interests;

101.Emphasises that, in the interest of securing Parliament’s consent, every aspect of the MFF, especially budgetary elements, are to be considered as a package and subject to genuine negotiations; reiterates its objection to how current and previous MFF Regulations were adopted, with the European Council overstepping its role by predetermining multiple elements such as financial envelopes and policy-specific provisions, thereby violating Treaty provisions in both substance and intent; expresses serious concern that preliminary ‘negotiating boxes’ prepared by the Council presidency replicate this flawed methodology, incorporating issues that belong to the co-decision procedure when establishing new EU programme legislation;

102.Expresses serious concern about the broader programme design features and sectoral proposals that shift essential policy and budgetary decisions from the basic act to work programmes, significantly weakening Parliament’s legislative role; strongly objects to the transfer of legislative elements away from sectoral regulations, excluding Parliament from decisions that are currently taken under the ordinary legislative procedure and create legal uncertainty for beneficiaries;

103.Insists that all substantive policy choices such as programme objectives, spending priorities, financial allocations, funding rates, eligibility, selection and award criteria, conditions, definitions and calculation methods must be determined in the relevant basic acts, with full respect for Parliament’s prerogatives as co-legislator and budgetary authority and not in the work programme or similar empowerments; demands that policy choices, objectives and governance aspects be decided in the basic acts and that any supplementing and non-essential elements that are not included in the basic act be adopted exclusively through delegated acts, rejecting any use of implementing acts or other procedures that are not subject to Parliament’s consent; in this respect, requires that all multiannual and annual work programmes be adopted through delegated acts, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU, to ensure Parliament’s systematic involvement in policy decision-making and scrutiny; categorically rejects any attempt to relegate strategic policy decisions to comitology procedures or other arrangements; warns that Parliament will not accept any proposal that fails to guarantee its full legislative and oversight powers; stresses that reducing the level of detail in the basic acts results in shifting important policy choices to the implementation phase, therefore weakening democratic accountability and marginalising Parliament’s role in political decisions with significant policy and budgetary implications;

104.Stresses that the broad scope of objectives in the proposed sectoral regulations requires a revised assessment procedure for pilot projects and preparatory actions to safeguard Parliament’s already limited right of initiative; considers that clearer criteria and streamlined procedures are essential to ensure that Parliament can continue to launch innovative actions and test new policy approaches in headings 1, 2 and 3; insists that broadening the scope of programmes must not reduce Parliament’s capacity to propose pilot projects and preparatory actions in specific policy areas;

105.Underlines that compliance with Union values and fundamental rights is an essential prerequisite to access EU funds; highlights the need for continued links between respect for the rule of law and access to EU funds under the 2021-2027 MFF; believes that the protection of the Union’s financial interests is intrinsically linked to respect for the rule of law and Union values; stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj). has been a key tool for protecting the Union’s financial interests against breaches of the rule of law, and that it should be applied whenever its legal conditions are met across the entire EU budget, including performance-based instruments as well as funding provided under Article 122 TFEU; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the regulation strictly and consistently, and to take measures without undue delay wherever necessary;

106.Insists that, in the next MFF, a seamless and coherent Union values toolbox should cover democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across all EU funds; is concerned about the overlaps with the conditionality mechanism introduced, in particular by the NRPPs, and calls for a unified, coherent and comprehensive framework across all EU funding programmes, in full coherence with the Conditionality Regulation, covering both enabling conditions that must be fulfilled in order to access EU funding, and measures to withhold funds when relevant conditions are no longer met; requests the Commission to consolidate all rule of law tools into a unified and comprehensive framework that provides clear, objective and transparent criteria for application and the way in which the Commission will ensure coordination among these tools;

107.Demands that Union funds be withheld where essential requirements are not fulfilled and that frozen funds only be released to the Member States concerned once they have fully implemented meaningful reforms and verifiably demonstrated compliance with the rule of law in practice and in coherence with the findings of the rule of law reports; stresses that decisions to suspend or reduce Union funding over breaches of the rule of law must be based on objective criteria, applied consistently, and must not be guided by other considerations or be the outcome of negotiations;

108.Acknowledges that the Commission proposes, in the context of the NRPPs, the possibility to make funding that is decommitted because of a lack of remedial measures in response to an identified breach of the rule of law under the Conditionality Regulation available again to programmes in direct or indirect management; demands clarification as to how such decommitted amounts could be channelled to other programmes and calls for the prohibition of reshuffling of frozen funds; insists that the decision to use de-committed funds is a prerogative of the budgetary authority in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure and should not be left to the discretion of the Commission;

109.Stresses that a robust approach is needed to ensure that legitimate final recipients and beneficiaries are not penalised because EU funds for their government have been suspended as a result of rule of law breaches; stresses that this principle lies at the core of a smarter conditionality approach;

110.Emphasises that a steering mechanism will not compensate for any loss of Parliament’s legislative or budgetary powers; underlines that the annual budget should reflect policy priorities and plans agreed by the co-legislators; insists that getting budgetary governance right and preserving the prerogatives of the budgetary authority are essential prerequisites to making the annual budgetary procedure more meaningful and that any steering mechanism can only function if the basic foundations are in place;

111.Rejects any arrangement that would constrain the freedom of the budgetary authority to make autonomous decisions on budget priorities and allocations; firmly opposes any mechanism that would enable the Commission to predetermine budgetary choices through technical assessments; categorically rejects any possibility for the European Council to influence the annual budgetary procedure through European Council Conclusions, as this would constitute a clear breach of Treaty provisions and undermine the institutional balance established for budgetary decision-making; recalls that the Financial Regulation already provides for the possibility to lift budgetary reserves; calls for systematic coordination by the Commission with the budgetary authority before making any voluntary commitments on the use of in-built flexibility, and for any mobilisation to be approved by decision of the budgetary authority;

112.Notes with concern that the Commission proposes to increase the deviation from indicative amounts in sectoral legislation from the current 15 % to 20 % in the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) (COM(2025)0572).; underlines that this proposed increase, combined with the merging of programmes and substantially larger budgets per programme, would create significant potential for modifications without the involvement of co-legislators; expresses serious reservations about the cumulative effect of these changes on democratic oversight and the balance of institutional powers; considers that such an expansion of executive flexibility undermines the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the maximum deviation from indicative amounts to be limited to 5 % over the entire duration of the programmes, without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of the MFF Regulation and the IIA, ensuring that any substantial budgetary reallocations remain subject to proper democratic scrutiny and co-legislative decision-making; insists that this reduced threshold would maintain necessary operational flexibility while preserving Parliament’s essential role in budgetary oversight;

113.Highlights the importance of maintaining the interinstitutional regular dialogue on own resources and calls for a higher frequency of meetings;

114.Proposes to include a dedicated annex on cooperation concerning the conditionality regime; believes, in this context, that a regular dialogue between the three institutions on the current state of play concerning the protection of the EU budget, with regard to the rule of law, would be an effective way of improving coordination of the rule of law toolbox;

115.Reaffirms Parliament’s strong commitment to the introduction of new own resources to ensure a sustainable and predictable long-term financing of the EU budget; reiterates the need for sustainable and resilient revenue for the Union budget that should match the expenditure side, thus ensuring budgetary stability, efficiency and fiscal discipline and thereby enabling the Union to address its needs and priorities;

116.Reiterates its long-standing call for the introduction of new genuine own resources, not only for NGEU debt repayment but also to finance the Union’s enhanced policy ambitions; expresses its continued conviction that the introduction of new genuine own resources to finance the Union’s budget is indispensable; recalls that, without new resources, the financial burden will inevitably fall on Member States through increased GNI-based contributions; considers, therefore, that the introduction of genuine new revenue streams of at least EUR 60 billion per year is an essential condition for an ambitious MFF 2028-2034;

117.Is highly concerned by the complete absence of progress on the reform of the system of own resources in the Council since 2020; underlines that genuine new own resources are the necessary answer, in times of budgetary constraints, to finance long-standing and new Union policies and much-needed investments in the EU;

118.Reaffirms its long-standing criticism that conceiving and negotiating the budget based on the principle of ‘juste retour’ will inevitably result in reduced EU added value, as it diminishes the rationale for investing together in common and European public goods; acknowledges, at the same time, the merits of the GNI-based own resource, in view of its reliable balancing function; calls on the Council and the Member States to refrain from prolonging any lump-sum reductions, and to create an equitable overall budgetary balance for all by focussing on the synergies and EU-added value in a spirit of solidarity and allowing for more transparency;

119.Recalls that the own resources decision requires unanimity in the Council, consultation with Parliament, and national ratification by all Member States; stresses that any basket of new own resources must be perceived as fair to avoid situations where the implementation of such revenue streams disproportionately penalises certain Member States;

120.Considers that, in the face of unprecedented challenges requiring substantial increases in investment across multiple policy areas in the next MFF period, the revenue base of the EU budget must be broadened, strengthened, diversified and modernised in a duly justified manner; insists that, to this end, the existing own resources should be adjusted and upgraded, and new own resources should be introduced without further delay; considers, in addition, that revenue other than own resources should be an essential ingredient to the mix of income sources, and well-defined borrowing and lending operations whose ensuing contingent liabilities are safely covered by the headroom under the own resources ceilings should remain an actionable fall-back option, at least in times of unforeseen crises;

121.Recalls the legal obligation and political responsibility for the timely repayment of the NGEU debt; reiterates its position that the repayment of the NGEU debt should continue to be managed in a prudent and flexible manner, including, where possible, through refinancing operations, in order to minimise pressure on the MFF and its programmes for 2028-2034;

122.Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to identify new own resources and to put forward certain calibrations to traditional own resources, such as customs duties, with a view to strengthening the Union’s financial autonomy and reducing reliance on national contributions, thereby securing the future financing of the Union’s budget; supports the broader basket approach proposed by the Commission as this represents a realistic pathway to securing the necessary support in the Council; takes note of the various types of own resources proposed; strongly underlines, however, that any basket of new own resources must be adopted at the same time as the next multiannual financial framework and must generate a stable and sufficient flow of revenues of at least roughly EUR 60 billion per year, as this level is essential to ensure steady repayment of borrowing undertaken under NGEU, meet the Union’s commitments and finance joint investment in European public goods; calls on the Council to swiftly reach agreement on new own resources in order to provide long-term budgetary certainty;

123.Demands that, should the Council eliminate certain elements of the basket, it should replace the ensuing gap by increased call-rates for other sources or by replacing them with another source; emphasises that the new sources should not harm the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises or EU competitiveness as a whole; considers that the revenue potential of, inter alia, a digital services levy aimed at major digital platforms, an online gambling and betting services levy, the extension of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and a levy based on a uniform call rate on capital gains from crypto assets should all be explored as possible solutions should other proposed own resources not gain support among Member States, in order to ensure tax fairness and a revenue level that is commensurate with needs;

124.Considers that joint borrowing presents a viable option that offers the Union the ability to respond swiftly to unexpected developments and facilitates the timely financing of EU policies with clear EU added value; emphasises that such an option should be fully in line with the EU’s strategic priorities for European public goods, or facilitate investment in cross-border or pan-European projects that boost the EU’s growth potential;

125.Underlines the importance of the Commission’s proposal for a novel type of crisis mechanism based on extraordinary borrowing backed by additional headroom under the own resources ceiling and anchored in the EU budget’s consistently excellent credit rating; notes that this instrument is time-bound, subject to pre-defined criteria and limited in purpose, scope and size, delimited by the extra available dedicated headroom compartment; notes, furthermore, that the instrument will enable the Union to mobilise up to EUR 395 billion in loans to Member States when severe crises, severe hardship or serious threats thereof occur during the 2028-2034 period; expresses satisfaction that the proposed mechanism would not be based on Article 122 TFEU, which sidelines Parliament as in previous instances, but on a Council regulation under Article 311(4) TFEU, which requires the consent of Parliament, thus ensuring institutional balance and procedural accountability;

126.Considers that this mechanism can be a further tool at EU level to respond swiftly and effectively to increasing needs, as repeatedly advocated by Mario Draghi, as well as to unpredictable developments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the experience gained from NGEU to finance and implement future strategic EU investments;

127.States that it will only approve a long-term budget, including appropriate and sustainable revenue, that is fit for purpose for the Union in a changing world;

128.Asks the Commission to take into account the following modifications:

The proposal for a Council regulation should be modified as follows:

129.Stresses that, as a result of the negotiation and adoption of a new MFF Regulation, the proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management should be modified as follows:

130.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.