Budget Approval Delayed Until Council Answers Questions

The European Parliament's Decision on the 2024 EU Budget

The European Parliament (EP) made a decision regarding the 2024 EU budget, specifically concerning the European Council and the Council.

The Discharge Procedure

The EP is responsible for checking how the EU's money was spent in the previous year. This process is called "granting discharge."

• If the EP finds that the money was used correctly, it grants formal approval (discharge).
• The EP has the sole right to give this approval for the entire EU budget.

The Main Decision (April 29, 2026)

The EP decided to postpone the decision on whether to grant discharge to the Council's Secretary-General for the 2024 budget.

This delay occurred because:

• The Council did not answer the detailed questionnaire provided by the EP.
• The Council did not participate in the required hearing.

Instead, the EP published a detailed list of observations outlining its concerns and recommendations to the Council, the European Council, the Commission, and the Court of Auditors.

Key Areas of Concern

The EP expressed several concerns regarding the Council's cooperation and transparency.

• Lack of Cooperation: The EP noted that the Council has repeatedly refused to answer questionnaires or attend hearings since 2009, which prevents the EP from completing its oversight role.
• Transparency and Accountability: The EP demands that the Council be as open as other EU institutions. This includes publishing detailed data on:
  • Travel and meeting costs.
  • Spending data.
• Budget Clarity: The EP wants the Council's budget to be separated from the European Council's budget to allow for clearer spending oversight.
• Ethics and Rules: The EP wants the Council's ethics rules to be clearer and more binding, similar to those of the Commission. It also requires the Council to use the mandatory transparency register for lobbyists.
• Internal Controls: The EP asks the Council to publish a public summary of high-priority audit recommendations and a clear timeline for fixing them.
• Staffing and Environment: The EP requested more data on the staff's gender, geography, and disability, and also wants the Council to publish data on energy and water use to maintain environmental targets.
• Systemic Changes: The EP called for a legal change that would allow it to grant discharge to all EU institutions, not just the Commission.

Financial Overview (2024 Budget)

In the 2024 budget for the Council and European Council, the following trends were noted:

• The total Council budget saw a rise of 4.47%, mainly due to salary adjustments for inflation.
• The implementation rate for current-year commitments was 96.40%.
• Staff numbers at the Secretariat saw a slight increase.
• Mission expenses for the Secretariat and staff dropped by 18.5%.

Summary

The European Parliament stated that it cannot approve the spending of EU money until the Council addresses its questions and participates in the hearing. The EP requires the Council to improve its openness, internal controls, and cooperation to ensure that EU funds are used properly.

Broader context

The discharge procedure is a key part of the EU’s financial accountability system. It ensures that EU institutions use public funds responsibly and transparently. The European Parliament (EP) acts as the watchdog for the entire EU budget, including the spending of the European Council and the Council of the EU (which represents EU member states’ governments).

This procedure is rooted in the EU Treaties, which give the EP the power to approve or reject how EU money is spent. The Court of Auditors also plays a role by auditing the accounts and reporting any issues. However, the Council has historically resisted full cooperation with the EP, which has led to repeated delays in granting discharge.

The 2024 budget for the Council and European Council reflects their administrative and operational costs, including salaries, travel, and infrastructure. The EP’s concerns highlight a long-standing tension between the EU’s institutions over transparency and accountability, particularly regarding the Council’s lack of openness compared to other EU bodies like the Commission or Parliament.

The EP’s call for legal changes to the discharge procedure suggests a broader push to strengthen democratic oversight across all EU institutions, not just the Commission.

Impact on people living in the EU

The lack of transparency and accountability in the Council’s spending directly affects EU citizens in several ways:

• Trust in EU institutions: When institutions like the Council do not fully cooperate with oversight processes, it can erode public trust in how EU funds are managed. Citizens may question whether their tax money is being used effectively.

• Access to information: The EP’s demand for detailed public data on spending, travel, and meetings means citizens would have better access to information about how decisions are made and how money is spent. This is especially important for civil society, journalists, and researchers who monitor EU activities.

• Ethics and lobbying: Stronger ethics rules and the use of the transparency register for lobbyists would help prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that decisions are made in the public interest, not for private gain.

• Environmental impact: The Council’s compliance with environmental targets and reporting on energy and water use affects the EU’s climate goals. Citizens benefit from knowing that EU institutions are leading by example in sustainability.

• Fair representation: The EP’s request for data on gender, geography, and disability in Council staffing ensures that the institution reflects the diversity of EU citizens and promotes fairness in hiring and promotion.

• Cybersecurity: Implementing EU cybersecurity rules protects citizens’ data and ensures that digital systems used by EU institutions are secure against threats.

• Democratic oversight: If the discharge procedure is restructured to include all EU institutions, it would mean that all spending is subject to the same level of scrutiny, reinforcing the principle that no institution is above accountability.