2024 EU budget audit and improvement plan

What the Parliament decided

• The Commission and all EU executive agencies were discharged for 2024, meaning they spent the money they received in a legal, regular and sound way.
• The ninth, tenth and eleventh European Development Funds (EDFs) were discharged, confirming that aid to poorer countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific was used properly.
• The accounts for the entire 2024 EU budget and for the EDFs were closed, showing that the audit is finished and the money was spent as planned.
• The decision, the discharge resolution and the observations were sent to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, national parliaments and audit bodies, and will be published in the Official Journal, so all EU institutions and member‑state authorities are informed.

Why the Parliament looked at the budget

• Reviewed the 2024 EU accounts (spending, income, outstanding debts).
• Examined the Court of Auditors’ annual and special reports for errors, fraud or misuse.
• Studied the Commission’s own budget‑management and internal‑audit reports.
• Considered detailed replies to earlier questions about 2023.
• Took into account opinions from parliamentary committees (Foreign Affairs, Development, Environment, etc.).
• Considered the Council’s recommendation on discharge.
• Checked EU rules on budget management (financial regulations, the Treaty, etc.).

Key observations

• Rule of law: Concerns that Hungary and Slovakia still undermine judicial independence, press freedom and anti‑corruption rules, threatening proper use of EU money.
• Transparency: Calls for machine‑readable lists of final recipients of EU funds and better access to documents for the Court of Auditors and Parliament.
• Fraud & corruption: Fraud found in agriculture, research and health programmes; demands stronger checks, better reporting of recovered money and cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
• Climate & biodiversity: EU is not spending enough on climate‑friendly projects and the measurement of “climate spending” is too vague; clearer rules and more real results are needed.
• Cohesion policy: Money meant for poorer EU regions is still not being used quickly enough; many projects are delayed or not started, and the system for checking spending is weak.
• Migration & border management: More transparency on spending for border security and refugee assistance, and better coordination with third‑country partners.
• Defence: Defence spending is too low compared to current threats; more money is needed for modern weapons, cyber‑defence and joint training.
• External action & aid: Aid should be spent more effectively, especially in the poorest countries, and should avoid funding organisations that support human‑rights abuses.
• Internal administration: Concerns about the Commission’s own rules on document access, whistle‑blowing and the sale of office buildings; calls for greater openness.

Recommendations

• Strengthen rule‑of‑law conditionality – suspend or reduce funding to states that do not respect EU core values.
• Publish final‑recipient lists – in a clear, searchable format to prevent fraud and let citizens see who receives money.
• Improve audit and control – give the Court of Auditors full data access, use data‑mining tools, and ensure national audit bodies are competent.
• Boost climate spending – increase the budget share for climate projects and ensure those projects deliver results.
• Speed up cohesion spending – provide more support to regions that need it and ensure projects start and finish on time.
• Increase defence funding – especially for cyber‑defence, AI, drones and joint training.
• Make external aid more effective – focus on the poorest countries, avoid double‑funding, and ensure aid is not used to support human‑rights abuses.
• Improve internal transparency – follow the Commission’s own rules on document access, whistle‑blowing and procurement.

Bottom line
The European Parliament has finished its audit of the 2024 EU budget and cleared the Commission and all executive agencies for how they spent the money. It has also highlighted problems—such as rule‑of‑law backsliding, weak fraud controls, insufficient climate and defence spending—and set a list of actions the Commission must take to make EU finances more transparent, accountable and effective.

Broader context

The discharge procedure is an annual process where the European Parliament reviews how the European Commission and other EU institutions have managed the EU budget for the previous year. This is a key part of the EU’s democratic oversight and financial accountability. The Parliament checks whether the money was spent legally, correctly, and effectively, based on reports from the European Court of Auditors, the Commission’s own audits, and input from other EU bodies.

This process ensures that EU funds—which come from taxpayers across member states—are used responsibly. The discharge is not just a formality; it is a way for the Parliament to hold the Commission accountable and to push for improvements in how the EU spends its money. If the Parliament refuses to grant discharge, it can lead to political pressure, legal consequences, or even financial penalties for the institutions involved.

The European Development Funds (EDFs) are a specific part of the EU budget dedicated to helping developing countries, particularly in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. These funds support projects like infrastructure, education, and healthcare in partner countries. The discharge for these funds confirms that the money was used as intended.

The rule of law conditionality is a mechanism that allows the EU to withhold funds from member states that violate core EU values, such as judicial independence, press freedom, and anti-corruption rules. This is especially relevant in cases where member states like Hungary and Slovakia have faced criticism for backsliding on these values.

Impact on people living in the EU

The decisions and observations in this document have direct and indirect effects on EU citizens:

Transparency and accountability
The push for clear, machine-readable lists of final recipients of EU funds means citizens will have better access to information about where their tax money is going. This can help prevent fraud and ensure that funds are used for their intended purposes, such as infrastructure, education, or healthcare projects.

Fraud and corruption
The Parliament’s call for stronger checks and better reporting on fraud cases means that EU money is less likely to be misused. This protects taxpayers and ensures that funds reach the projects and people they are meant to help.

Climate and biodiversity
The EU is committed to climate goals, but the Parliament has noted that not enough money is being spent on climate-friendly projects. If the Commission follows the Parliament’s recommendations, more funds could go toward renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and biodiversity protection, which directly benefits the environment and future generations.

Cohesion policy
This policy aims to reduce economic disparities between EU regions. The Parliament’s concern about delays in spending means that poorer regions may see faster implementation of projects that improve infrastructure, create jobs, and boost local economies.

Defence
With growing security threats, such as the war in Ukraine, the Parliament’s call for increased defence spending could lead to better protection for EU citizens. This includes investments in cyber-defence, modern weapons, and joint military training, which enhance the EU’s ability to respond to crises.

Migration and border management
The Parliament wants more transparency in how money is spent on border security and refugee support. This could lead to better management of migration flows and more humane conditions for refugees arriving in the EU.

Internal administration
Improving transparency and whistle-blower protections within the Commission can build trust in EU institutions. Citizens will have more confidence that their money is being managed ethically and efficiently.