What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

The European Parliament,

– having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024, Section X – European External Action Service,

– having regard to Rule 102 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A10-0053/2026),

A. whereas in the context of the discharge procedure, the discharge authority wishes to stress the particular importance of further strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions by improving transparency and accountability, and implementing the concept of performance-based budgeting and good governance of human resources;

B. whereas the European External Action Service (the ‘EEAS’) is responsible for the management of the administrative expenditure of its headquarters in Brussels and for the network of the 145 Union delegations and offices;

C. whereas the EEAS’ responsibility has been extended to cover the administrative management of the Commission staff in Union delegations through a series of Service Level Arrangements (SLAs);

D. whereas the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the Appointing Authority are exercised by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘Vice-President/High Representative’) in respect of staff of the EEAS;

E. whereas the implementation of the budget is governed by the Financial Regulation and by the Internal Rules of implementation of the Budget of the EEAS (the ‘Internal Rules’);

G. whereas the role of Union delegations is to represent the Union and its citizens around the world by building networks and partnerships, and to promote the values of the Union;

H. whereas the peculiarity of the EEAS remains in its nature and origin, as it was when it was formed by the merging of staff belonging to the former external relation departments of the Council and of the Commission, into which diplomats from the Member States have been integrated;

I. whereas the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the Union’s external action depend on the close coordination with the diplomatic establishments and networks of the Member States, in particular in third countries where both the EEAS and the Member States maintain a permanent presence, in order to avoid duplication of structures and expenditure;

1. Notes that the budget of the EEAS falls under MFF Heading 7, ‘European public administration’, which amounted to EUR 13,3 billion in 2024 (representing 6,9 % of the total Union budget); notes that the budget of approximately EUR 1,239 billion managed by the EEAS represents approximately 9,54 % of the total administrative expenditure of the Union in 2024;

2. Notes that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’), in its annual report for the financial year 2024 (the ‘Court’s report’) examined a sample of 70 transactions under administration, a similar number to those examined in 2023; further notes that administrative expenditure comprises expenditure on human resources, including expenditure on pensions, which in 2024 accounted for about 69 % of the total administrative expenditure, and expenditure on buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information technology, and that the Court’s work over many years indicates that, overall, this spending is low risk;

3. Notes that 16 (23 %) of the 70 transactions contained errors but that the Court, based on the three errors which were quantified, estimates the level of error to be below the materiality threshold;

4. Notes from the Court’s report that the Court examined 15 payments made by the EEAS among which it found two quantifiable errors; whereas one error concerned one substantial contract amendment without a valid procurement procedure and without ex post publicity measures, the other error concerned one payment related to the use of an incorrect exchange rate when recording a rental payment; welcomes the measures taken by the EEAS to address these issues;

Budgetary and financial management

5. Notes that the final EEAS budget for 2024 was EUR 880 165 703, representing an increase of 7,09 % compared to 2023; notes that the EEAS also disposed of an amount of EUR 359,1 million (including assigned revenues and carried over amounts) from the Commission to cover the administrative costs of Commission staff working in Union delegations; further notes that the EEAS received additional fixed-amount contributions to cover common costs of European Development Fund staff in Union delegations and co-locations, as well as other amounts received under co-location and other agreements; notes that the total budgetary amount managed by the EEAS in 2024 therefore amounted to EUR 1 239,3 million (commitment appropriations), which represented an increase of 4,43 % compared to the previous year;

6. Notes that, in 2024, the budgetary implementation rate of current year commitment appropriations (after transfers) stood at 100 %, whereas the implementation rate for payments was 88,4 % compared to 91,9 % in 2023; notes that the average time for payment was 13,43 days but 10,69 % of the total number of payments made in 2024 (corresponding to a total of EUR 57 357 324), represented late payments, which led to an amount of EUR 37 862,61 in late interest payments in 2024; calls on the EEAS to continue its efforts in improving the number of electronic payments and the digitalisation of workflows, in particular with regard to electronic invoices in Union delegations;

7. Notes that the EEAS informed the budgetary authority of two budgetary transfers in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Financial Regulation and made 10 autonomous transfers in accordance with Article 29(4), for an overall value of EUR 53,6 million; notes that the main purpose of the transfers was to increase budget line 3 0 0 3 on buildings and associate costs in Union delegations by EUR 33,78 million, budget line 2 0 0 2 on Fitting-out and security works by EUR 1,7 million, and budget line 1 2 0 5 on Military seconded national experts by EUR 1,37 million; notes that further to the transfers, the final budget for the EEAS headquarters amounted to EUR 349,2 million and the final budget for Union delegations amounted to EUR 530,9 million;

8. Notes that the EEAS faced several challenges with regard to the implementation of its budget in 2024 due to a heavy impact by the illegal Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, inflationary pressures, unfavourable currency exchange rates and the 2 % cap on non-salary related expenditure leading to a deficit of EUR 33 million for the Union delegations, which significantly constrained their operational capacity; notes with satisfaction that the EEAS addressed these challenges through a mix of strategic savings and reallocations/budgetary transfers; notes that reductions affected mainly the budgets for missions and representation, infrastructure and security; is concerned that budgetary constraints may have an impact on the EEAS's duty of care towards its staff, particularly with regards to maintenance of infrastructure and security standards in delegations; welcomes the package of corrective measures but reiterates its call for a budget consistent with the EEAS's needs and objectives; invites the EEAS to set annual targets to reduce late payments and late-interest costs, and to standardise end-to-end e-invoicing and e-procurement workflows across delegations; acknowledges the need of all Union institutions to improve their budget management by also taking into account price volatility, especially in the energy sector, when concluding contracts with service providers;

9. Notes from the hearing of the Vice-President/High Representative at the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) on 17 November 2025 (the ‘Hearing’) that the EEAS has faced significant budgetary constraints in the last few years, while the institution has been tasked with an increasingly expansive mandate and has incurred increased costs and needs for the 145 delegation-network; regrets that the underfunding of the EEAS is not structurally addressed; supports the EEAS view that there is a disparity between tasks and resources which poses a significant challenge for the EEAS’ ability to fully deliver on its objectives and effectively support the Union’s foreign and security policy agenda, thus undermining the performance of the Union´s foreign policy, in a moment of rapid geopolitical change, and the Union’s credibility as a global actor; calls on the EEAS to prioritise actions that deliver clear added value for the Union and its citizens, while avoiding activities and projects that risk undermining effectiveness and staff well-being; invites the EEAS to remedy staff shortages in Union delegations, particularly in postings facing complex security or geopolitical challenges, and to strengthen transparency and accountability in recruitment procedures;

10. Calls on the Court to conduct a comprehensive performance audit of the EEAS to evaluate the efficiency of its activities compared to the diplomatic services of OECD countries; requests that this audit identify areas where the EEAS provides unique, irreplaceable added value and areas where its activities overlap with those of Member States; simultaneously calls on the EEAS to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its global network and to prioritise resources towards delegations in countries that clearly contribute to the Union's immediate interests, such as economic prosperity, energy security, border protection, and the prevention of irregular migration flows; insists on the establishment of clear, measurable performance indicators to demonstrate the 'value for money' delivered to Union citizens and demands that the EEAS discontinue any activities or missions that are evaluated as ineffective or redundant following these assessments;

11. Notes further that investments in real estate and IT projects were postponed and the number of trainees was reduced in 2024; notes the EEAS view that these limitations could ultimately impact the Union’s global presence; warns that continued postponement of investments and staff reductions risk undermining the EEAS’ duty of care, particularly with regard to staff safety, mental health and security in high-risk postings; invites the EEAS to present an investment pipeline for critical IT, cybersecurity and duty-of-care infrastructure, including cost-benefit analysis and expected operational impact, in order to avoid repeated postponements that undermine efficiency and staff safety;

12. Notes that the financial ceiling of the European Peace Facility managed under the authority of the Vice-President/High Representative increased from 12 billion in 2023 to EUR 17 billion in 2024, whereas the additional EUR 5 billion are dedicated to military support for Ukraine; stresses that the significant increase in the European Peace Facility requires strengthened transparency and parliamentary oversight; calls for regular, structured reporting to the discharge authority on risk management, monitoring arrangements and compliance with Union values and international humanitarian law; calls on the EEAS to collaborate with the Commission’s Directorate-General for Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood (DG Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood) to ensure effective oversight and monitoring of the projects funded by the European Peace Facility; recognises the European Peace Facility as a necessary tool for peace keeping, in an era of geopolitical competition, that aims at building stability and a unified European defence cooperation;

13. Notes from the replies of the EEAS to the CONT questionnaire for 2024 discharge (the ‘Questionnaire’) that the EEAS in 2024, both at its headquarters and in Union delegations, launched a total of 71 procurement procedures for high-value contracts, i.e. above the threshold of EUR 143 000 for supplies and services established by Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council; notes that 63 of those procedures were successful with 63 contracts being signed, while 8 procedures failed; notes that, with the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 29 September 2024, the management of procurement procedures for Union delegations in third countries has been simplified by introducing a separate set of ceilings for very low-, low- and medium-value contracts, thereby addressing a longstanding issue related to the limited capacity of local operators to meet the complex requirements of the Union’s procurement rules; expects those simplifications to better meet the needs of both host countries and Union delegations with regard to procurement procedures without prejudice to compliance with the highest standards of transparency, competition and anti-fraud safeguards; invites the EEAS to assess and report on the impact of these changes on error rates and integrity risks;

14. Takes note of the fact that a dedicated Task Force was established in 2024 to improve EEAS procurement procedures both at headquarters and in delegations; is aware that the Internal Audit Division conducted an advisory engagement in 2024, with the aim to provide an independent review of the procurement process, whose results are currently discussed with the responsible services; calls on the EEAS to make public the conclusions of this review as well as the list of measures adopted to respond to the challenges identified;

15. Notes that the number of co-locations with Member States and other Union partners in Union delegations was 137 at the end of 2024, one less than in 2023; notes that, out of the total number of co-locations in 2023, 45 were concluded with Member States and partner countries, 92 with other Union partners, whereas co-location represented 9 % of the total office surface in Union delegations and involved more than half of the Union delegations (80), which can be seen as an example of successful optimisation of the EEAS building management, but also as an indicator of the increased interest of partners in sharing premises in third countries and the relevance of co-location in diplomatic affairs;

16. Notes from the Questionnaire that the budget for missions was EUR 21 582 843 in 2024, representing an increase of approximately 2,33 % compared to EUR 21 091 935 (updated figure) in 2023; notes that the EEAS does not have a separate budget line for missions and travel for the Vice-President/High Representative and that the missions and travel costs for the Vice-President/High Representative are shared between the EEAS and the Commission depending on the purpose of the mission; notes nevertheless from the follow-up report of the EEAS to the Parliament’s observations in the discharge resolution for 2023 (the ‘Follow-up report’) that the EEAS’ internal management system separates Vice-President/High Representative missions and the travel of colleagues accompanying her within a special allocation on the main mission budget line; notes further from the Questionnaire that in 2024 neither the outgoing Vice-President/High Representative nor the newly appointed Vice-President/High Representative undertook any missions financed by the EEAS; understands from the Follow-up report that the Vice-President/High Representative’s competing engagements and a very tight schedule, often dictated by the geopolitical situation, make it sometimes impossible for her to travel using regular flights or other means of transports to meet her professional obligations; underlines nevertheless that the leaders of the Union’s institutions should act as good examples to the public and citizens, especially when using Union resources in the performance of their duties; stresses that the flight options should be chosen on the basis of sound financial management provided that such alternatives are available and in line with the agenda and venue of meetings; stresses that transparency and sound financial management in using the Union’s public funds must remain a core principle for all Union institutions;

Internal management, performance and internal control

17. Notes that, in 2024, the EEAS continued to face growing political and financial challenges, as well as challenges with respect to human rights and the rule of law in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment marked by intensified hybrid threats to democratic systems; notes that the Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine and its geopolitical consequences continued to be a key issue in 2024; highlights, in this regard, the importance and need for the EEAS to play a central and reinforced key role in building the Union’s strategic autonomy, resilience and security, which should be safeguarded also via the systematic and robust fight against foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation campaigns; notes that in 2024 the EEAS published its second report on FIMI threats, detailing 750 incidents and exposing the Operation False Façade (an information-laundering scheme by pro-Kremlin entities), thereby contributing to public attribution and strategic awareness of hostile state-sponsored interference, and utilised the Rapid Alert System as a central coordination mechanism on FIMI in the context of protecting the integrity of the European elections; notes the release of a toolkit for detecting identity-based FIMI, the organisation of the annual high-level FIMI conference, the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) handbook on FIMI to strengthen the capability of CSDP missions to detect and respond to FIMI attacks and the contribution to strengthening media resilience at the Connecting Media Communities event in Kosovo, which was attended by 130 journalists and fact-checkers; strongly commends the EEAS for its EUvsDisinfo campaign that has analysed and exposed Russia’s FIMI efforts in 2024; notes with concern that pro-Kremlin disinformation cases exceeded 18 000 entries, confirming the scale, persistence and strategic nature of the threat posed in particular by Russia, alongside other hostile actors; notes that some Union delegations have a Strategic Communication Officer tasked with analysing and addressing FIMI, but intelligence collection capability remains Member States’ responsibility; stresses, therefore, the need for reinforced coordination, structured information-sharing and closer cooperation with Member States and trusted partners; commends the EEAS for launching the FIMI Information Sharing and Analysis Centre to enhance cooperation and shared situational awareness; acknowledges that these efforts, supported by a reinforced budget for Strategic communication capacity of EUR 6,12 million in 2024, ensured a more robust, coordinated and comprehensive Union-wide response to FIMI threats; encourages the continued development and expansion of the network of ‘FIMI defenders’ through capacity-building initiatives; underlines that sustained and predictable funding is essential to ensure continuity and effectiveness in countering hybrid threats and FIMI; considers therefore that efforts should be made to effectively combat anti-EU disinformation campaigns and narratives deployed strategically by authoritarian and illiberal regimes that seek to undermine Union external action in third countries;

18. Emphasises the need to modernise the Union delegation network, particularly by strengthening the European Union Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN) and the EEAS Crisis Response Centre; highlights that enhancing analytical capacity and crisis preparedness requires adequate staffing, up-to-date IT security, and sufficient administrative resources;

19. Recalls the calls of the Strategic Compass and of the Parliament to strengthen the Union’s intelligence and situational awareness capabilities; underlines that the Union’s growing analytical and crisis-management needs call for a reinforcement of the resources allocated to the EU INTCEN and the EEAS Crisis Response Centre, to ensure that they are adequately equipped to fulfil their mandates in an increasingly complex and demanding geopolitical environment; underlines the central role of EU INTCEN in delivering integrated, all-source analytical assessments in support of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and CSDP decision-making and stresses the potential of the Union delegation network, without prejudice to Member States’ competences, as a key contributor to situational awareness through the integration of relevant information already available at field level; considers that the establishment of a clearer and more visible budgetary allocation for EU INTCEN could facilitate enhanced transparency, democratic scrutiny and accountability within the discharge procedure;

20. Welcomes the establishment of the European Democracy Shield and the creation of a Centre for Democratic Resilience as important steps to strengthen the Union’s capacity to counter FIMI; welcomes the intention to expand the proposed European Democracy Shield to the accession countries, thereby reinforcing their capacity to respond to threats such as FIMI and disinformation campaigns; calls on the Commission and EEAS to deepen cooperation with vulnerable enlargement countries, on information resilience, cybersecurity and hybrid threats; calls on the EEAS and Union delegations in third countries to further strengthen their respective capacities in fighting and countering disinformation and propaganda against the Union’s CFSP, including by investing in communication campaigns to fight foreign influence;

21. Underlines the need to provide the Strategic Communication and Foresight Division of the European External Action Service (EEAS) with adequate resources to counter disinformation used by authoritarian regimes, notably the Kremlin; recalls that in Moldova and Ukraine, Russian-linked actors have instrumentalised religion, including the Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchy, to undermine democratic resilience; stresses the importance of strengthening the Union’s faith-based diplomacy within its external action and calls for a dedicated EEAS budget line to support dialogue, promote interfaith tolerance and counter the geopolitical misuse of religion;

22. Reminds the Commission of Parliament's call to equip EEAS staff adequately to engage in dialogue on religious freedom and to make this an important priority in its external action calls on the EEAS to respond resolutely to this call and to bring its resources up to the required level;

23. Calls on the Vice-President/High Representative to reinforce Union CSDP missions and operations with adequate personnel, resources and flexible mandates to respond effectively to security challenges;

24. Highlights the importance of maintaining the European Union Monitoring mission in Georgia to monitor the situation in the occupied territories and ensure early warning and reporting;

34. Notes from the Follow-up report the EEAS’ ongoing efforts to support dialogue on the political, economic and social situation, the rule of law and anti-corruption fight and to strengthen democracy and human rights in various countries; welcomes the fact that the EEAS and Union delegations continue to engage with representatives of national administrations and institutions, civil society organisations, stakeholders specialised in democratic governance, human rights, media, social partners and international and regional organisations; notes that support for human rights and women defenders, including indigenous ones, is among the key priorities of the EEAS in line with the Union’s Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2027, and is advanced through a range of activities such as political dialogues, political reporting, public diplomacy, multilateral fora and annual reports on the implementation of human rights; calls on the EEAS and Union delegations to further strengthen their work in providing assistance, as well as logistical and technological support, and in engaging with human rights defenders, in line with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, with particular attention to women;

35. Notes from the Questionnaire that the Corporate Governance Service (CGS), established in 2023, plays an important role in improving EEAS management by supporting the preparation of the EEAS annual management plans and annual activity reports, strengthening risk management processes, addressing systemic corporate issues in Union delegations, and implementing the ‘One Delegation’ concept, which aims to reduce management and reporting fragmentation and to document recurring issues and best practices at both Headquarters and Union delegation; calls on the EEAS to swiftly address the weaknesses in internal controls and document management highlighted by the Court, with a view to improving the integrity of information management and ensuring consistent reporting across Union delegations;

36. Notes with satisfaction from the Follow-up report and the Questionnaire the efforts taken by the EEAS toward a feminist diplomacy, despite Member States having the main role in setting the Union external actions guidelines; in particular welcomes the action taken to accelerate the implementation of the Union’s commitments under the Gender Action Plan (GAP) III; notes that the Union’s Ambassador for Gender and Diversity engaged in efforts to integrate a gender perspective in human rights dialogues and key multilateral statements and resolutions; notes further that gender-responsive leadership continued being a key element in the institutionalisation of gender mainstreaming; welcomes in this context the appointment of gender focal points in November 2024; notes that GAP III will expire in 2027 and urges the EEAS, to this end, to develop a more ambitious GAP IV that will ensure a stronger connection between women’s rights and empowerment and the Union’s foreign and security policy, ready for implementation as of 2028;

37. Underlines that the Union must increase funding to reinforce the dedicated budget line within the Union’s foreign policy actions specifically for gender equality and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, in order to ensure consistent financing for initiatives that promote gender-responsive leadership, protect women’s rights, and combat sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in conflict and post-conflict settings; stresses that such funding is essential to support local civil society organisations, provide survivor-centred support, and integrate gender perspectives into Union diplomatic and security efforts;

38. Sees election observation mission as a practical and effective foreign policy instrument that remains central to the Union’s democracy support policies and strategies; notes from the Follow-up report that the EEAS has no prospect of extending observation work towards candidate and neighbouring countries, because observation missions adequately cover these countries led by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which used a methodology similar to the Union’s and often sources experts from the same pool of professionals; reiterates nevertheless its call on the Union to ensure adequate resources, including expertise on the integrity of online information and interference risks in election observation methodologies to the Union’s election observation missions;