Skip to content
EU Parl Watch

opinion parliamentary committee, 24 June 2026

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, and repealing Decision No 1313/2013/EU (Union Civil Protection Mechanism)

Document BUDG-AD-785188 · (COM(2025)0548 – C100174/2025 – 2025/0223(COD))

Committee on Budgets · Rapporteur: Nicolae Ștefănuță

On Parliament’s site PDF Word

Full text

Jump to an amendment (8)
Budgetary assessment 26 paragraphs

for the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety and the Committee on Public Health on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, and repealing Decision No 1313/2013/EU (Union Civil Protection Mechanism)

(COM(2025)0548 – C100174/2025 – 2025/0223(COD))

The Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:

The Committee on Budgets,

A.whereas the proposal introduces a comprehensive framework for civil protection and health emergency preparedness and response, including cross-sectoral crisis coordination functions and actions related to civil-military cooperation;

B.whereas resilience, as a key requirement for the Union, entails the capacity to anticipate and effectively mitigate the impact of disasters and crises on people and the planet;

C.whereas RescEU has proven to be a valuable tool to tackle the rising number of natural disasters;

D.whereas civil protection workers, emergency responders, firefighters, medical professionals and all personnel involved in disaster prevention, preparedness and response operate under demanding and often hazardous conditions; whereas their contribution is essential to the effective functioning of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response (UCPM+) and to the protection of citizens’ lives and safety;

E.whereas the European Court of Auditors delivered its Opinion 06/2026;

1.Considers that the programme envelope should be increased from EUR 10.7 billion to EUR 12.4 billion in current prices (EUR 11 billion in 2025 prices) in order to be sufficiently equipped to fulfil its objectives;

2.Considers that sufficient capabilities, including human resources, equipment and stockpiles such as those provided by the RescEU reserve, must be available from the outset and throughout the entire programming period to ensure an effective implementation of UCPM+;

3.Considers that fostering a Union-wide culture of preparedness in order to guarantee a uniform level of protection for all EU citizens, Member States and regions requires stable and predictable multiannual funding;

Read the rest (14 paragraphs)

4.Stresses the need to distinguish, including for financial planning and monitoring purposes, between the areas of civil protection and of health emergency preparedness and response;

5.Insists that, while flexibility is critical for the achievement of UCPM+ objectives, sufficiently detailed and sound legislation is a condition for proper budgetary decision-making and adequate parliamentary oversight during budget implementation; deplores the lack of a breakdown of the budget of the UCPM+ and the proposed introduction of financing not linked to costs; notes that this would give the Commission great latitude to shift and decide on spending priorities during implementation; recommends giving consideration to fixing indicative sub-envelopes in the basic act in order to enhance predictability in the use of resources, while taking into account the agility or responsiveness of the programme in crisis situations;

6.Deplores the lack of a sufficiently detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature proposed in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFDS); considers that this will hamper the budgetary authority’s ability to steer accurately policy priorities in the annual budgetary procedure; expresses concerns that the overly aggregated budgetary architecture would dramatically increase the Commission’s discretion in transferring and reallocating resources without a decision from the budgetary authority, and would severely limit parliamentary oversight; recommends, therefore, a more detailed nomenclature that properly reflects the objectives and structure of UCPM+ and enhances transparency, accountability and parliamentary control;

7.Recalls that the budgetary nomenclature must be established in line with Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 (the Financial Regulation), which provides that each title must correspond to a policy area and each chapter, as a rule, to a programme or an activity, in line with the principles of specification, sound financial management and transparency; recommends that the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety and the Committee on Public Health amend the proposal to include an annex defining the nomenclature of the programme; insists that the budgetary nomenclature forms an integral part of Parliament’s negotiating position and must be discussed in interinstitutional negotiations; considers, in this regard, that the revised LFDS must be part of the final political agreement;

8.Recalls, notably, that spending priorities and financial allocations must be determined in the basic act, with full respect for Parliament’s prerogatives as a co-legislator and one arm of the EU’s budgetary authority; suggests, in this regard, that earmarking a separate minimum financial allocation for programmable prevention and preparedness activities in the area of health emergency response, on the one hand, and for activities connected with civil protection, on the other, would meet the regulation’s objective of flexibility while delivering on transparency and predictability;

9.Highlights that, under the current budgetary tightness, the principle of sound financial management plays a critical role in the programming and implementation of measures under UCPM+; points out, in this regard, the necessity of establishing clearly defined competencies for deployment measures through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre to avoid duplication, fragmentation and unnecessary administrative overhead costs;

10.Considers that the reporting frequency of five years should align better with the programming period and ensure sound financial management, and therefore recommends introducing a reporting structure of twice per seven-year period;

11.Highlights the need for enhanced coordination between the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Medicines Agency, and therefore calls on the Commission to clarify their respective responsibilities in order to maximise synergies and avoid overlaps and to ensure the proper implementation of the One Health approach;

12.Strongly underlines the need to grant the necessary rights and full access to the Commission, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the European Court of Auditors in order to safeguard the Union’s financial interests in relation to the participation of third countries;

13.Considers that, in order to properly manage the programme funds, the language in Article 12 of the proposal needs to be clarified, since the proposal does not specify whether the work programmes will be annual or multiannual, nor whether separate work programmes will be established for UCPM and health emergency preparedness and response, possibly with different time frames;

14.Takes note of the suggested complementarity between UCPM+ and other programmes such as the European Competitiveness Fund, the National and Regional Partnership Plans and Global Europe; stresses that enhanced complementarity between instruments must not lead to double funding nor come at the expense of traceability of expenditure or the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; underlines that the contribution of UCPM+ to operations financed jointly with other instruments must be explicitly identifiable at all stages of the budgetary cycle; stresses, in this regard, that any such contribution must be duly reflected in the programme performance statement; insists that the budgetary authority retain full control over how resources are combined across instruments and over the effective contribution of each programme to EU priorities, specifically through detailed budgetary nomenclature; stresses that enhanced complementarity between programmes must not lead to disproportionate complexity for beneficiaries; calls for EU funding to be clearer, more accessible and more coherent in order to facilitate uptake and maximise the impact of investments;

15.Stresses that the use of external assigned revenue under UCPM+ must be clearly circumscribed, fully transparent and subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny; takes note, in that regard, of the provisions relating to additional contributions to the programme; recalls the importance of ensuring the traceability of external assigned revenue; underlines that, should the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety and the Committee on Public Health consider amending provisions relating to external assigned revenue, this should be done in coordination with the Committee on Budgets and the other committees in order to ensure a consistent approach;

16.Recalls the proposal for a regulation on establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programmes and activities (the ‘performance regulation’), which establishes a single streamlined list for performance indicators and monitoring and evaluation provisions, some of which are relevant for UCPM+; underlines that any change to the architecture, objectives and eligible actions under the programme will need to be appropriately reflected in Annex I of the performance regulation, as part of the process of amending and negotiating that regulation, while highlighting that the responsive nature of the programme needs to be taken fully into account in the design of the relevant indicators; points out that, while sectoral legislation can supplement the performance regulation, for instance as regards programme evaluations, it should remain consistent with the provisions of that regulation;

17.Recalls that under Articles 6(2) of the Financial Regulation, a general regime of conditionality applies to the establishment and implementation of the budget in cases of breaches of the rule of law; underlines, furthermore, that Article 6(3) of the same regulation requires the Member States and the Commission, in the implementation of the budget, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and respect the values on which the EU is founded, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

Amendments 33 paragraphs

As part of its budgetary assessment, the Committee on Budgets also submits the following amendments to the proposal:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(3a) In line with the Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 (the ‘Financial Regulation’), the implementation of the Programme should fully respect the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and the rights recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(3b) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a applies to this Programme. It establishes a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union’s budget in the event of a breach of the principles of the rule of law in Member States.
1a 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 433I, 22.12.2020, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2092/oj).

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(48a) It is essential that the provisions of this Regulation as well as its governance arrangements be conducive to proper decision-making by the budgetary authority and to appropriate parliamentary oversight. In particular, in line with Article 47(2) of the Financial Regulation, any specification of Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response’s internal architecture should be duly reflected in the budget nomenclature through the introduction of corresponding budget lines.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(48b) The implications of this Regulation for the Union budget have been assessed+ pursuant to Article 310(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Sufficient financial and human resources should be provided for its implementation, while considering the impact of the financing on other Union programmes or policies and ensuring its compatibility with the multiannual financial framework, the system of own resources and the corresponding interinstitutional agreement, as well as with the budgetary principles laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council[1].
+Pro memoria: Budgetary assessment of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets of [date] on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, and repealing Decision No 1313/2013/EU (Union Civil Protection Mechanism) (COM(2025)0548).
¹ 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).

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(48c) The complementarity between the Union Mechanism and other Union instruments should not come at the expense of the traceability of expenditure or of the prerogatives of the budgetary authority. The contribution of the Union Mechanism to jointly financed operations should remain explicitly identifiable at all stages of the budgetary cycle and should be duly reflected in the Programme Performance Statement.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The indicative financial envelope for the implementation of the Regulation for the period 2028-2034 is set at EUR 10 675 000 000 in current prices.The programme envelope for the implementation of the Regulation for the period 2028-2034 is set at EUR 12 416 093 000 in current prices (EUR 11 000 000 000 in 2025 prices);

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
1. This Regulation shall be implemented in synergy with Union programmes. An action that has received a Union contribution from another programme may also receive a contribution under this Regulation. The rules of the relevant Union programme shall apply to the corresponding contribution, or a single set of rules may be applied to all contributions and a single legal commitment may be concluded. If all Union contributions are provided based on eligible cost, the cumulative support from the Union budget shall not exceed the total eligible costs of the action and may be calculated on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the documents setting out the conditions for support.1. This Regulation shall be implemented in synergy with Union programmes. An action that has received a Union contribution from another programme may also receive a contribution under this Regulation. The rules of the relevant Union programme shall apply to the corresponding contribution, or a single set of rules may be applied to all contributions and a single legal commitment may be concluded. If all Union contributions are provided based on eligible cost, the cumulative support from the Union budget shall not exceed the total eligible costs of the action and may be calculated on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the documents setting out the conditions for support. The Commission shall address synergies between the Regulation and other Union programmes in the Programme Performance Statement set out in Article 41(3)(h) of the Financial Regulation and in relevant programming and reporting documents.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
5. Where Union funding is provided in the form of a grant, funding shall be provided as financing not linked to costs or, where necessary, simplified cost options, in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. Funding may be provided in the form of actual eligible cost reimbursement only where the objectives of an action cannot be achieved otherwise.5. Where Union funding is provided in the form of a grant, funding shall be provided as financing not linked to costs or, where applicable, simplified cost options, in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. Funding may be provided in the form of actual eligible cost reimbursement only where the objectives of an action cannot be achieved otherwise.
Annex: declaration of input 1 paragraph

The rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his budgetary assessment input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

Procedure pages

How the committees handled the text, and how their members voted on it.

Procedure – committee asked for budgetary assessment 1 paragraph
TitleUnion Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, and repealing Decision No 1313/2013/EU (Union Civil Protection Mechanism)
ReferencesCOM(2025)0548 – C10-0174/2025 – 2025/0223(COD)
Committee(s) responsible Date announced in plenaryENVI 23.10.2025SANT 23.10.2025
Budgetary assessment by Date announced in plenaryBUDG 23.10.2025
Rapporteur for budgetary assessment Date appointedNicolae Ștefănuță 24.2.2026
Discussed in committee17.3.2026
Date adopted23.6.2026
Result of final vote+: –: 0:22 7 4
Final vote by roll call in committee asked for budgetary assessment 3 paragraphs

22 · For

EPP
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Michalis Hadjipantela, Andrzej Halicki, Monika Hohlmeier, Janusz Lewandowski, Gabriel Mato, Danuše Nerudová, Karlo Ressler, Hélder Sousa Silva
Renew
Olivier Chastel, Fabienne Keller, Lucia Yar
S&D
Mohammed Chahim, Matthias Ecke, Nikolas Farantouris, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Victor Negrescu, Matjaž Nemec, Nils Ušakovs
Greens
Rasmus Nordqvist, Nicolae Ștefănuță

7 · Against

ESN
Alexander Jungbluth
No group
Thomas Geisel
Patriots
Tomasz Buczek, Valérie Deloge, Aleksandar Nikolic, Antonín Staněk
The Left
João Oliveira

4 · Abstained

ECR
Tobiasz Bocheński, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Bogdan Rzońca
Patriots
Tamás Deutsch