On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Justice programme for the period 2028 to 2034 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/693

5.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 accurately steer 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 Justice programme’s objectives and structure and enhances transparency, accountability and parliamentary control;

6.Recalls that the budgetary nomenclature must be established in line with Article 47(2) of 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; considers, therefore, that the Justice programme should be structured as a chapter and each of its specific objectives as an article or budget item; recommends that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs 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;

7.Insists that sufficiently detailed and sound legislation, with an appropriate level of governance, is a condition for proper budgetary decision-making and adequate parliamentary oversight during budget implementation; recommends introducing provisions to strengthen control over how the budget is mobilised and spent; considers that the so-called ‘steering mechanism’ can in no way be a substitute for Parliament’s legislative and budgetary powers, and cannot be conceived without a sound governance architecture that ensures the effective exercise of such powers;

8.Believes that all substantive policy choices 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, and that any non-essential elements entailing policy choices that are not included in the basic act must be adopted through delegated acts, including work programmes, where appropriate;

9.Calls for Parliament to be granted scrutiny rights over the Commission’s decisions under the proposed regulation;

10.Takes note of the suggested complementarity between the Justice programme and other programmes such as the national and regional partnership plans, AgoraEU and external actions supported by Global Europe; stresses that enhanced complementarity between instruments must not come at the expense of traceability of expenditure or the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; underlines that the contribution of the Justice programme 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 for the Justice programme; 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;

11.Stresses that the use of external assigned revenue under the Justice programme 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 Justice programme; recalls the importance of ensuring the traceability of external assigned revenue; underlines that, should the lead committee 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; recognises that contributions from third parties, including those from the private sector, can be beneficial to the programme; emphasises that such contributions must be implemented in accordance with the Financial Regulation, in particular with regard to independence, impartiality and the prevention of conflicts of interest;

12.Regrets the absence in the proposed regulation of the rule on obligatory reporting by the Commission to Parliament on the use of the funds allocated to each specific objective and on the types of actions that have received funding;

13.Deplores the lack of involvement of Parliament and the Member States in the examination procedure concerning the Commission’s financing decision;

14.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 the Justice programme; underlines that any change to the architecture, objectives and eligible actions under the programme will need to be appropriately reflected in the monitoring provisions under Annex I of the performance regulation, as part of the process of amending and negotiating that regulation; 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;

15.Stresses that EU support under the programme should be accessible and distributed fairly, and finance concrete, verifiable projects implemented through clearly defined work packages, with measurable deliverables; recalls, in this regard, the Commission guidance of 7 May 2024 on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy; reiterates that measures should respect the principles of proportionality, institutional balance and sincere cooperation, as well as the competencies of the Member States in judicial matters, while safeguarding judicial independence and the rule of law, which, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), presupposes that the justice system is free of and safeguarded against undue internal and external influence (CJEU case C-64/16, para. 44 and ECHR Application 24810/06, para. 88);

16.Recommends that the budgetary architecture of the Justice programme ensure that funding for judicial independence, anti-corruption frameworks, access to justice, including digital access to justice, and the protection of persons in vulnerable situations remains identifiable, traceable and subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny; stresses that the budgetary structure should allow the budgetary authority to monitor annual allocations and prevent excessive flexibility or transfers between objectives during implementation;

17.Recalls that under Article 6(2) of the Financial Regulation, the establishment and implementation of the budget must comply with a general regime of conditionality in case 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; calls, in this regard, for a comprehensive ex ante screening in the award procedure under the programme; recalls, in particular, Articles 137, 138 and 158 of the Financial Regulation, which provide for the obligation to exclude from award procedures or from the implementation of EU funds any persons or entities found guilty of certain criminal offences, such as fraud, corruption, organised crime, money laundering, terrorist offences or financing, trafficking in human beings, incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence, or other serious offences;

18.Insists that, in cases of breaches of the rule of law by national governments and without prejudice to the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092, the Commission explore ways of ensuring that potential final beneficiaries and recipients can continue to benefit from EU funding; stresses that this principle lies at the core of a smart conditionality approach;

19.Stresses, furthermore, that robust control and audit frameworks must be established to protect the EU’s financial interests, especially against fraud, across all funds, programmes and financial instruments of the future MFF.