Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000422/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Marco Squarta (ECR), Antonella Sberna (ECR), Francesco Ventola (ECR), Alberico Gambino (ECR), Giovanni Crosetto (ECR), Ruggero Razza (ECR), Stefano Cavedagna (ECR), Daniele Polato (ECR), Elena Donazzan (ECR), Carlo Ciccioli (ECR), Alessandro Ciriani (ECR), Mario Mantovani (ECR), Francesco Torselli (ECR), Sergio Berlato (ECR), Paolo Inselvini (ECR)
According to European Court of Auditors report 14/2024, the billions of euros allocated through the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to support the green transition do not seem to have generated significant results in terms of climate impact.
The court notes gross inefficiencies, including overestimations in climate coefficients, lack of transparency in reporting and difficulties in identifying clear and precise indicators, despite at least 37 % of national allocations being earmarked for climate action.
These findings highlight the limits of an ideological environmental policy, which risks directing large amounts of public resources to ineffective initiatives and diverting them from the goal to boost the EU’s competitiveness, all while creating more red tape for businesses, citizens and public administrations.
In the light of the above:
- 1.How does the Commission justify the use of public funds for measures which, according to the European Court of Auditors, have not achieved tangible results in the green transition?
- 2.Would it be willing to reconsider its priorities, putting more emphasis on the economy and growth with a view to achieving pertinent milestones and targets, while ensuring more flexibility for Member States?
Submitted: 30.1.2025