The 5 priorities of Athens in the MFF 2028–2034 with an emphasis on primary sector, cohesion, and insularity and change in the disbursement of funds from the EU.

At the center of European for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034 is Greece, which is formulating a comprehensive strategic intervention aimed at securing critical financing tools and strengthening its negotiating position in Brussels. The Greek side proposes a framework of five key pillars focusing on <a href="https://tomanifesto.gr/protection of agricultural policy and cohesion policy, the upgrading of insularity as a specific development criterion, as well as ensuring equal access to the new European Competitiveness Fund. At the same time, it seeks to influence the debate on the redesign of EU funding flows, at a time when the transition from the traditional cost-reimbursement model to a system of disbursement based on the achievement of specific objectives and reforms. This new framework is expected to comprehensively reshape the logic of European resource allocation, while creating new balances and challenges for all Member States.

The negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034 are at a critical juncture, with the positions of the member states still significantly diverging from one another. According to diplomatic sources close to the negotiations, as reported by ERTnews.gr, Athens has formulated clear positions on five key pillars.

The priorities

Greece’s top priority is to safeguard the so-called “flagship” policies, namely the Common Agricultural Policy and the Cohesion Policy. Our country has aligned itself with the letter from the “friends of cohesion” (initially 16, then 17 member states) while there is a risk that Cohesion Policy will lose its identity within the new unified framework of the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs). At the same time, Greece is pushing for the recognition of insularity as a specific development factor. A new strategy that is explicitly provided for by the Commission for the first time, reflecting relevant Greek pressure.

In the context of the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), Greece does not dispute the “criterion of excellence,” that is, the funding of each project based on its quality rather than its national origin. However, it does challenge the interpretation of certain “frugal” countries, which tend to equate excellence with the large companies of the north.

Athens calls for equal access for all member states, with an emphasis on supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and establishing national contact points to prepare businesses for competitive calls for proposals. It is worth noting that fourteen member states (including Greece, Estonia, and other Eastern European countries) submitted a joint call to strengthen the relevant provisions in the ECF regulation.

Strengthening oversight

Regarding the “Global Europe” sector, the Greek side calls for a substantial strengthening of the Council’s oversight over the allocation of resources, citing the lack of accountability that has characterized the operation of the relevant Directorate-General under the current framework. Furthermore, Athens emphasizes that the EU’s southern neighborhood faces geopolitical challenges just as serious as those on the eastern front. A position aimed at preventing an unequal allocation of resources in favor of eastern partners.

Regarding the total budget amount, Greece supports an allocation as close as possible to the Commission’s proposal. Regarding defense funding, it supports considering borrowing as an additional tool.

Finally, regarding the abolition of rebates, the Greek position is reportedly undergoing a review, as it has shifted from being opposed in principle to now considering corrective mechanisms that would balance national burdens.

Changes to the disbursement mechanism and points of friction

Beyond the differences regarding the amounts, the new MFF introduces a radical change in the logic of disbursing EU funds, which many Member States view with reservation.

Under the current system, funding is based on reimbursement of expenses. That is, the Member State undertakes and finances the project, pays the contractor in advance, and then submits a reimbursement request to the European Commission, attaching all invoices. The Commission, in turn, verifies the eligibility of each expense and reimburses the corresponding amount. If expenses are rejected as ineligible, the burden is transferred to each country’s national budget.

The new model, inspired by the logic of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), completely changes this process. Each Member State prepares a single National and Regional Partnership Plan (NRPP), which integrates investments and reforms into a common framework. The Commission will approve milestones and targets for each measure in advance. Disbursements will no longer be made based on invoices, but on the achievement of agreed targets. Thus, the Member State will pay the contractor and submit a statement of achievement, on the basis of which the Commission will disburse the corresponding amount. A portion of the funding is earmarked for reforms and is released only if these are implemented, even if they do not fall within the same sector as the investment, a fact that raises serious concerns.

This system, however, creates new tensions, primarily institutional ones, as countries with constitutional constraints, such as Germany and Belgium, struggle to establish a central coordinating body, while countries with strong regional authorities, such as Spain, object to the downgrading of their role. Second, administrative, since the transition from invoice verification to target verification requires a complete reorganization of administrative authorities. Third, fiscal, given that in a scenario where a reform is not fulfilled, the Member State will have already paid the contractor without having received the full amount from the European Union.

Key points

In this context, the main points of contention in the negotiations are:

• the fate of rebates, which the “frugal” countries categorically refuse to accept,
• the total budget size, with requested cuts ranging from −20% (Sweden) to a +10% increase requested by the European Parliament,
• the strengthening of the rule of law criterion, which now applies to a wider range of countries beyond Hungary,
• the request by Eastern European countries for additional funding due to geopolitical pressure,
• institutional objections to the structure of the NRPPs (National and Regional Partnership Plans), and the issue of repaying NextGenerationEU within the new MFF.