European Union budget

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johannes Hahn , Commissioner responsible for the budget of the European Union Commissioner .

The budget of the European Union (also known as the EU budget ) amounted to 141.5 billion euros in 2010, 1.2% of gross national income (GNI). The two most important items of expenditure were the common agricultural policy and the regional policy of the European Union , each accounting for around 35% of the total budget.

The budget is decided annually by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on a proposal from the European Commission ( Art. 314 TFEU ). The responsibility for the budget implementation lies with the European Commission and the Member States ( Art. 317 TFEU). However, the annual budget is integrated into a multiannual financial framework (MFF, until 2009 “financial perspective”), with which the amount of income and expenditure is bindingly determined for seven years ( Art. 312 TFEU). The MFF is adopted unanimously by the Council on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission and after approval by the European Parliament . The current MFF applies to the period from 2014 to 2020. On May 28, 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for the period after 2020, which aimed at a sum of over 1 trillion euros. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, the proposal for the budget in May 2020 was again expanded to include a crisis instrument from a further 750 billion euros to 1.8 trillion euros. In addition to pure grants, the new proposal also provides for loan payments to the Member States. These include the European Development Fund and the European Fund for Adjustment to Globalization .

The EU cannot levy taxes and duties itself . Your income (so-called own resources of the European Union , Art. 311 TFEU ) is a share of the value added tax levied by the member states and contributions of the member states, which are based on their gross national income . In addition, there are “traditional own resources”, in particular the customs duties , but these have steadily declined in recent decades due to the general liberalization of international trade. The EU budget must always be balanced ( Art. 310 TFEU), so - unlike the Member States - it must not go into debt. The EU therefore does not issue any regular bonds . In June 2011, however, the European Commission submitted proposals for a new system of own funds, which, among other things, also provides for the issue of a certain form of bonds (so-called EU project bonds ). The own resources system is laid down in the own resources decision , which is adopted unanimously by the member states and ratified by the national parliaments.

Legal bases

The budgetary provisions are the most important part of the financial rules of the European Union. They are regulated in Art. 310 to Art. 324 TFEU . Art. 310 TFEU ​​contains general provisions on the budget of the European Union, in Art. 311 TFEU ​​the rules for the own resources system are laid down. Art. 312 TFEU ​​defines the procedure according to which the multiannual financial framework is drawn up; Art. 313 to Art. 315 TFEU ​​describe the procedure for the annual budget. Art. 317 to Art. 319 TFEU ​​deal with the implementation of the budget and the discharge of the Commission by the European Parliament. Art. 320 to Art. 324 TFEU ​​contain further general regulations, for example that the EU budget is drawn up in euros and that it must be sufficiently high in any case so that the EU can fulfill its legal obligations towards third parties.

The most important legal basis according to the contract text is the current capital adequacy resolution. This determines what types of sources of income the European Union has and contains some special regulations such as the British discount ( see below ) . The own resources decision is taken unanimously by the Council; it also requires ratification by the member states. The European Parliament, on the other hand, only needs to be heard . Since 2000, the capital adequacy decision has been revised simultaneously with the adoption of a new multiannual financial framework. The currently valid capital adequacy resolution of March 1, 2009 therefore came into effect retrospectively from January 1, 2007, ie parallel to the 2007-2013 financial framework.

The details for the provision and transfer of own funds as well as the control regulations result from the EU Financial Regulation and from various implementing regulations. They are adopted and amended in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure ( Art. 322 TFEU). The 2012 Financial Regulation, which replaced the 2002 Financial Regulation, has been in force since January 1, 2013. On September 14, 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Financial Regulation, with which the Financial Regulation and the rules of application are to be combined into a single set of rules and "considerably simplified". On July 18, 2018, the proposal was implemented through the EU Regulation ( Euratom ) 2018/1046. The core of the changes will come into effect on January 1, 2019. [outdated]

The budget procedure

While in nation states budget sovereignty usually rests with a single body (usually the parliament ), in the European Union this function is carried out by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament . They decide both the multiannual financial framework and the annual budget jointly and are therefore collectively referred to as the budgetary authority . In the event that Parliament and Council cannot agree on an annual budget at first reading, a conciliation committee is planned. The draft for the financial framework and budget is submitted by the European Commission , which may also act in an advisory capacity in the Conciliation Committee, but has no final decision-making power. It thus has a similar function in the budgetary process as the government usually does at national level.

Responsibility for the budget procedure lies with the Commissioner for Financial Planning and Budget ( Günther Oettinger since 2017 ), who thus assumes a role comparable to that of the Minister of Finance . The Committee on Budgets is responsible for the European Parliament . The Council acts in two different ways on budgetary issues: the multiannual financial framework is drawn up by the General Affairs Council , while the annual budget is drawn up by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council . In the Permanent Representatives Committee , which prepares the Council meetings, each of which is Coreper II is responsible.

Multiannual financial framework (MFF)

The legal basis for the adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is Article 312 of the TFEU . It has been drawn up for at least five, previously seven, years since 1992 and sets the upper limits for commitment and payment appropriations and thus the overall size of the EU budget. The process begins with the European Commission submitting a version of the multiannual financial framework. In a second step, the General Affairs Council - a formation of the Council of the European Union - discusses the version and develops a proposal for the political guidelines of the EU during the term of the MFF. This proposal for the setting of priorities will then be sent to the European Council as a basis for negotiations . The discussion in the European Council must then be concluded unanimously. In contrast to the annual budget, the European Parliament only has the right to veto the MFF and no possibility of proposing formal changes. This means that Parliament can either reject or accept the MFF with a majority of votes.

If Parliament and the Council have not agreed on a new financial framework on the expiry of a financial framework, the provisions for the last year of the previous financial framework continue to apply until a new financial framework is adopted.

These regulations have been in effect since the current MFF 2014–2020, since the multiannual financial framework was only included in primary law with the Treaty of Lisbon and a formal procedure was established for it. The previous multiannual financial frameworks were each adopted through an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Annual budget

The budget procedure at a glance

The procedure for establishing the annual budget is regulated in detail in Art. 314 TFEU and modeled on the ordinary legislative procedure .

The individual organs and bodies of the European Union prepare a proposal for their own budget for their area. The European Commission summarizes these budget estimates and prepares the draft budget for next year. This must be submitted to the Council and the European Parliament by September 1st. However, the Commission can make changes to its proposal afterwards. The rule that applies to normal EU legislative procedures that the Council can only amend Commission proposals unanimously does not apply to the budgetary procedure ( Art. 293 TFEU). The Commission's budget proposal therefore has no formal impact on the subsequent decisions of the Council and Parliament, but only serves as an essential basis for orientation.

After the Commission proposal has been submitted , the Council adopts its position by a qualified majority and sends it to the European Parliament before October 1st. If he changes the Commission's draft budget, he must justify these amendments to Parliament. Parliament can then adopt the budget at first reading with a simple majority or adopt amendments with a majority of its members. If it approves the Council's position or has not taken a decision after 42 days, the budget is deemed to be adopted and can enter into force.

If Parliament decides on changes to the Council draft, these are in turn passed on to the Commission and the Council. If the Council accepts the changes made by the European Parliament by a qualified majority within 10 days, the budget is deemed to have been adopted. Otherwise a mediation committee is set up. This consists of one representative from each member state and an equally large number of members of parliament. The Commission also takes part in the meetings; However, it has no right to make decisions, but is only intended to support the search for compromise between Council and Parliament in an advisory capacity. It is the task of the Conciliation Committee to present a joint proposal within 21 days of its convening, which is adopted by a qualified majority of the representatives of the Council and a majority of the representatives of the European Parliament. If the Conciliation Committee fails to come to an agreement, the Commission has to present a new draft budget and the process starts over.

Once the Conciliation Committee has agreed on a joint draft, this in turn goes to the Council and Parliament. They have 14 days to accept or reject the draft of the Conciliation Committee, with the Council deciding by a qualified majority and Parliament by a majority of its members. If neither institution rejects the draft, it is considered approved and the budget comes into force on that basis. On the other hand, if one of the two institutions rejects the compromise, it has failed and the Commission has to present a new draft budget. A special regime applies in the event that the Council rejects the compromise while Parliament approves it. In this case, Parliament has the option of overriding the Council: it can re-enforce the amendments it adopted at first reading, provided that it can do so within 14 days of the Council's rejection by a majority of its members and three-fifths of the votes cast approved. If this confirmation is not obtained, the regulation decided in the mediation committee is still considered to be accepted, so that the annual budget can come into force on this basis.

Once the budget has been finally adopted, the Commission will publish it on its website and then in the Official Journal of the European Union .

In the event that a final budget has not yet been drawn up at the beginning of a budget year, an emergency budget comes into force. Monthly expenses of a maximum of one twelfth of the funds made available in the budget of the previous year can be undertaken.

Due to the prohibition of indebtedness in Art. 310 TFEU , the income and expenditure provided for in the budget must always be balanced. However, in budget implementation it can happen that certain expenses were incurred at the end of the year without the corresponding income having already arrived (or vice versa). The difference between the actual income and expenditure is therefore transferred to the budget for the next year as a balance as income or expenditure. A so-called amending budget is drawn up for this purpose .

An amending budget can also be drawn up during the year if changes in the budget appear necessary due to unforeseen circumstances. The right of initiative for this lies with the European Commission. Otherwise, the same procedural rules apply to such budget corrections as to the regular annual budget.

revenue

Origin of EU revenues (2011):
  • traditional own funds: 13%
  • VAT own resources: 11%
  • GNI resource: 75%
  • Other income: 1%
  • On the revenue side, the EU budget is made up of so-called own resources and “other revenue”. The EU has a legal right to this revenue, and it flows to it without a separate decision by national authorities. There are four different types of revenue (the figures below refer to the 2011 budget):

    • Traditional own resources (approx. 13% of revenues): customs duties, sugar levies;
    • VAT - own resources (approx. 11% of revenues): percentage of the VAT revenues of the EU member states;
    • GNI own resources (approx. 75% of revenue): Contributions from EU member states according to the economic strength of the country;
    • Other income (around 1% of income): for example taxes on and deductions from the salaries of EU staff, bank interest, contributions from third countries to certain EU programs, etc.

    Since the actual income and expenditure usually deviate somewhat from the annual budget, the financial year is closed with a positive or negative balance. If the balance is positive, the EU member states reduce their own resource payments in the following budget year. If it is negative, it must be incorporated into the budget for the following year through a subsequent amending budget as an additional expense and corresponding additional own resources must be made available.

    The multiannual financial framework sets a maximum amount that the EU's total revenue can achieve, the so-called own resources ceiling. This is determined as a share of the pan-European gross national income ; in the period 2007–2009 it was 1.24%, for 2010–2013 it was 1.23%. However, the upper limit for the money that the EU is actually allowed to spend each year ( see below ) is always slightly below this upper limit for own funds, so that normally the full amount is not called up. This difference between own funds and payment authorization limits also serves as a margin for unexpected expenses.

    The own funds system

    Traditional own resources

    The so-called traditional own resources consist of customs duties and sugar levies . Together with the agricultural levies (a special type of agricultural tariff which has since been abolished), these were the first own resources to be granted to the European Communities in 1970 instead of the national contributions that had been customary until then. In contrast to the other types of own resources, traditional own resources are revenues that are generated through policy areas within the EU itself, namely through the European Customs Union and the Common Agricultural Policy .

    The level of customs duties levied on goods being imported at the EU's external borders is determined by the Common Customs Tariff . However, the customs administration lies with the EU member states, which are allowed to withhold 25% of the revenue for their collection costs. The sugar levies (to which the agricultural levies were previously added) are special levies on the import of agricultural products, which raise their prices to the minimum price set in the EU market regime.

    At the time of the first own resources decisions, traditional own resources were still essentially sufficient to finance the European Communities. However, the need for financing increased over time due to the additional competencies of the EU, while conversely due to reforms of the common agricultural policy and the tariff reductions agreed within the framework of the GATT and the WTO , traditional own resources tended to decrease. As a result, their share of total EU revenue was only 16% in 2000 and only around 13% in 2011.

    VAT own resources

    The VAT own resources were introduced in 1980 as an additional financing instrument in addition to the traditional own resources. For this purpose, the assessment basis for sales tax has been standardized in all EU member states (see Sales tax # Sales tax uniformly regulated in the EU ) and it has been determined that the EU receives a certain share (the so-called "call rate" of currently 0.30%). In fact, these are national contributions that are calculated on the basis of sales tax.

    However, there are some additional and exceptional regulations: Firstly, the assessment base for VAT own resources must not in principle exceed 50% of the gross national income of a country. This is intended to accommodate economically weaker countries whose budget is largely dependent on VAT and which would therefore have to make a contribution to the EU budget that is not in proportion to their economic strength. Second, for the period 2007-2013, the call rate has been reduced for some countries whose overall contribution to the EU budget is quite high. Instead of 0.30% of the assessment base, Austria only has to pay 0.225%, Germany 0.15%, and the Netherlands and Sweden each 0.10%.

    The rate of call for VAT own resources changed several times over the course of time; it reached the maximum in 1986 with 1.4% to finance the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC . Since the 1990s, on the other hand, it has been gradually reduced, with the result that the share of VAT own resources in total EU revenue has also decreased. In 2000 they made up around 38% and in 2011 only around 11% of the EU budget.

    GNI-based own resources

    The own resources based on the gross national income (GNI own resources) now make up the largest part of the EU budget, their share recently increased from around 40% in 2000 to around 75% in 2011. The amount of the GNI own resources is determined annually and corresponds to the difference between the other income and the total expenditure for the next financial year. So they cover the part of the expenditure that cannot be financed by traditional and VAT own resources. The upper limit for the GNI own resource results from the maximum expenditure of the EU determined in the multiannual financial framework.

    Like the VAT own resource, the GNI resource is in fact national contributions from the Member States. The gross national income is calculated for each country according to market prices, on the basis of which the shares in the financing of EU expenditure are calculated. As with the VAT own resources, there are also some special rules for certain countries for the GNI own resources: For example, the GNI contribution of the Netherlands and Sweden will be reduced by € 605 million and € 150 million annually in the period 2007-2013.

    British discount

    The main special regulation in the revenue system of the EU budget is the so-called UK compensation (UK for United Kingdom , colloquially British discount ), a mechanism to correct the disproportion between payments and returns from the UK. This instrument was introduced in 1985 and has since been adapted to the changed conditions of the EU budget, but has remained fundamentally unchanged. It is calculated from the UK's net contribution, i.e. the difference between UK payments into the EU budget (UK VAT and GNI components) and the expenditure that flows back into the UK from the EU budget. Of that net amount, the United Kingdom was originally reimbursed two thirds. For the period 2007-2013, however, certain areas of EU spending (such as regional funding for the newly acceding Member States since 2004) were excluded from the calculation of the net amount, which meant a reduction in the UK rebate. In the 2010 budget, the compensation for Great Britain is estimated at just under 3.5 billion euros.

    The equalization payments for Great Britain are made by the other 26 EU member states by increasing their respective share of the GNI own resources accordingly. However, there are certain special provisions for other states that make a fairly high net contribution themselves. In the period 2007–2013, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria therefore only paid a quarter of their share of the British rebate. This regulation was implemented by lowering the call rates for these countries for VAT and GNI own resources (see above) . In addition, the net contributors were also relieved by other, indirect measures. In 2002, for example, the flat-rate share of the collection costs that the Member States may withhold from traditional own resources such as customs duties was increased from 10% to 25%. This was of particular benefit to the Netherlands and Germany, where the EU's main import ports are located.

    The reason for the introduction of the British rebate was the high share of agricultural expenditure in the EU budget, from which the United Kingdom hardly benefited due to its low level of agriculture, so that the British net contribution was significantly higher than that of the other member states until the 1980s. However, since agricultural spending now accounts for a significantly lower share of the EU budget, the British discount is no longer undisputed today ( see below ) .

    expenditure

    The total coverage principle applies to the EU budget . The income is therefore not earmarked but can be used freely. However, the expenditure entered in the annual budget is limited by ceilings set for seven years in the multiannual financial framework.

    Commitment and payment appropriations in the MFF

    Headings in the MFF 2007-2013:
  • sustainable growth
  • Natural resources
  • Union citizenship, freedom, security, law
  • The EU as a global partner
  • administration
  • Compensation payments
  • The expenditure financed from the EU budget is divided into different categories, so-called "headings". These are set out in the multiannual financial framework, with a specific ceiling for each heading. This ceiling indicates the maximum amount of commitments the EU can make in this area. The amounts are fixed for seven years, but are adjusted annually in line with inflation developments .

    Since not all commitments payments are necessarily made in the same year in which they are made, there is a specific maximum amount of payments the EU can make each year in addition to commitment appropriations. This is determined as a percentage of the EU-wide gross national income . Its amount in absolute numbers is therefore adjusted annually to economic growth. The ceiling for payment appropriations is always slightly below the ceiling for own resources, so there is always some margin between the EU's current expenditure and the revenues it may draw.

    The multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 is divided into three priorities, which are grouped under four headings. The first priority refers to the goal of sustainable growth and concerns the activation of economic, social and environmental policies to strengthen the European internal market as well as the goals of competitiveness , cohesion and the conservation and management of natural resources. These are covered by headings 1 and 2 of the multiannual financial framework. Since it also includes EU regional policy and the common agricultural policy , the largest individual policy areas , these two headings make up the largest part of the total budget. The second priority includes completing the area of ​​freedom, security and justice and securing access to services of general interest, which are intended to strengthen the concept of European citizenship . This priority corresponds to heading 3 in the financial framework. Europe's role as a global player is covered by the third priority or heading 4. It is intended to help Europe take on a unified role as a global actor based on its core values ​​and to live up to its responsibilities as a regional actor, promote sustainable development and make a contribution to civil and strategic security. The other headings include EU administrative expenditure - largely interpreting and translation activities - as well as the so-called compensation payments. These are payments to newly acceded Member States in which other EU programs have not yet been implemented.

    The following table shows the expenditure items for commitment appropriations in the 2007–2013 financial framework and the respective applicable ceilings as well as the payment appropriations and the respective margin compared to the capital adequacy ceiling in the 2007–2013 financial framework (in billion euros, with adjustments until 2011). The right-hand column shows the most important policy fields or individual funds covered by these headings and the percentage they had in 2009 of the expenditure under the heading.

    Commitment authorizations 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 total Share of total budget
    category Policy fields (selection)
    1. Sustainable growth 54.0 57.7 61.7 63.6 64.0 67.0 70.0 437.8 44.9%
    1a. Competitiveness for growth and jobs Research Framework Program (62%), Lifelong Learning Program (10%), Trans-European Networks (8%), Galileo (7%) 8.9 10.4 13.3 14.2 13.0 14.2 15.4 89.4 9.2%
    1b. Cohesion for growth and jobs Convergence (59%), Regional Competitiveness and Employment (18%), Territorial Cooperation (2%), Cohesion Fund (21%) 45.1 47.3 48.4 49.4 51.0 52.8 54.5 348.4 35.7%
    2. Preservation and management of natural resources European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (81%), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (17%) 55.1 59.2 56.3 60.0 60.3 60.8 61.3 413.0 42.3%
    of which market-related expenses and direct payments European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 45.8 46.2 46.7 47.1 47.6 48.1 48.6 330.1 33.8%
    3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 12.2 1.3%
    3a. Freedom, security and justice Solidarity and migration management (60%), decentralized agencies FRA , Frontex , EMCDDA (19%) 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 7.5 0.8%
    3b. Union citizenship Solidarity Fund (49%), Youth in Action (10%), MEDIA (8%) 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 4.7 0.5%
    4. The EU as a global partner Pre-Accession Aid (28%), Development Cooperation (25%), European Neighborhood Policy (19%), Humanitarian Aid (10%), Common Foreign and Security Policy (4%) 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.9 8.4 9.0 9.6 55.9 5.7%
    5. Administration 7.0 7.4 7.5 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 55.9 5.7%
    6. Compensation Payments 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.1%
    Total commitment appropriations 124.5 132.8 134.7 141.0 143.0 147.5 152.3 975.8 100%
    Commitment appropriations as a percentage of GNI 1.02% 1.08% 1.16% 1.18% 1.16% 1.13% 1.12% 1.12%
    Payment authorizations 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 total
    Total payment appropriations 122.2 129.7 120.4 134.3 134.3 141.4 143.3 925.6
    Payment appropriations as a percentage of GNI 1.00% 1.05% 1.04% 1.12% 1.09% 1.08% 1.05% 1.06%
    Margin as a percentage of GNI 0.24% 0.19% 0.20% 0.11% 0.14% 0.18% 0.18% 0.17%
    Capital ceiling as a percentage of GNI 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.23% 1.23% 1.23% 1.23% 1.23%

    In 2009 the Commission made its first proposals for a budget structure after 2013, and in June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal for the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020.

    The European Council reached political agreement in February 2013 that the expenditure ceiling for the European Union for the period 2014-2020 is EUR 959,988 million in commitment appropriations. This corresponds to 1.00 percent of the EU's gross national income .

    The Member States have also decided to keep the complex rebate system. The existing correction mechanism in favor of Great Britain continues to apply. Germany also retains all of its discounts on payments to the EU; In 2011, these amounted to 2.3 billion euros.

    The following only applies to the period 2014-2020:

    • The rate of call for value added tax (VAT) own funds for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden is set at 0.15 percent;
    • the annual GNI contributions of Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden will be reduced by 130 million euros, 695 million euros and 185 million euros respectively.
    • Austria's annual GNI contribution will be reduced by EUR 30 million gross in 2014, by EUR 20 million in 2015 and by EUR 10 million in 2016.
    Multi-year financial framework in € million
    category 2007-2013 2014-2020 Comparison absolutely Comparison in%
    1. Sustainable growth 446.310 450,763 +4,453 +1.0
    1a. Competitiveness for growth and jobs 91,495 125,614 +34,119 +37.3
    1b. Cohesion for growth and jobs 354.815 325.149 -29,666 -8.4
    2. Preservation and management of natural resources 420,682 373.179 -47,503 -11.3
    of which market-related expenses and direct payments 336.685 277.851 -58,834 -17.5
    3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice 12,366 15,686 +3,320 +26.8
    4. The EU as a global partner 56,815 58,704 +1,899 +3.3
    5. Administration 57,082 61,629 +4,547 +8.0
    6. Compensation Payments - 27 +27 +100
    Total commitment appropriations 994.176 959.988 -34,188 -3.4
    Commitment appropriations as a percentage of GNI 1.12 1.00

    Comparison with budgets of the member states

    The figures are in millions of US dollars from 2016. The figures from Germany are summarized from the federal and state levels. For the European Union, instead of revenue, the commitment appropriations are given.

    country revenue expenditure Deficit / surplus Surplus
    in percent
    Surplus
    as a percentage of GDP
    Rank editions
    international
    BelgiumBelgium Belgium 232,300 245,000 −12,700 −5.2% −2.7% 15th
    BulgariaBulgaria Bulgaria 18,440 19,180 −740 −3.9% −1.4% 71
    DenmarkDenmark Denmark 156,900 164,500 −7,600 −4.6% −2.5% 23
    GermanyGermany Germany 1,507,000 1,484,000 23,000 +1.5% + 0.7% 4th
    EstoniaEstonia Estonia 9,559 9,596 −37 −0.4% −0.2% 88
    FinlandFinland Finland 127,600 132,700 −5,100 −3.8% −2.2% 26th
    FranceFrance France 1,288,000 1,369,000 −81,000 −5.9% −3.3% 5
    GreeceGreece Greece 93,340 102,100 −8,760 −8.6% −4.5% 29
    IrelandIreland Ireland 78,470 80,860 −2,390 −3.0% −0.8% 34
    ItalyItaly Italy 842,000 889.800 −47,000 −5.3% −2.5% 7th
    CroatiaCroatia Croatia 21,470 22,720 −1,250 −5.5% −2.5% 66
    LatviaLatvia Latvia 9,766 10.110 −344 −3.4% −1.2% 87
    LithuaniaLithuania Lithuania 14,680 15,120 −440 −2.9% −1.0% 74
    LuxembourgLuxembourg Luxembourg 25,850 25,520 330 +1.3% + 0.6% 62
    MaltaMalta Malta 4,288 4,401 −113 −2.6% −1.0% 109
    NetherlandsNetherlands Netherlands 322,000 333,500 −10,900 −3.3% −1.4% 12
    AustriaAustria Austria 187,300 192,600 −5,300 −2.8% −1.4% 20th
    PolandPoland Poland 73,400 86,560 −13.160 −15.2% −2.8% 39
    PortugalPortugal Portugal 87,260 92,250 −4,990 −5.4% −2.4% 31
    RomaniaRomania Romania 56,840 62,140 −5,300 −8.5% −2.8% 46
    SwedenSweden Sweden 248,300 250,200 −1,900 −0.8% −0.4% 14th
    SlovakiaSlovakia Slovakia 34,870 37.040 −2,170 −5.9% −2.3% 58
    SloveniaSlovenia Slovenia 19,320 20,510 −1,190 −5.8% −2.7% 70
    SpainSpain Spain 461,000 512,000 −51,000 −10.1% −4.1% 10
    Czech RepublicCzech Republic Czech Republic 73,740 74,750 −1.010 −1.4% −0.5% 38
    HungaryHungary Hungary 57,320 60,080 −2,760 −4.6% −2.2% 45
    United KingdomUnited Kingdom United Kingdom 996,000 1,097,000 −101,000 −9.2% −3.8% 6th
    Cyprus RepublicRepublic of Cyprus Cyprus 7,588 7,809 −221 −2.8% −1.1% 95
    European UnionEuropean Union Member States 7,054,601 7,401,046 −345.045 -4.7% -2.0% -
    European UnionEuropean Union European Union 154,738 144,685 10,053 + 6.9% + 0.1% -

    Flexibility instruments

    In order to be able to structure the financial framework flexibly, there are some so-called "flexibility instruments" in addition to the commitment appropriations that are also specified in the multiannual financial framework. They are set in annual amounts that are adjusted to the development of inflation. The details are as follows (amounts from 2004):

    Finally, the European Development Fund (EDF), the most important financing instrument for development policy in the European Union, is a special case . The EDF is not part of the EU budget, but is financed for five years from individually negotiated direct contributions from the member states.

    The annual budget

    The annual budget is divided into an overall revenue plan and a plan for the revenue and expenditure of the individual institutions and bodies of the European Union. Most of these sections only contain the administrative expenditure of the various institutions. Section III, which concerns the expenditure of the European Commission , also contains the operational funds, i.e. the money that is available for specific measures. This Section III therefore comprises around 95% of the total expenditure.

    In total, the Commission's budget is divided into around thirty titles, each of which identifies a specific policy area. These are further broken down into individual chapters that relate to specific measures. The chapters are further subdivided into articles and, if necessary, individual items. The division of the budget is therefore based on the various activities carried out by the Commission; This type of budgeting is also known as Activity Based Budgeting (ABB). Since this breakdown shows exactly what resources are earmarked for funding which policy areas, it is possible to estimate the cost of each policy area.

    The responsibility for the individual programs and actions of the EU in the respective policy areas lies with the Commission staff of the Directorates-General assigned to these areas. If necessary, they work together with the responsible bodies in the EU member states. All EU officials can be held disciplinary and financially accountable for their actions. However, as a rule, the responsible Director General bears full and final responsibility for the operations in his area of ​​responsibility.

    In order to make payments, the Commission has accounts with the budget administrations of the Member States, with central banks and with commercial banks. All payment instructions and related messages are sent electronically, encrypted and with an authentication code. However, most of the EU spending is not paid directly by the Commission to the recipient. Instead, around three quarters of the budget is carried out under what is known as 'shared management', in which the Commission transfers the money to the Member States, which in turn select the ultimate beneficiaries. However, the Commission controls this expenditure and reclaims it in the event of irregularities. In the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany , the revenues and expenditures of the EU managed by the federal agencies are listed in special annexes ("E") to chap. 1004 and to chap. 6001 reported.

    Accounting and budget control

    In accordance with the distinction between payment and commitment appropriations, the EU's accounting is based on a dual system ( double ): budget accounting is based on a variant of the cash principle, in which expenditure and income are booked when the funds in question are paid out or received. This records the different processes involved in budget implementation in detail. The financial accounting by the method of double entry, however based on the accrual basis and includes all operations to the date on which they are actually incurred (even if, for example, the payment is made later). This enables an overview of the EU's assets and economic results. The financial position of the EU can therefore be measured in the annual accounts using the financial accounting. The budget year corresponds to the calendar year ( Art. 313 TFEU ). Both the multiannual financial framework and the annual budget and accounting are in euros .

    Reporting on budget implementation

    In order to monitor the budget, the European Commission publishes a monthly report on budget implementation . This represents the actual income and expenditure of the EU and compares them with the estimates in the budget. The report to the European Parliament and the Council, who are responsible as the budgetary authority for the control of budget implementation, but also in the Internet published on the website of the Commission. The reports break down expenditure, inter alia, according to MFF headings and budget chapters.

    The Commission publishes the annual accounts of the European Union once a year. This is made up of the consolidated monthly reports on budget implementation and an overview of assets, annual results and capital flows. The annual report includes the accounts of all EU institutions and agencies and is drawn up in accordance with the international public accounting standards ( IPSAS ). According to the Financial Regulation, the European Commission must submit a preliminary report on the annual accounts to the European Court of Auditors for examination by March 31 of the following year ; the final accounts must be submitted to the European Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the Council by 31 July.

    A financial report is also prepared annually, detailing the Commission's income and expenditure. The income and expenditure are analyzed in relation to the headings of the multiannual financial framework and in relation to the member countries in which they were incurred. With the help of the financial report, it is possible to statistically break down how high a country's respective net contribution to the EU budget was. However, since a number of income and expenditure cannot be clearly allocated to specific Member States, this net calculation is also controversial ( see below ) .

    In addition, since 2002 all Directorates General of the European Commission have been drawing up annual activity reports, which they submit to the Commissioners responsible for them by March 31 of the following year. These activity reports contain, on the one hand, the annual accounts and financial report of the respective Directorate-General, but also an analysis of whether the expenditure achieved the political results that were intended with them. At the same time, recommendations for possible corrective measures can be given. These activity reports are examined by the College of Commissioners and combined into a synthesis report which is presented to the European Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the Council.

    All consolidated annual accounts and reports are published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Internet on its website.

    Budgetary control procedures

    Luigi de Magistris was chairman of the
    Committee on Budgetary Control until he left Parliament in July 2011

    The control of the EU budget is carried out by various institutions. On the one hand, there is an audit procedure within the Commission that is carried out by the Internal Audit Service (IAS). This has the rank of Directorate General of the European Commission and has been subordinate to the Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union since 2010 , whose portfolio also includes the area of ​​audit and anti-fraud. The IAS is supported by the so-called internal auditing bodies, which are located in each general directorate. They report directly to the Director-General and monitor compliance with the budgetary rules within the Directorate-General. The European Commission's Secretariat-General is responsible for evaluating whether the Commission's expenditure has achieved its political objectives .

    The European Court of Auditors serves as the external control body for the EU budget, examining the Commission's annual accounts and reporting to Parliament and the Council on them. On the one hand, the compliance of the individual processes is checked, on the other hand, statements are made about its reliability. The Court of Auditors also has its own procedure to check the accounts of the European Development Fund , which is not part of the regular EU budget ( see above ) , and can also prepare special reports on certain policy areas. While the reports of the Court of Auditors in the past have often been very critical of the Commission's accounts and repeatedly issued negative statements of assurance, 2009 was found to be sound. The rate of incorrect spending is between two and five percent, which is a significant improvement over previous years.

    The actual discharge for the Commission is ultimately provided by the European Parliament , which has its own budgetary control committee for this purpose . It is based on the annual accounts drawn up by the Commission, on the report of the Court of Auditors and on recommendations from the Council of the European Union . Parliament can also put questions to the Commission. When Parliament gives discharge, the budget is formally closed. In this context, Parliament often makes recommendations to the Commission on what action to take. The Commission will then submit to Parliament and the Council the measures it intends to take. However, Parliament can also decide to reject or postpone discharge, for example to obtain further information. Ultimately, however, the discharge procedure has only political significance; it does not lead to immediate consequences, but primarily serves to provide additional transparency and as an expression of Parliament's confidence or mistrust of the Commission.

    history

    ECSC own resources

    In the course of the history of European integration , the question of how to finance the European institutions has repeatedly been an issue of major conflict. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), founded in 1951 and the first forerunner of the European Union, already had a very extensive system of own resources. The centerpiece was a "levy" - in fact a tax - on coal and steel companies, which the High Authority of the ECSC benefited directly . The contractually stipulated maximum amount of this contribution was 1%. The ECSC also had the option of borrowing, which it was only allowed to use to grant loans. Due to the crisis in the coal and steel sector, however, the surcharge was reduced further and further, from 1980 it was only 0.31%. In 1998 it was reduced to 0% and thus effectively abolished. Instead, the ECSC activities were now largely financed from grants from the Member States and from the general budget of the European Communities .

    First own funds decision: introduction of traditional own funds

    As President of the
    EEC Commission, Walter Hallstein campaigned for the introduction of own resources for the community.

    The communities founded in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome , the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), on the other hand, initially had no own funds. Article 201 of the EEC Treaty provided for this from the start; for a transitional period, however, funding from national contributions was decided instead. In 1965, the President of the EEC Commission, Walter Hallstein , urged that all customs revenue from the European Customs Union be transferred to the EEC, as well as other financial gains that arose from common policies, such as the agricultural levies from the common agricultural policy . However, this was rejected by French President Charles de Gaulle , which became one of the triggers of the empty chair crisis . The Commission's request was initially not taken up in the Luxembourg compromise that ended the crisis. After Charles de Gaulle's resignation, the heads of state and government finally reached an agreement at the Hague Summit in 1969 , so that on April 21, 1970 the so-called first capital adequacy resolution (also known as the first financial contract) was signed, which introduced “natural capital” which are now referred to as “traditional own resources”.

    However, it was already clear in 1970 that traditional own resources alone would not be sufficient to finance the EC budget. Therefore, in the first capital adequacy resolution, it was decided at the same time to introduce VAT capital from 1975. However, the harmonization of the assessment base for sales tax in the various European countries was delayed for a few years, so that the VAT own resources were only applied from 1980 and the transitional system of national contributions was abolished.

    On the basis of the EC merger treaty , the institutions of the three European communities were united with one another in 1967 , including the High Authority of the ECSC with the commissions of the EEC and Euratom. At the same time, a common budget for all three communities was introduced.

    Second and third own resources decisions: British discount and GNI own resources

    Margaret Thatcher introduced the “British discount” in 1984.

    One of the main reasons for budget conflict in the 1980s was the cost of the common agricultural policy . Since its establishment in 1962, these have been the largest single area in the budget of the European Community, in some cases they comprised up to two thirds of the total budget. Since the common agricultural policy was explicitly intended to ensure a high standard of living for farmers, it was for a long time the only essential redistribution mechanism at European level. However, during the negotiations on the first agricultural market regimes, care was taken to ensure that all member states benefited in a similar way from CAP expenditure, so that initially there was little controversy. That changed in the 1970s. On the one hand, the agricultural market regulations from the late 1970s onwards led to a constant overproduction of certain foods (the so-called butter mountains and milk lakes), which were financed from the EC budget and then often only destroyed. On the other hand, a new member state, the United Kingdom , joined in 1973. There was hardly any agriculture and therefore did not benefit from the high CAP expenditure. As a result, it paid significantly more net into the EC budget than any other country - even though it was one of the economically weaker member states at the time.

    This problem was first attempted to solve this problem through new forms of financial redistribution, the structural funds . In particular, the European Regional Development Fund was introduced, which benefits economically weaker regions and from which Great Britain in particular benefited in the initial phase. However, agricultural policy continued to account for up to two thirds of the total budget, so the British disadvantage persisted. After the Paris summit in 1974 had already determined that the situation was "unacceptable" and that an "adequate return flow of funds" had to be guaranteed, the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, elected in 1979, regularly raised the British Budget Question in the European Council Agenda. During the Euro sclerosis -Crisis to 1984 Britain blocked all further developments of European integration, is solved the problem. As a result, the net contributor problem is also gaining broad public attention. At the 1984 Fontainebleau summit , the heads of state and government finally agreed to set up the British discount ( see above ) , through which Great Britain will be reimbursed a large part of its net contributions. This regulation was legally regulated by the so-called second capital adequacy decision of 1985. The later EU enlargements, in which several economically weaker states joined the EU, increased the economic imbalances in the EU, however, so that the net contributions of the economically stronger member states increased and new "national discounts" were also introduced for other member states. The extent of the financial redistribution carried out by the Structural Funds between the richer and poorer Member States is therefore a regular issue of conflict in the net contributor debate.

    In the course of the 1980s it became increasingly clear that the existing types of income were insufficient to cope with the Community's expenditure: since the 1970s, the costs of agricultural policy continued to rise, while at the same time the southward expansion of the EC was planned, with Greece , Spain and Portugal would join several agriculturally as well as economically weak states, which would therefore be entitled to grants from both the agricultural and structural funds. In addition, the income from traditional own resources declined because, on the one hand, the EC had decided to reduce tariffs within the GATT framework, and on the other hand, fewer and fewer agricultural products were imported from which levies would have resulted. On the one hand, this tight budget situation led to long transition periods being agreed in the accession treaties with Spain and Portugal, during which they had to forego certain grants. On the other hand, however, the third own resources decision in 1988 introduced new financing instruments, namely the GNI own resources . In the following years these developed into the most important type of own resources of the community, which ultimately returned to national contributions. In contrast to the initial phase of integration, however, the EC now has a legal right to this funding: the member states are therefore obliged to make this available to it and cannot refuse this through national resolutions.

    The core problem, the high expenditure of the common agricultural policy, on the other hand, was not addressed until the late 1980s. This has been reformed several times since then, including the introduction of milk quotas , which has led to a gradual reduction in both the absolute cost of the CAP and its share in the overall budget.

    Involvement of the European Parliament and multiannual financial framework

    Another point of conflict was the involvement of the European Parliament in budget policy. Initially, it only had a purely advisory role and was in no way involved in the budgetary process. However, right from the start, the parliamentarians urged that budget sovereignty be given , analogous to national parliaments . With the first own resources decision in 1971, the governments of the member states partially accepted this and gradually granted parliament a say. As of 1975, the annual budgets had to be ratified by Parliament before they could come into force. Excepted from this regulation, however, were the so-called “compulsory expenses”, “which result from the contract or the legal acts issued on the basis of the contract”. Only the Council continues to determine this. This included, in particular, expenditure on the common agricultural policy - in other words, by far the largest part of the overall budget.

    Jacques Delors , as President of the
    Commission , proposed the system of multiannual financial frameworks introduced in 1988.

    Since the right to veto the budget was one of the only real powers that Parliament had at the time, it was repeatedly used by the MEPs directly elected since the 1979 European elections as a means of pressure to wrest concessions from the Council in other areas as well. In addition, Parliament regularly called for an increase in non-compulsory expenditure in the budget in order to have more scope for one's own initiatives. In the Council, on the other hand, such requests met with rejection, since the compulsory expenditure for agricultural policy was already growing almost uncontrollably at that time, without the member states being able to agree on a cut. In addition, there was disagreement on numerous expenditure items as to whether they should be allocated to compulsory or non-compulsory expenditure, i.e. whether the Council or Parliament had the final say on it. This led to regular political crises between the two institutions over the budget in the 1980s. To overcome this, a system of long-term financial planning was introduced at the proposal of the European Commission under Jacques Delors in the third own resources decision in 1988, which was intended to improve the handling of the budgetary procedure and budgetary discipline. This system of “financial perspectives” set the maximum levels for the EC budget for several years in advance so that the conflict over this could no longer affect the annual budgetary process.

    The main goal of Delors was to get planning security for his project to complete the European single market . The duration of the first financial framework therefore corresponded exactly to the period up to 1992, which was also foreseen for the internal market project. It was agreed in 1988 as an interinstitutional agreement and is colloquially known as the "Delors Package". The expenditure ceiling was initially 1.15% of the total GNI of the Community in 1988 and was gradually increased to 1.2% by 1992. The second financial perspective (also known as the "Delors II package") ran for seven years, from 1993 to 1999, with the capital ceiling increasing to 1.26%. In the period that followed, further financial forecasts were issued for the periods 2000–2006 and 2007–2013. With the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, the system was anchored in the FEU Treaty as a multiannual financial framework ( see above ) .

    In addition to the Delors II package, a fourth capital adequacy resolution was passed in 1994, with which the regulations for collecting capital and national discounts were revised without, however, making any fundamental changes or introducing new types of capital. This also applies to the later resolutions, which were drawn up parallel to the financial forecasts: The fifth capital adequacy resolution came into force in 2000, the sixth in 2009 retrospectively from 2007. A new capital adequacy resolution is planned for 2013 to accompany the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020.

    In the course of the treaty reforms since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, Parliament's say in the annual budget process has gradually been extended to the current system. One major reform was the 2007 Lisbon Treaty , which abolished the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. As a result, all areas of the EU budget now fall under the co-determination of the European Parliament.

    Debate on reform of the EU budget

    While certain conflicts over the budget of the European Union can regularly be seen in the annual budget negotiations, others become more acute, especially before the negotiation of new own resources decisions and multiannual financial frameworks, when the entire own resources system is put to the test. The new financial framework from 2014, for which the Commission presented initial proposals at the end of June 2011 ( see below ) , has also repeatedly triggered calls for reforms in the EU budget since 2010.

    Debate on issues

    Total amount of expenses

    A frequent point of conflict in negotiations on the budget of the European Union is the level of total expenditure. The European Parliament's Committee on Budgets, in particular , repeatedly criticized the fact that the budget was insufficient to carry out the tasks of the European Union. The multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 does not take into account the additional expenditure caused by the financial crisis from 2007 and the responsibilities newly introduced in the Lisbon Treaty . This applies, for example, to the areas of energy, research, financial market control, climate change and foreign policy. The EU therefore does not have the necessary room for maneuver to be able to react to new or unexpected challenges. In contrast, an increase in the EU budget is rejected by several member states. The “net contributors” like Germany in particular fear a further increase in their contribution. ( see below ) .

    The line of conflict between the European Parliament and the Council on this issue has a long tradition. Most recently, the conflict led to a crisis in the negotiation of the EU budget for 2011. Here the European Parliament demanded an increase in the budget by six percent, which eleven member states categorically rejected at the European Council at the end of October 2010. Finally, Parliament and the Council agreed on a compromise that only provides for a smaller budget increase, but more informal rights for Parliament to have a say in the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework from 2014, which should begin in mid-2011. However, the governments of several member states, including Germany, France and Great Britain, also called for the total budget in this MFF to be frozen. Parliament's President Jerzy Buzek therefore warned of a “political crisis over the budget issue”. Before the start of the Polish EU Council Presidency in 2011 , the Polish government also spoke out in favor of strengthening the EU budget in order to stimulate economic growth in the EU.

    Common agricultural policy and regional policy

    Funding claims from EU regional policy
  • Regions with higher demands (objective "convergence")
  • Regions with lower demands (objective "regional competitiveness and employment")
  • The level of expenditure for the common agricultural policy (CAP) is also still controversial . These fell significantly as a result of the CAP reforms; however, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund , which appears in the MFF 2007-2013 as a sub-item “market-related expenditure and direct payments” under heading 2, still accounts for around 35% of the total budget. Great Britain in particular therefore advocated a reduction in agricultural spending in the negotiations on the financial framework, while France, as the main beneficiary, defended it. In 2010, Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski proposed that part of this expenditure be invested in the areas of innovation and employment. The export subsidies for European agricultural products are particularly controversial, as they damage the agricultural markets in developing countries.

    The regional policy of the European Union is also under discussion as the second major item of expenditure, also at around 35% . This includes in particular the structural funds such as the regional development fund , the social fund and the cohesion fund , with which the economically weaker regions and countries are promoted (heading 2b in the MFF 2007-2013). Since the EU enlargement in 2004 , these have mainly been the newly acceding Central and Eastern European member states. Regional policy is thus the most important mechanism by which wealth is redistributed from richer to poorer areas within the European Union. While Poland and the Czech Republic in particular are pushing for these structural funds to be maintained, various net payer countries want to cut the funds for them. France in particular declared a cut in the regional policy budget to be "inevitable".

    Debate on revenue

    The type of revenue in the EU budget is also a frequent issue of conflict. Traditionally, the Commission and the European Parliament try to become more independent of the national contributions of the member states through new own resources. On the one hand, this is intended to calm the net payer debate, since the EU's income would no longer be attributable to specific member states. On the other hand, such additional own resources would clarify the role of the EU as an independent political level and give EU budget policy more visibility. However, this is rejected by various Member States. This conflict also goes back to the early days of European integration.

    EU tax

    Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski and Commission President José Manuel Barroso therefore repeatedly brought the possibility of an EU tax into play in 2010. In the opinion of the Commission, this could include an aviation tax , a financial transaction tax , the proceeds from the auctioning of CO 2 emission rights , a corporation tax or a VAT levied directly by the EU . Various leading European parliamentarians , including Alain Lamassoure , chairman of the budget committee , and Jutta Haug , chairwoman of the special committee on the multiannual financial framework from 2013, also called for EU VAT and a CO 2 tariff on imported products in 2011 . Both the Commission and Parliament see the tax as a way of replacing the national contributions of the Member States without placing an additional burden on the taxpayer.

    By contrast, the governments of several member states, including Germany, strictly reject an EU tax; it is expressly excluded in the coalition agreement of the Merkel II government . This is usually justified by the fact that - contrary to the statements of the Commission and Parliament - the introduction of an EU tax would ultimately lead to an increase in the EU budget and thus to an additional tax burden.

    From a legal perspective, EU taxes are problematic with regard to the Basic Law and EU Treaties - a distinction is made between EU taxes that are introduced by the EU (legislative competence), but then benefit the national budget, and those that are in the EU - Budget flow (earning power). The latter cannot be introduced independently by the EU, at least according to the current status of the treaties. Even after a change in the treaties, the EU's taxation competence (legislative competence) is problematic with regard to its “democratic deficit” and is sometimes viewed by legal doctrine as incompatible with the German Basic Law. In some cases, however, an EU tax with revenue and legislative powers of the EU is considered compatible with the Basic Law. However, only if the tax cannot be levied for the sake of income, but serves other goals (such as environmental protection).

    Eurobonds

    Another proposal to reform the EU budget are so-called EU bonds (also known as Eurobonds). This refers to government bonds on the EU budget, for which the EU member states are to jointly guarantee. This would be a break with the previous principle that the EU budget must always be in balance. The proposal exists in different variants, each intended to achieve different purposes.

    For the first time, a corresponding idea was raised in 2003 by the former Commission President Jacques Delors . He suggested borrowing directly for the benefit of the EU budget, thus creating a new financing instrument for the EU analogous to government bonds at national level. In the course of the euro crisis , various variants of this idea were put forward again in 2010, for example by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker , who is also chairman of the Eurogroup . However, these proposals mostly did not affect the EU budget itself: Instead, the joint loans should now benefit the national budgets of the member states in order to help those states that were unable to refinance themselves.

    While the European Commission and a large part of the European Parliament supported these initiatives, the Delors proposal was not taken up by the European Council as it was seen as a danger to an unwanted budget increase by the Member States. The proposals made during the European debt crisis were also expressly rejected by various member states, including Germany and France , for other reasons .

    A special case of EU bonds are the so-called project bonds with joint liability, which were introduced in the 1970s as a new community instrument and used for individual investment projects. Such “mutual financial guarantees for the joint implementation of a specific project” are expressly provided for in Art. 125 TFEU . In December 2010, EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso proposed the reintroduction of such project bonds on a larger scale.

    Net payer debate

    Net contributors and recipients, calculation per capita, values ​​2017

    One of the most important areas of conflict over the EU budget is the so-called net payer debate, i.e. the discussion about how much a country contributes to the EU budget and, conversely, how much flows from the EU budget to that country. Whoever pays in more than he gets out is a net payer. The net payment causes a redistribution of funds and, ultimately, wealth. In the EU, 15 out of 27 countries receive more money than they pay in - so they are net recipients; on the other hand, there are twelve countries as net contributors. The debate about this shapes the discussion about the EU budget in general in the net contributing countries such as Germany , the Netherlands and the United Kingdom , which pay more money into the budget than they get back from it.

    Margaret Thatcher , British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, made this an on-going EU issue from 1979 to 1984. They denounced the high agricultural expenditure of the EU and the lack of ability to reform the EU and practiced a policy of obstruction, to the UK in 1984 the so-called British rebate received (details below).

    The calculation of the net contributions is possible from the annual financial report of the European Commission ( see above ) . It is methodologically difficult: while the revenue from VAT and GNI resources can be easily allocated to specific member states, this is not possible with traditional own resources from customs duties, for example. These are also collected by certain Member States and transmitted to the EU. The proportion of countries with large ports (i.e. the Netherlands in particular) appears to be distorted, since goods from third countries are often cleared here but sold in other countries. Calculating the returns from the EU budget is even more difficult. The spending of the European Union is based on the EU's political priorities. With the exception of EU regional policy , which specifically promotes areas with less economic power, it does not initially matter where the money is spent. An allocation of the returns to certain countries is therefore only possible retrospectively. Certain expenses (e.g. for EU development policy ) are made in third countries and therefore cannot be assigned to any country at all. Finally, the administrative expenses incurred at the headquarters of the EU institutions have another distorting effect. The European Commission has therefore been using an official methodology for calculating the “operating budget balances” since 1999, with which all these effects have been and are excluded. In the media, however, other methods of calculation are often used that include traditional own resources or administrative expenses.

    After the net payer debate had barely played a role in the first decades of integration, it has gained considerable public awareness since the late 1970s, primarily due to the conflicts over the British contribution to the EU budget ( see above ) . In 1984 this led to the introduction of the British rebate - which continued until the United Kingdom left the EU - as well as further (albeit less extensive) “national rebates” for other net payer countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden. These various discounts complicated the EU budget; The British discount in particular is controversial because the share of agricultural expenditure in the EU budget has now fallen significantly and the UK's per capita income has increased significantly. EU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski and Commission President José Manuel Barroso therefore proposed abolishing national discounts in 2010. Instead, the EU budget should be financed from an EU tax , and the end of national contributions should also overcome the net payer debate as a whole. These proposals met with approval in the European Parliament , but were rejected by the net contributing states such as Germany.

    In principle, the net contribution can be stated as follows:

    While Germany 2009 in absolute terms, with 6.4 billion euros the highest net contribution to the EU budget made (followed by France with 5.9 billion and Italy with 5.1 billion euro), was both the per capita than also the share contributions in each case only in seventh place. Luxembourg paid the highest per capita contributions at around € 203, even if these only make up a marginal part of the EU budget in absolute terms. Denmark (€ 176) and Belgium (€ 155) followed in second and third place in the per capita calculation. Germany paid € 78 more per inhabitant than it got out, Austria € 48. In relation to GDP, the main net contributors were Belgium (0.49%), Denmark (0.43%) and Italy (0.34%). In Germany the net contribution was 0.27%, in Austria 0.15% of GDP. The most important net recipients in absolute terms were Poland (6.3 billion euros) and Greece (3.1 billion euros), while in the per capita and proportionate accounts Lithuania (446 €, 5.42%) and Estonia (428 €) respectively , 4.13%). The Heidelberg economics professor emeritus Franz-Ulrich Willeke calculated that Germany made more than 200 billion euros in net payments in the period from 1991 to 2011 (i.e. in the 21 years after reunification). This corresponded to around 45 percent of the total net contributions of all ten EU net contributors. This means that these payments in Germany were far disproportionate to economic output. During the period under review, this was between a quarter and a fifth of the aggregated gross domestic product of the EU member states . If Germany, like all net contributors, had paid the same percentage of its GNI of 0.2%, then Germany would have had to pay a good 60 billion euros less. In 2013, Willeke described Germany as the “milking cow” of the EU.

    In January 2013, during the Italian election campaign , then Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti pointed out that Italy was the largest net payer in terms of GDP in 2011; In view of the situation in his country , this is unjustified and must be changed. Italy's net payment was 5.9 billion euros, equal to 0.38 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

    In 2011, the GDP ratios of the six largest net contributors were much closer together than in the past. In countries with a large black economy (= a lot of illegal work / tax evasion) the actual GDP is significantly larger than the official one.

    Before the Brexit referendum in the UK on June 23, 2016, the UK's net payments to the EU were discussed in the UK public.

    Net recipients (+) and net payer (-) of the EU in 2017
    Budget share
    million euros
    Budget
    share in% of own GDP
    Gross receipt
    million euros
    Balance in
    millions of euros
    % of GNI
    PolandPoland Poland 3,048 0.65 11,613 +8,565 +1.92
    RomaniaRomania Romania 1,228 0.65 4,608 +3,380 +1.85
    GreeceGreece Greece 1,247 0.70 4,987 +3,740 +2.10
    HungaryHungary Hungary 820 0.66 3,957 +3,137 +2.66
    Czech RepublicCzech Republic Czech Republic 1,282 0.67 3,761 +2,479 +1.37
    SpainSpain Spain 8,080 0.69 8,809 +729 +0.06
    SlovakiaSlovakia Slovakia 600 0.71 1,579 +979 +1.17
    BulgariaBulgaria Bulgaria 378 0.75 1,849 +1,471 +2.92
    PortugalPortugal Portugal 1,375 0.71 3.812 +2,437 +1.29
    LithuaniaLithuania Lithuania 273 0.65 1,538 +1,265 +3.14
    CroatiaCroatia Croatia 359 0.73 620 +261 +0.55
    LatviaLatvia Latvia 184 0.69 711 +527 +1.98
    EstoniaEstonia Estonia 154 0.67 625 +471 +2.09
    IrelandIreland Ireland 1,777 0.60 1,605 -172 -0.07
    SloveniaSlovenia Slovenia 293 0.68 438 +145 +0.34
    MaltaMalta Malta 82 0.74 186 +104 +1.00
    Cyprus RepublicRepublic of Cyprus Cyprus 137 0.71 187 +50 +0.27
    LuxembourgLuxembourg Luxembourg 307 0.55 320 +13 +0.04
    FinlandFinland Finland 1,594 0.71 1,319 -275 -0.12
    DenmarkDenmark Denmark 1.926 0.67 1,224 -702 -0.24
    AustriaAustria Austria 2,429 0.66 1,496 -933 -0.25
    BelgiumBelgium Belgium 2,978 0.68 2.263 -715 -0.16
    SwedenSweden Sweden 2,628 0.55 1,225 -1,403 -0.29
    NetherlandsNetherlands Netherlands 3,384 0.46 1.993 -1,391 -0.19
    ItalyItaly Italy 12,000 0.70 8,423 -3,577 -0.21
    United KingdomUnited Kingdom United Kingdom 10,575 0.45 5,230 -5,345 -0.23
    FranceFrance France 16,233 0.71 11,664 -4,569 -0.20
    GermanyGermany Germany 19,587 0.60 8,912 -10,675 -0.32

    Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020

    Failed draft from November 2012

    On June 29, 2011, the European Commission presented its first proposal for the 2014-2020 MFF. In it, she complied with the request of the large EU member states to freeze the overall budget at the level of the previous financial framework and even to reduce it. Compared to 1.12% of GDP in the period 2007-2013, the commitment appropriations are to be reduced to 1.05% of GDP. Due to inflation and GDP growth, this corresponds to an increase of almost five percent in absolute terms, namely from 975.77 billion to 1.025 trillion euros. The planned payment appropriations will decrease from 1.06% to 1.00% of GDP, which corresponds to a nominal increase from 925.58 to 972.20 billion euros.

    Agricultural and regional policy

    The controversial expenditure on the common agricultural policy is expected to drop significantly, from 330.1 billion to 281.8 billion euros. In contrast, spending on rural development is increasing somewhat. Spending on EU regional policy is also expected to decrease slightly. On the other hand, spending on domestic and migration policy, research policy and the common foreign and security policy , in which the EU has been given new powers by the Treaty of Lisbon, is expected to increase . A separate budget item is to be set up for the first time for the expansion of the trans-European networks . The administrative costs are to remain constant, which would mean the loss of 5% of the posts in the EU administration.

    Premium discounts

    In addition, the often criticized national discounts are to be reduced or abolished. In addition, the national contributions from GNI own resources are to be reduced and a European financial transaction tax introduced. The revenues from EU emissions trading and a new form of VAT own funds are also planned as further sources of own funds.

    Spending outside the MFF

    In the communication on the MFF, the European Commission also published the expenditure of the financial resources it manages outside the budget, which are not intended to be financed by own resources but are to be raised directly by the EU member states. In the period from 2014 to 2020, 58.3 billion euros (0.06% GDP) will be spent on this. This is significantly more than the 14.2 billion euros set up for the current period from 2007 to 2013. With 30.3 billion euros, the largest share is earmarked for the European Development Fund , the most important instrument of EU development aid. A total of 19.5 billion euros should be available for agricultural and structural policy in order to be able to react to crises. In particular, the European Fund for Adjustment to Globalization , the European Solidarity Fund , the EU emergency aid reserves and the reserves for crises in the agricultural sector are financed. Funding is also planned for the Global Climate and Biodiversity Fund, the development of the ITER nuclear fusion reactor and the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Initiative (GMES) .

    The planned increase in funds outside the MFF was immediately criticized. The German MEP Jutta Haug , Deputy Chair of the Budget Committee in the European Parliament, criticized the EU Commission for concealing agricultural spending: "It can be said that the European Parliament, with its decision for agricultural policy to maintain the budget of the current MFF, is a more realistic approach who works without computer tricks. "

    Agreement reached in February 2013

    After the negotiations in November 2012 failed to agree on the present draft , the talks were postponed and continued on February 7, 2013 in Brussels. After 15 hours of negotiations that lasted until the early hours of February 8th, an agreement was finally reached on a total budget of around 960 billion euros for the period 2014-2020, around 12 billion euros less than in the previous draft. As in previous years, agricultural and structural aid remain the largest items in this budget.

    Criticized national discounts , which should have been abolished, were ultimately retained. However, the amount was partially reformed. For example, the Austrian discount of around 100 million euros per year will be lower in the future.

    Following a recommendation by the Committee on Budgets on November 15, the draft Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 was discussed and voted on in the European Parliament on November 19, 2013 . The MFF regulation was adopted with 537 votes in favor (126 against and 19 abstentions) with commitments totaling EUR 959,988 million. The formal adoption of the MFF by the Council is expected to take place on December 2nd.

    Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027

    Time schedule

    The European Commission presented the draft for the new MFF on May 2, 2018. The aim of the then responsible Commissioner Günther Oettinger was to conclude the negotiations before the 2019 European elections . This did not work. Due to the corona crisis , the new Commission von der Leyen presented a new and significantly expanded draft budget in June 2020 . It provides for the additional creation of a new anti-crisis instrument called the “Recovery Plan” in the form of a reconstruction plan , similar to the Marshall Plan created by the USA after the Second World War to rebuild destroyed Europe , amounting to an additional 750 billion euros. The multiannual financial framework would then have a total budget of 1.82 trillion euros.

    Framework

    The UK's exit from the EU is expected to result in a financial gap of 12 to 14 billion euros. In addition, new tasks have to be financed, such as the border security of the EU, the constantly structured cooperation in defense policy , development cooperation , the fight against terrorism and large research projects. 2/3 of the money is tied to agricultural subsidies and structural funds from the outset .

    Commission proposals

    Despite the Brexit, spending is to be increased from one percent to 1.1 to 1.2 percent of gross national income . The additional expenditure should be achieved through savings and additional contributions from the remaining 27 EU countries. In addition, Oettinger has proposed a plastic tax as an EU tax.

    EU Parliament proposals

    Due to the additional tasks, expenditure is to be increased to 1.3 percent of gross national income. In 2018 prices for the 7-year budget of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), this corresponds to 1.32 trillion euros and an average budget of 189.1 billion euros per year.

    The interim report on the Commission's proposals expressed concern that the proposed appropriations were cut as part of the European Union's gross national income and would not allow the EU to meet its commitments. The main changes requested are a further strengthening of priorities such as research and innovation (Horizon), youth (Erasmus + and action against unemployment), transport, space, small business, environment, climate, neighborhood and development, and the reinstatement of the funds affected by the cuts for agriculture, cohesion and decentralized agencies to the extent of the previous MFF.

    Decision of the European Council

    The European Council met from July 17-21, 2020 to - on the basis of the Commission's proposals - to discuss the MFF and to reach an agreement. The negotiation of the 27 member states turned out to be extremely difficult and the positions were sometimes very far apart. Therefore, the summit, originally scheduled to last two days, was extended by a further two days and the final result was not communicated to the public until the night from Monday to Tuesday July 22, 2020. The regular budget should thus amount to 1.074 trillion euros and be supplemented by a new type of loan-financed area, the reconstruction fund. This amounts to 750 billion euros, so that the total MFR is 1.824 trillion euros.

    Above all, the position of the so-called "Sparse Four", represented by Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and, in fact, Finland as the fifth member, delayed the negotiations noticeably. As a maximum position, the interest group wanted to prevent the EU from distributing non-repayable and loan-financed grants. Finally, a compromise was reached by agreeing a reduced sum of 390 billion euros instead of the planned 500 billion euros in grants. The difference of 110 billion euros was added to the credit line of 250 billion euros, so that this rose to 360 billion euros. Due to the strong thematic focus, other important issues such as the linkage of the funds to the rule of law or the demand by Parliament to allocate more budget in the areas of research, innovation and youth have faded into the background. A proposed new EU plastic tax was only vaguely included in the final document. The Commission also called for the rebate system to be abolished, which means that some member states do not pay full contributions. Instead of abolishing it, an increase in the discounts for five countries - the thrifty four and Germany - was agreed.

    Confirmation by the European Parliament

    The result still has to be confirmed by the European Parliament, presumably in the session after the summer break in September or autumn 2020. Confirmation is necessary in order to finally adopt the multiannual financial framework and to ensure further EU funding. After the results of the council were announced, resistance arose in several groups, as the parliament sees its positions and wishes insufficiently taken into account.

    Web links

    Commons : European Union budget  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

    Individual evidence

    1. European Union press release: EU budget 2010: Investing for jobs and growth .
    2. European Commission , How is the budget decided? .
    3. Federal Foreign Office: What is the Multiannual Financial Framework?
    4. Decision 2007/436 / EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 (OJ EC L 163 of 23 June 2007, p. 17) on EUR-Lex .
    5. Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 1605/2002 of the Council (OJ . L 298 of October 26, 2012, p. 1)
    6. The new Financial Regulation: easier access to EU funds. In: eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved March 16, 2018 .
    7. ↑ Financial regulation for the general budget of the Union and rules of application - synoptic representation. Completed by a selection of legal texts of relevance to the budget. European Union, 2013, accessed March 16, 2018 .
    8. Implementing regulation for Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012: Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 1268/2012 of the Commission of 29 October 2012 on the application provisions for Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ EU L 362/1 of 29 October 2012)
    9. Regulation (EG, Euratom) No. 1605/2002 of June 25, 2002 on the Financial Regulation for the general budget of the European Communities in the consolidated version of January 1, 2007 (OJ EG L 248 of September 16, 2002).
    10. Implementing regulation for Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 1605/2002: Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1553/89 of May 29, 1989 in the consolidated version of June 5, 2003 (OJ EC L 155 of June 7 1989) on EUR-Lex ; Implementing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 1150/2000 of May 22, 2000 (OJ EC L 130 of May 31, 2000) on EUR-Lex .
    11. ↑ Financial regulation and rules of application: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (14 September 2016) , accessed on 16 March 2018
    12. Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 18, 2018 on the financial regulation for the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No. 1296/2013, (EU) No. 1301 / 2013, (EU) No. 1303/2013, (EU) No. 1304/2013, (EU) No. 1309/2013, (EU) No. 1316/2013, (EU) No. 223/2014, (EU ) No. 283/2014 and Decision No. 541/2014 / EU as well as repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012
    13. Regulation (EC) No. 16/2002 (Financial Regulation) , Art. 9, Paragraph 5; see also: European Parliament , The Budgetary Authority .
    14. Financial framework 2007–2013. (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on May 10, 2010 ; Retrieved March 16, 2010 .
    15. a b c d European Commission : Where does the money come from?
    16. European Commission , decision on the system of own resources (overview)
    17. a b Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament , rapporteur Alain Lamassoure , 2005: Working document on the history of the Communities' own resources ( Memento of 30 January 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 133 kB).
    18. European Commission , 2010 budget in figures .
    19. European Commission : Where is the money going?
    20. a b European Commission : Financial framework 2007-2013 in figures .
    21. European Commission : Financial Report 2009 (PDF; 4.9 MB).
    22. Communication from the European Commission: A budget for "Europe 2020" (PDF; 129 kB)
    23. a b EU budget 2014–2020: The details in numbers
    24. CVCE at the University of Luxembourg : The budget of the European Union: how is your money spent?
    25. DGB : Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020 Overview in Figures and EU Budget 2014 (pdf) ( Memento of the original from 23 May 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / berlin-brandenburg.dgb.de
    26. ^ The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency. Accessed May 2, 2017 .
    27. ↑ Mid- term review / revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. Retrieved June 2, 2017 .
    28. European Commission : Flexibility Instruments .
    29. European Commission : European Development Fund .
    30. European Commission : Structure of the budget .
    31. European Commission : Who will manage the funds?
    32. a b c d European Commission : Annual accounts and reports .
    33. European Commission : Monthly reports on budget implementation .
    34. European Commission : Budget documents for 2011 .
    35. Cf. European Parliament : Net contributors and net recipients in the EU ( Memento of the original from November 21, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 47 kB). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.europarl.europa.eu
    36. a b European Commission : Internal and external audits .
    37. European Commission : Evaluation .
    38. European Commission : Report of the Court of Auditors .
    39. European Commission : Discharge .
    40. a b c CVCE ( European Navigator ): The means of the ECSC .
    41. a b c d e f g CVCE: The development of the own resources of the communities and the Union .
    42. CVCE: The Politics of the Empty Chair .
    43. European Commission : Costs of the Common Agricultural Policy ( Memento of the original from November 9, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / ec.europa.eu
    44. CVCE: The question of budgetary imbalances .
    45. Peter Weingarten , May / June 2010: From Politics and Contemporary History , Agricultural Policy in Germany  ( page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.bundestag.de  
    46. a b CVCE: The compulsory expenditure and the non-compulsory expenditure of the European Union .
    47. See Foreign Office : EU budget, German position .
    48. European Movement Germany , November 1, 2010: Ghost of Lisbon or Miracle of Diplomacy?  ( Page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.europaeische-bewegung.de  
    49. EU News of the DNR: EU budget 2011 adopted .
    50. Financial Times Deutschland , December 18, 2010: Germany wants to freeze EU budget ( Memento of December 19, 2010 in the Internet Archive ).
    51. a b EurActiv , June 1, 2011: EU Agenda: Priorities of the Polish Presidency .
    52. Spiegel Online , June 15, 2005: British discount is to be frozen .
    53. Agritrade, October 2010: Commissioner suggests that EU CAP budget be cut ( Memento of the original from October 4, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (Print version, English). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / agritrade.cta.int
    54. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation , April 17, 2011: Niebel calls for the end of agricultural export subsidies regardless of the conclusion of the Doha Round by 2013 ( memento of the original from September 11, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmz.de
    55. EurActiv , 23 Aug 2010: Poland's “most important battle” for EU funds ; EurActiv , Nov 5th 2010: Poland and Czech Republic pledge to defend EU regional funding .
    56. EurActiv , 7 December 2010: France: EU budget for regional policy will decrease .
    57. Wirtschaftswoche , April 17, 2008: EU tax: rejected by Germany, but makes sense .
    58. EurActiv , Sep 6, 2010: Is the EU tax coming?
    59. Sebastian Petzold, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung , December 2010: Money for Europe: Budget, Multiannual Financial Framework and Reform Options for EU Own Resources (PDF; 530 KB); Iain Begg, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung , February 2007: An EU tax: overdue reform or federalist fantasy? (PDF; 70 KB).
    60. EurActiv , April 8, 2011: Leading MEPs propose VAT and carbon tariffs for EU budgets .
    61. EurActiv , August 9, 2010: Berlin buries EU tax .
    62. Handelsblatt , August 9, 2010: Berlin throws down “dam break” attempt from Brussels .
    63. ↑ In addition: Buser, in: Berliner Online-Teile zum Europarecht, No. 91, p. 2, available at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from June 10, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked . Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.portal-europarecht.de
    64. Buser, in: Berlin Online Contributions to European Law, No. 91, p. 19, available at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Own Union Tax under the Lisbon Treaty ?, DStZ 2010, 246 (249); Kuntze, The competencies of the EC in the field of tax law, 1999, 151 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.portal-europarecht.de
    65. Waldhoff, in: Calliess / Ruffert, EUV / AEUV, 4th edition, 2011, Art. 311, Rn. 16; Hölscheidt / Baldus, inventory and perspectives of the European financial order, DÖV 1997, 866 (867); Thiele, in: Berlin Online Contributions to European Law, No. 39, 9, available at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from April 26, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.portal-europarecht.de
    66. Buser, in: Berlin Online Contributions to European Law, No. 91, p. 19 f., Available at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from June 10, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked . Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.portal-europarecht.de
    67. a b c EurActiv , November 19, 2008: Recession hits Europe: EU bonds stimulate discussion .
    68. Spiegel Online , December 14, 2010: EU parliamentarians speak out in favor of euro bonds .
    69. Stuttgarter Zeitung , December 14, 2010: No chance for Eurobonds at the EU summit  ( page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de  
    70. EurActiv , December 15, 2010: Barroso promises progress with EU project bonds ( Memento of the original of December 21, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / euractiv.com
    71. EU net contributors and recipients. Federal Agency for Political Education , December 16, 2018, accessed on January 22, 2019 .
    72. ^ Lars P. Feld: Net contributor Germany? An honest cost-benefit calculation . In: The New European Union: In Germany's Vital Interest? 2006, ISBN 3-00-018119-9 .
    73. See Financial Report 2009 (PDF; 9.2 MB), pp. 85–86.
    74. For an overview, see Deutsche Bank Research, May 11, 2011: Current Comment: Net contributor or net recipient .
    75. EurActiv , 7 September 2010: End of the British discount? - London is fighting back .
    76. EurActiv 8 September 2010: EU budget debate: support for Barroso .
    77. ^ Die Welt , August 9, 2010: EU tax? Not with the federal government .
    78. Nicolaus Heinen, Deutsche Bank Research, May 11, 2011: Net contributor or net recipient: In the EU only a question of perspective? (PDF; 96 kB).
    79. ^ Franz-Ulrich Willeke: Germany, paymaster of the EU . Olzog Verlag, 2011, ISBN 978-3-7892-8332-1 . Review (FAZ / Philip Plickert ): The EU as a transfer union
    80. FAZ.net February 10, 2013: Net contributor - Germany, the EU's milking cow?
    81. nzz.ch
    82. spiegel.de: Graphics
    83. European Commission: Financial Report 2017 (PDF file; 3 KB), p. 58, p. 63
    84. Communication from the European Commission: A budget for "Europe 2020" (PDF; 129 kB)
    85. ^ A b Wiener Zeitung , June 29, 2011: Commission for Agricultural Cuts .
    86. a b c EurActiv , June 27, 2011: Commission to propose freezing of long-term EU budget .
    87. a b Wiener Zeitung , June 29, 2011: Battle for budget opened ( memento of the original from October 23, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.wienerzeitung.at
    88. EUobserver , June 28, 2011: One in 20 EU officials could lose jobs in 'solidarity' cuts .
    89. Spiegel online , June 28, 2011: EU wants to push through transaction tax .
    90. Der Standard , June 29, 2011: EU expects 50 billion in financial tax .
    91. German Bundestag: Current term - Europe: The European Commission's proposal for a multiannual financial framework 2014–2020 ( Memento from August 16, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 82 kB)
    92. Jutta Haug: The Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020: An evaluation of the proposal of the European Commission (July 2011) (PDF; 345 kB)
    93. a b EU states agree on an upper limit of 960 billion ; Retrieved February 8, 2013.
    94. a b c d Agreement on EU budget ; Retrieved February 8, 2013.
    95. Council regulation establishing the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014–2020 , European Parliament, (11791/2013 - C7-0238 / 2013 - 2011/0177 (APP)) with budget figures in the appendix (available in all official EU languages); Retrieved November 19, 2013.
    96. Parliament approves long-term EU budget for 2014–2020 , European Parliament - News, November 19, 2013; Retrieved November 19, 2013.
    97. A modern EU budget for a Union that protects, empowers and defends. (PDF) In: ec.europa.eu. European Commission, May 2, 2018, accessed May 4, 2018 .
    98. a b Ruth Berschens: Oettinger's difficult fight. In: Handelsblatt.de. January 9, 2018, accessed February 18, 2018 .
    99. Oettinger calls for a quick decision on a new financial framework from EU states. In: welt.de. February 14, 2019, accessed February 18, 2018 .
    100. Benjamin Fox: EU budget should be increased - despite Brexit. In: euroaktiv.de. February 16, 2018, accessed on February 18, 2018 (German).
    101. Agreement on EU finances would be a sign of autocrats. In: handelsblatt.de. January 9, 2018, accessed February 18, 2018 .
    102. How useful a plastic tax would be for Europe. In: derstandard.de. February 7, 2018, accessed on February 18, 2018 (Austrian German).
    103. Alessandro D'Alfonso, Members' Research Service: Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027: Interim report on the Commission's proposals. europarl.europa.eu, November 1, 2018, accessed on February 22, 2019 (German).
    104. tagesschau.de: What the EU summit decided. Retrieved July 24, 2020 .
    105. EU states submit counter-draft to Merkel-Macron plan. Retrieved July 24, 2020 .
    106. ^ Corona summit: Deal with the reconstruction fund: Europe escapes the crisis. Retrieved July 24, 2020 .
    107. tagesschau.de: What the EU summit decided. Retrieved July 24, 2020 .
    108. EU Parliament takes a stand. In: DW.com (Deutsche Welle). July 23, 2020, accessed July 24, 2020 .
    This article was added to the list of excellent articles on June 10, 2011 in this version .