First position of the FURI project partners on the legislative proposals for the 2028-2034 Multi-Annual Financial Framework

We, partners of the EU Funds for Fundamental Rights (FURI) project take note the European Commission proposals for the 2028-2034 funding period.

In May 2025, we published the findings of our research where we identified 1.1 billion euros spent across 63 EU funded projects in violation of fundamental rights, despite legal safeguards. The reports documented widespread discrimination against marginalised communities, including racialised groups (notably Roma), persons with disabilities, and refugees and migrants.

Drawing upon these findings, we share our first reflections on the proposals.

We welcome that the proposal:

• Aims to align a wide range of funds, including ERDF, ESF, CAP and AMI, under a coherent strategy through the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRP Plans).

• Includes strong commitment to the respect for fundamental rights and rule of law in the design and implementation (articles 7, 8, 9, 56(1)(c), 56(2)(b) Fund Regulation).

• Identifies specific objectives on social cohesion (article 3(c)) and fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law (article 3(e)) under the Fund Regulation, and on strengthening the asylum system as well as supporting integration and social inclusion of third country national under the AMI fund (article 3(a), (c)).  

• Ensures the participation of civil society organisations and fundamental rights bodies within the design, implementation and monitoring of the Funds (article 6 Fund regulation), including the monitoring committees (article 55(1) Fund Regulation).

• Requires monitoring committees to apply criteria and procedures for the selection of operations that are non-discriminatory, inclusive and transparent, ensure accessibility to persons with disabilities and gender equality, and take account of the Charter (article 56(2) Fund Regulation).

However, based on our research findings, we also identify several critical gaps in the current proposals:

• Despite the explicit references to fundamental rights, the regulatory package lacks clear implementation mechanisms to ensure compliance at national level. As our research highlights, there is a systemic failure to correctly interpret and implement fundamental rights obligations set out under international and European law (e.g. education and housing segregation, institutionalisation of people with disabilities and children, deprivation of liberty, etc). We strongly recommend that the regulation includes concrete provisions on how to implement and interpret requirements at the national level (e.g. through implementing regulation). Furthermore, it should also include publicly available regular reporting (e.g every 2 years) on the alignment and violations with the Charter and rule of law reports, together with minutes of monitoring committee meetings.

• We regret that the identification of challenges under the NRP Plan does not explicitly reference the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rule of law, or relevant infringement procedures and case-law (from national courts, the CJEU or ECtHR) (Article 22(2)(b) Fund Regulation). It is essential for the NRP Plans to be based also on these elements. Following article 56(c) of the Fund Regulation, we emphasise the importance of the role of fundamental rights bodies in developing and monitoring the self-assessment of the Charter horizontal condition (Article 22(2)(o)).

• We are concerned that complaints submitted by external stakeholders regarding the misuse of EU funds will continue to be assessed by national authorities (article 58(j) Fund Regulation). This raises concerns over the independence, impartiality and availability of effective legal remedy (including compensation of victims), given that the same authority responsible for the fund management will also be responsible for examining the complaint. It is essential that complaints are be reviewed by independent institutions, such as fundamental rights bodies (e.g. equal treatment bodies, ombudsman), both at the EU and the national level. These decisions of fundamental rights bodies should be taken into account and the follow up measures should be aligned with article 8(4), 8(5) Fund Regulation.

• Our research findings found that the participation of civil society organisations in monitoring committees is not balanced and does not adequately represent civil society organisations. We strongly recommend that the regulation requires the independence and balanced representation of civil society organisations. In cases where complaints are raised, member states should be required to review the composition of the monitoring committees.

• While we appreciate the support to civil society organisations through Democracy, Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (‘CERV+’) strand of the AGORAEU fund, we would like to emphasise the importance of ensuring financial support to civil society organisations in the monitoring of fundamental rights violations in EU funds.