Latest documents

External author : Tim RAATS

External author : Cathrin BENGESSER

External author : VASILIKI Charisi

External author : CHOUNTA Irene-Angelica

External author : Wayne Holmes

Summary : Erasmus for All is a pilot initiative implemented by the European University Foundation in cooperation with participating higher education institutions and funded under the Erasmus+ programme. The initiative explored whether city-based top-ups to Erasmus+ student mobility grants could improve affordability in high-cost destinations. The pilot’s outcomes indicate that additional support can reduce perceived financial pressure during mobility in higher-cost cities. However, it does not address the main barriers to equal access to mobility, notably upfront costs, liquidity constraints and institutional and administrative pressures. There is no evidence that the approach influences students’ destination choices or the overall distribution of mobility. As the pilot allocates resources based on destination characteristics and adds administrative complexity without means to process these, it should be seen as an affordability adjustment rather than a solution to unequal participation.

External author : Alexander ESPERET, Bert-Jan BUISKOOL

Authors : SANDERSKI ANDRZEJ, CROSSFIELD CLARE BABETTE, SERPIERI Margherita

Summary : Academic freedom is widely recognised as a fundamental value of contemporary higher education and research, and as a prerequisite for well-functioning democratic societies. However, in recent years, major concerns have been expressed by various stakeholders about the state of academic freedom in the European Union. The European Parliament annual Academic Freedom Monitor aims to improve the promotion and protection of academic freedom in the EU. The 2025 edition is organised in two parts. The first part consists of an update of existing measures of academic freedom in all EU Member States, an updated overview of public debate and studies of the state of academic freedom in four selected EU Member States, and an examination of the EU's state of academic freedom in a global context. The second part contains a thematic analysis of the potential impact of selected trends in academic freedom within the EU, namely political polarisation, recent developments in the US higher education and research system, the commercialisation of academia, and foreign interference. Furthermore, EU-level policy options are proposed for possible legislative and non-legislative initiatives to enhance the support for academic freedom in the EU Member States.

External author : Ceran, Olga; Kosta, Vasiliki; Maassen, Peter A. M.; Martinsen, Dennis; Mattei, Paola; Živanić, Lazar , Živanić, Lazar

Summary : In the proposal for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF), AgoraEU is combining two previous programmes, succeeding the Creative Europe programme with its Culture and Media strands, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/818, and the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/692. With this, the European Commission is aiming at further simplification and increased flexibility throughout the new MFF. Assessments show that the previous programmes, although largely successful in achieving their objectives, are oversubscribed, indicating the need for more funding. In the proposal for the new MFF, funding for the three strands – culture, media and CERV – would increase compared with the previous MFF. Around 0.43 % of the total MFF budget would be allocated to culture, media and civil society under AgoraEU.

Authors : GEORGESCU Alina Alexandra

Summary : EU funding for culture, media, education, youth and sport in 2021–27 is wide-ranging, yet instruments directly focused on these areas (Erasmus+, Creative Europe and CERV) represent under 3% of the MFF. Most support comes from broader programmes such as ESF+ and Horizon. Erasmus+, ESC, Creative Europe and CERV show clear EU added value. Implementing simplification and synergies remain key items on the agenda. For 2028–2034, the Commission is proposing consolidated instruments such as Erasmus+ and AgoraEU. Compared to the previous programming period the budget increases, though increased thematic coverage and recent inflation reduce the impact.

External author : François Levarlet

Authors : SANDERSKI ANDRZEJ, SERPIERI Margherita

Summary : The European Commission drew up seven impact assessments (IAs) in support of 18 programme proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the proposed regulation on a horizontal performance framework. The broad scope of these IAs does not allow individual programme proposals to be assessed in any detail – as is particularly salient in the case of the IA on the national and regional partnership plans, covering nine legislative proposals. All IAs acknowledge a deviation from the scope and depth of a standard IA as defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG). This is justified with Tool #9 of the BR Toolbox, which indicates the specificity of the MFF, but does not define how related IAs should be carried out. As a result, the application of the better regulation principles varies widely across the MFF IAs. They are similar insofar as the Commission chose for all of them a mostly horizontal rather than policy-specific approach and did not include any budgetary considerations and scenarios. These choices affect the quality of key sections of the IAs considerably, albeit to varying extents. The problem definition often lacks specificity and substantiation. Similarly, the IAs' objectives remain largely unspecific, which, in turn, affects the IAs' monitoring and evaluation provisions and risks hampering the future measuring of the objectives' achievement. The description of policy options is in most cases short and vague, which weakens the impact analysis. The depth to which economic, social and environmental impacts are assessed varies across the sampled IAs. The analysis remains predominantly qualitative, with quantification largely lacking. All seven MFF initiatives are deemed relevant for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and are thus listed in the 'SME filter'. The IAs state that they place great emphasis on simplification and burden reduction. None of them is accompanied by a subsidiarity grid, and they discuss subsidiarity, European added value and proportionality rather briefly. While the IAs differ considerably in terms of quality and transparency when it comes to their evidence base and methodology, all of them acknowledge certain limitations and a lack of data (notably quantitative data). Consultation activities were largely limited to open public consultations. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) found significant shortcomings in all seven draft IAs, prompting it, exceptionally, to issue opinions without qualification. The persisting flaws in the final IAs suggest that the RSB recommendations have at best been partially addressed. Altogether, the limited quality of the MFF IAs appears to reflect a missed opportunity to provide policymakers with high-quality and transparent evidence for one of the most important policy packages to be negotiated in the coming months and years.

Authors : ANGLMAYER Irmgard, KRAMER Esther

Summary : This European implementation assessment supports the European Parliament's implementation report on the EU Youth Strategy (EUYS) 2019-2027 prepared by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). Part I of this study examines recent European Commission developments on the EUYS, Parliament's oversight of the EUYS, and the results of consultations. Part II of the study examines EUYS implementation at the EU level and in six selected Member States, drawing on the most recent evidence from a literature review, stakeholder interviews, and a survey. It analyses the 11 European Youth Goals and their implementation and relevance, before assessing the extent to which the EUYS has promoted youth mainstreaming across policy areas. It further explores youth participation, focusing on social inclusion, equality and young people with fewer opportunities (case study 1), and examines the EUYS's role in improving access to quality education and training (case study 2). It concludes with recommendations to enhance the EUYS, thereby informing its update and future implementation beyond 2027.

Authors : IOANNIDES Isabelle, HUEMER MARIE-ASTRID

External author : Alfonsi Castelli, Laura; Banytė, Martyna; Ferreira, Tatiana; Gaušas, Simonas; Hofmann-van de Poll, Frederike; Lavizzari, Anna; Leiputė, Beatričė; Mareva, Vasela; Petkovic, Sladjana; Švedkauskienė, Austėja

Summary : On 21 October 2025, the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate adopted its work programme for 2026 (2026 CWP). In line with the Commission President's political guidelines and letter of intent and highlighting the need for full implementation of Mario Draghi's competitiveness report, the 2026 CWP places a strong emphasis on competitiveness, innovation and collective security. In parallel, the Commission commits to advancing simplification, implementation, and this year, also to strengthening enforcement. These three areas will remain key horizontal priorities for the entire Commission mandate. Just like last year's CWP, the 2026 CWP adheres to the seven headline ambitions put forward in the political guidelines. It is accompanied by a report on implementation, simplification and enforcement, the first of its kind. This new annual report is set to replace the annual burden survey. Annex I of the 2026 CWP puts forward 70 major new legislative and non-legislative initiatives, 44 % of which fall under the competitiveness headline ambition. (Up to) 48 of the new initiatives are legislative, including three sector-specific omnibus packages (on energy product legislation, taxation and citizens). Of the forthcoming legislative initiatives, 67 % are likely revisions of existing legislation, while more than half have a strong simplification dimension. Unlike previous CWPs, the 2026 CWP does not indicate whether a legislative initiative will be accompanied by an impact assessment; this lack of transparency runs counter to the spirit of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. Information on the Commission's 'Have your say' portal shows that, at the time of writing, two thirds of the up to 48 legislative initiatives were expected to be accompanied by an impact assessment (though the final number may be higher). The annual evaluation plan presented in Annex II of the CWP, comprising 20 evaluations, does not appear exhaustive. Finally, the communication on Better Regulation, expected in Q2 2026, may entail a revision of the Better Regulation Guidelines, the first since 2021.

Authors : ANGLMAYER Irmgard, DALLI HUBERT, IOANNIDES Isabelle

Summary : The IA underpins the proposals establishing the AgoraEU, Erasmus+ and Justice programmes (2028-2034). It refers to Better Regulation Tool #9 which acknowledges that 'the special case of preparing a new MFF is a unique process requiring a specific approach as regards scope and depth of analysis'. In addition, it explains that, as 'the structure of the next MFF will significantly differ from the current one, budget assumptions for each programme are unreliable at this stage', and the assessment is therefore only qualitative. Following the 'evaluate first' principle, the IA identifies the problems and their drivers, and provides some estimates of the scale of the problems. Furthermore, it analyses the problem drivers' possible development, taking into account megatrends as well. The IA assesses the expected social, economic and environmental impacts of the policy options, and compares them against effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality. It explains the methods used, in particular the social multi criteria evaluation model and underlying methodology, and openly mentions the limitations in the analysis, such as the qualitative analysis of costs and benefits. The description of the options would have benefited from more detailed explanations, as it is not quite clear what kind of measures each option would comprise. A more comprehensive description would have made it easier to follow the impact analysis and comparison of options. Furthermore, the IA could have clarified how widely different stakeholder groups support the preferred option, as this does not clearly appear in the stakeholder consultation summary. As the initiative is relevant for SMEs, a dedicated analysis (SME test) was carried out. The IA also provides a competitiveness assessment. In line with the youth check approach, the IA discusses the initiative's relevance to young people and their feedback in the consultation. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board decided to issue an opinion without qualification due to the lack of several key elements in the draft IA. The revised IA appears to have made an effort to improve the quality of the assessment; however, not all of the RSB’s points were addressed.

Authors : TUOMINEN ULLA-MARI

Summary : The European Parliament is vested with powers of democratic oversight and political scrutiny vis-à-vis the European Commission. These powers of Parliament enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU as a whole, and help increase the transparency and accountability of the Commission as the EU's executive body. This study examines Parliament's oversight and scrutiny powers over the Commission. It focuses mainly, but not exclusively, on the powers that are enshrined in specific provisions of the EU Treaties. This includes Parliament's role in the Commission's investiture, in motions of censure, parliamentary questions, committees of inquiry and special committees, and in the Commission's obligations to report, consult and inform. It also looks into Parliament's scrutiny over budgetary issues, of delegated acts, in the context of the EU legislative procedure and agenda-setting, of legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and of the EU's external relations. The study builds on a previous EPRS study on parliamentary scrutiny of the Commission, originally requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in 2018. The data presented in this edition focus on the ninth term parliamentary term (2019 to 2024).

Authors : TENHUNEN Susanna, EISELE Katharina, AHAMAD MADATALI HANNAH NAFIZE, JANSEN Talander Hugo

Summary : Commitments made at the confirmation hearings of the Commissioners-designate 2024-2029

Summary : This study provides a comprehensive overview of the situation to date and forward-looking insights in the areas of European Union education and training, youth, and sport policy. It highlights the existing and potential future challenges and opportunities within each policy field and makes recommendations for addressing them.

External author : Simonas GAUŠAS, Austėja ŠVEDKAUSKIENĖ, Beatričė LEIPUTĖ, Ella LANGHAM, Thomas KING, Bettina LANGE, Conor O’Carroll, Arthur LE GALL & Sladjana PETKOVIC

Summary : This at a glance note summarises the study providing a comprehensive overview of the situation to date and forward-looking insights in the areas of European Union education and training, youth, and sport policy. It highlights the existing and potential future challenges and opportunities within each policy field and makes recommendations for addressing them.

External author : GAUŠAS, Austėja ŠVEDKAUSKIENĖ, Beatričė LEIPUTĖ, Ella LANGHAM, Thomas KING, Bettina LANGE, Conor O’Carroll, Arthur LE GALL & Sladjana PETKOVIC

Summary : This At a glance note summarises the study providing a comprehensive overview and understanding of the main current and future issues to be expected in the area of EU culture and creative sectors policy in the 2024-2029 term of the European Parliament.

External author : Isabelle DE VOLDERE, Eva DE SMEDT, Tille PETERS, Heritiana RANAIVOSON, Marlen KOMOROWSKI, Sylvia AMANN: Joost HEINSIUS, Aleksandra KUCZERAWY & Jozefien VANHERPE.

Summary : This study provides a comprehensive overview and understanding of the main current and future issues to be expected in the area of EU culture and creative sectors policy in the 2024-2029 term of the European Parliament.

External author : DE VOLDERE, Eva DE SMEDT, Tille PETERS, Heritiana RANAIVOSON, Marlen KOMOROWSKI, Sylvia AMANN, Joost HEINSIUS, Aleksandra KUCZERAWY, Jozefien VANHERPE