New EU states do not have a national anti-fraud strategy and are not preparing one.

New member states did not have a national anti-fraud strategy to protect the financial interests of the European Union and were not preparing to adopt one, according to the Commission's report on the fight against fraud and irregularities for 2025. In this situation were Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Finland, and Sweden.

In short, ten member states had a national anti-fraud strategy covering at least fraud against EU funds, while another eight stated that they were in the process of adopting one. Nine states did not have such a strategy and no procedure in progress: Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Finland, and Sweden. No member state adopted a new national anti-fraud strategy during the year 2025. Cyprus adopted it later, on May 29, 2026. Romania had a strategy adopted in 2023, according to the situation presented by the Commission. The Commission proposes that states be required to adopt comprehensive anti-fraud strategies based on risk assessment for managing funds from the EU budget for 2028–2034.

National anti-fraud strategies are documents through which states establish how they prevent, detect, investigate, and correct fraud and irregularities affecting European funds. They can define the responsible institutions, cooperation procedures, control priorities, information exchange, and measures for recovering funds.

Currently, EU law does not require member states to have a distinct national anti-fraud strategy. All countries, however, have the general obligation to combat fraud and illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union.

The Commission has been promoting the adoption of national strategies for several years to bring together the measures undertaken by ministries, management authorities, customs services, tax administrations, police, prosecutors, and national anti-fraud coordination bodies.

The situation presented for 2025 shows significant differences between states. Ten countries reported that they had in force a national strategy addressing at least fraud against European funds.

Another eight states indicated that the adoption of a strategy was planned or underway. These were Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

Cyprus later completed the process and adopted the strategy on May 29, 2026. The report specifies, however, that no state adopted a new strategy during the reference year 2025.

The nine states without a strategy and without an adoption process formed a heterogeneous group. The list included countries from the north, center, south, and east of the Union, including some with public administrations and control systems considered consolidated in other areas.

The absence of a distinct strategy does not mean that these states did not have measures to combat fraud. Some stated that relevant elements were already included in legislation, administrative procedures, or sectoral strategies.

The report shows that 22 of the 27 states also had other types of strategies to protect the financial interests of the EU. These could be regional documents, strategies for specific funds, institutional plans, anti-corruption strategies, or measures applicable at the level of an authority.

Of the five states that did not report such alternative strategies, three had a national anti-fraud strategy. Lithuania and Sweden did not indicate any general national strategy, nor other types of anti-fraud strategy in the reported situation.

The reasons why some governments did not adopt a national strategy were varied. Some considered that existing systems already contained the necessary measures and that a new document would not bring additional value.

Other states cited a lack of political decision. Greece, Lithuania, and Slovenia reported legislative obstacles, while Finland and Sweden indicated resource-related issues.

Slovenia also mentioned institutional factors. These difficulties may concern the distribution of responsibilities among institutions, the lack of a coordinating authority, or the need to amend legislation before adopting a common strategy.

States with national strategies presented several advantages. The first is the improvement of cooperation and communication between the authorities that manage, control, and investigate European funds.

A strategy can establish who receives a suspicion of fraud, who transmits it to prosecutors, who updates the European reporting systems, and who follows up on the recovery of funds after the case is concluded.

The second advantage is the clarification of responsibilities. In the absence of common rules, multiple institutions may check the same aspects, and other risks may remain outside controls.

Strategic documents can strengthen the role of national anti-fraud coordination services, known by the acronym AFCOS. These are the main contact points for cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Strategies can also introduce a more structured approach to prevention. States can assess risks in public procurement, agriculture, cohesion, customs, state aid, conflicts of interest, and double funding.

Based on this assessment, controls can be directed towards beneficiaries, sectors, or types of high-risk transactions, instead of being evenly distributed.

The Commission believes that strategies should be risk-based. A general document listing institutions and objectives without analyzing specific vulnerabilities does not provide the same support for operational activity.

Strategies can include measurable objectives regarding staff training, the use of IT tools, reporting deadlines, data exchange, and the recovery of affected amounts.

They can also improve transparency, as they allow governments to publicly explain who is responsible for protecting funds and how the effectiveness of measures is evaluated.

Romania appears in the Commission's situation with a national strategy adopted in 2023. The report does not evaluate in this section the results of each strategy nor does it establish a ranking of states based on the quality of the documents.

The existence of a strategy does not guarantee that fraud is detected or that money is recovered. Effectiveness depends on implementation, personnel, access to data, cooperation between institutions, and the application of the measures provided.

Similarly, the absence of a distinct strategy does not demonstrate that a state's anti-fraud system is ineffective. Authorities may have tools and procedures dispersed in other acts or plans.

The Commission, however, argues that a common framework allows for the identification of gaps between institutions and reduces the risk that information will stop after the start of a criminal investigation.

The report shows that one of the main problems for states is the delayed access to information from police, prosecutors, courts, and the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Authorities managing funds do not always receive data on the progress of investigations, sanctions, and final decisions.

A national strategy can establish contact points, deadlines, and procedures for updating cases, without affecting the confidentiality of investigations.

The Commission wants these strategies to become more important in the next multiannual budget. Its proposal for the period 2028–2034 provides for the obligation of states to adopt comprehensive national anti-fraud strategies, built on the basis of a risk assessment.

The requirement is linked to changing the way in which EU funds are to be distributed. The Commission proposes extending funding based on achieving objectives and results, using elements inspired by the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

A larger share of the responsibility for controlling funds would fall to national authorities. The Commission believes that this change requires stronger administrative capacity and closer cooperation between national and European anti-fraud bodies.

The proposals for the 2028–2034 budget must be negotiated and approved by the European Parliament and Council. The obligation regarding national strategies is therefore not yet a definitive rule applicable to states.

The Commission has also proposed mandatory reporting of suspicions of fraud, corruption, irregularities, conflicts of interest, and double funding. States should provide information about the final beneficiaries of funds and maintain functional management and control systems.

Strategies would cover the entire anti-fraud circuit, from risk prevention and early detection to investigations, recovery of funds, and sanctions.

The report for 2025 shows that prevention remains the main priority of member states. Twenty-four countries reported that they prioritize prevention, while Bulgaria, Denmark, and Luxembourg indicated detection as the main objective.

In total, states reported 72 measures adopted in 2025 to protect European funds. Most focused on prevention and detection, including the exclusion of high-risk operators, staff training, and improving data exchange.

The joint management of European funds by the Commission and member states was the most frequently targeted area, appearing in 37 of the reported measures.

Conflicts of interest and anti-fraud or anti-corruption strategies were addressed by about a third of the measures. Other interventions targeted public procurement, corruption, organized crime, and whistleblower protection.

Adopting a strategy can bring such actions together into a single framework, but the report shows that states use different approaches. Some have general documents, while others prefer separate strategies for each fund or institution.

The Commission does not assert that there is a single mandatory model for the content of a strategy. It emphasizes risk assessment, coordination, clear responsibilities, and monitoring of results.

The annual report on protecting the financial interests of the EU presents the situation reported by states for the year 2025. The information is based on the responses of national authorities and the documents declared by them.

The classification concerns the existence of a national strategy covering at least fraud against EU funds. States may have anti-corruption, customs, tax, or sectoral strategies that do not meet this definition.

Nine states reported that they did not have a national anti-fraud strategy and no process underway for adopting one at the time of reporting. The situation may change later through national decisions.

The proposal to transform national strategies into a requirement for the 2028–2034 budget is part of the legislative package presented by the Commission and must be approved by the European Parliament and Council before becoming mandatory.