European political parties and their affiliated foundations improperly spent roughly €1.5 million during the 2024 election campaign, according to internal and external audit documents reviewed by Politico, highlighting persistent weaknesses in how EU funds are controlled and disclosed, Report informs.
Internal findings point to recurring irregularities across political groups, blurring the line between error and abuse.
The figure represents a small fraction of the €74 million in grants distributed from the EU budget. But the underlying patterns - ranging from procedural breaches to potentially fictitious expenses - suggest a more systemic issue embedded in the financial architecture of the European Parliament.
"Among the many reasons for recategorizing the expenses, there could have been an attempt to fraudulently use public money," said Louis Drounau, the founder of European Democracy Consulting.
Routine irregularities, limited accountability
According to the audit, nearly all major political families - with the exception of the Greens and the European Democratic Party - were found to have breached funding rules. Identified issues include: excessive or unjustified spending, violations of procurement procedures, indirect financing of national political actors and reclassification of costs to fit eligibility criteria.
In several cases, auditors found that expenses had been declared without being incurred at all. The entities involved did not challenge these findings and remain unnamed - a standard administrative outcome when funds are repaid.
This reflects a broader disclosure policy within the Parliament: unless findings are contested, the identities of those involved are typically withheld.
Administrative error or structural loophole?
The Parliament maintains that most irregularities stem from technical or procedural mistakes. A spokesperson noted that "any suspicion of illegal activity, fraud or corruption must be reported" to OLAF ( The European Anti-Fraud Office) or the European Public Prosecutor's Office, but declined to specify how many cases from the 2024 audit were referred.
That ambiguity has become a defining feature of the system: financial corrections are visible; enforcement outcomes are not.
At the same time, internal documents indicate mounting frustration within the administration. The practice of reclassifying expenses that was repeatedly flagged in previous audits, prompted officials in 2025 to urge parties to "discontinue the practice".
A pattern extending beyond a single audit cycle
Recent cases suggest that the issues identified in the 2024 audit are not isolated.
In 2025, a French court convicted Marin Le Pen and several former MEPs over a scheme involving fictitious parliamentary assistants - one of the clearest examples of EU funds being diverted through formal employment structures. Investigations by OLAF contributed to the recovery of misused funds.
Separately, reporting by Le Monde cited a confidential parliamentary audit alleging that members of the former Identity and Democracy group improperly channelled more than €700,000 between 2019 and 2024.
Estimates cited by Euronews place the broader financial exposure linked to that political network at up to €4.33m ( a figure later echoed in official European Parliament discharge documents), which warned of both budgetary and reputational risks.
Transparency gap widens
Taken together, the findings point to a structural imbalance between audit capacity and public transparency: irregularities are systematically identified, financial corrections are often made, but attribution remains opaque.
This creates what governance specialists describe as a low-visibility compliance regime, where enforcement relies more on reimbursement than deterrence.
The absence of detailed disclosure also makes it difficult to assess whether repeat offenders are being effectively sanctioned or whether the system incentivises quiet settlement over formal investigation.
Market-style risk, political consequences
From a fiscal perspective, the sums involved remain limited relative to the EU budget. But the reputational exposure is harder to quantify.
The European Parliament has, in recent years, sought to tighten oversight of party financing and enhance audit standards. Yet the latest findings suggest that compliance culture has not kept pace with regulatory intent.
In financial markets, recurring "immaterial" discrepancies often point to deeper control failures. The same logic may apply here: small, repeated irregularities can signal systemic risk.
For EU institutions already navigating scrutiny over governance and accountability, that risk is unlikely to remain purely technical for long.