Deficiencies and delays in Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) projects

A new audit report by the Court of Audit identifies significant shortcomings, deficiencies and delays by Greek authorities in the implementation of projects funded by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

On 21 June 2025, the Court of Audit, Greece’s supreme fiscal court, constitutionally established under Article 98 published an audit examining whether monitoring procedures for RRF projects ensure timely detection and correction of delays during implementation.

The Court reached the following findings:

Gaps in the institutional framework of the Management and Control System (MCS):

The MCS does not require detailed project‑specific implementation schedules with intermediate milestones to be uploaded to the RRF Information System (OPS TA). Nor does it include procedures for preventing delays (clear definition of “delay”, risk analysis, automated alerts).

Monitoring procedures applied inadequately:

Although the MCS includes mechanisms to track project maturity and implementation, these were poorly applied. Even delays in achieving milestones were not recorded in OPS TA.

Widespread understaffing of Implementing Bodies:

Authorities relied on private technical consultants, but their support did not prevent poor application of monitoring procedures. Internal Audit Units did not contribute to verifying correct implementation or assessing effectiveness.

Weaknesses in OPS TA functionality:

Lack of interoperability with other systems, reliance on manual processes, absence of communication protocols, no mandatory fields, and no automated alerts undermine its effectiveness. Most projects were monitored outside OPS TA, often through Excel files, raising concerns about data completeness and accuracy.

Delays in project maturity and start of implementation:

Authorities frequently amended project inclusion decisions — sometimes multiple times — without documenting the causes of delays or corrective measures.

Conclusions

The Court of Audit found that:

Read also

Report Administration fails to comply with Court of Auditors Decisions

Report Court of Audit: Court of Audit documents ‘vague rules’ and…

Report Court of Audit: Incomplete protection of the shoreline and beach…

Report Court of Audit: Substantial deficiencies in the award of public…

The MCS lacks mandatory detailed implementation schedules and clear definitions of “delay”, making timely detection difficult. Relying solely on EU‑agreed milestones risks loss of funds, as milestones may be few, widely spaced, or set too close to the end of the RRF period.
The MCS manual includes monitoring procedures, but no specialised risk‑assessment processes for delays. Existing risk procedures focus on fraud and conflict of interest, not on delays — even though delays can lead to project congestion at the end of the RRF period or loss of EU funding.
Monitoring procedures (D2, D6) were applied inadequately: monthly submissions were not made, delays were not recorded, and semi‑annual reports (D19) were submitted late.
Implementing Bodies are understaffed. Technical consultants did not ensure proper recording of delays or corrective actions.
Internal Audit Units did not participate in monitoring RRF projects or develop additional safeguards.
OPS TA could be a strong monitoring tool, but lacks interoperability, automated alerts, mandatory fields, and standardised communication protocols. Many projects are monitored outside the system.
Delays in project maturity and implementation were addressed through repeated amendments of inclusion decisions, without documenting causes or corrective measures.

Key Recommendations

The Court of Audit recommended that the RRF Coordination Authority:

Amend the MCS framework to require detailed project‑specific schedules with critical milestones; define and categorise delays; and develop a delay‑related risk‑assessment system.
Ensure timely and complete submission of monitoring reports (D2, D6, D19) with all fields filled, including “problems/complications” and “corrective measures”.
Review and update monitoring reports to ensure they reflect the RRF’s philosophy (milestones and targets, not only expenditure).
Upgrade OPS TA to improve interoperability, introduce automated alerts, require mandatory fields, enable automated consolidated reporting, and standardise communication protocols.

Where is the problem with the rule of law?

Under the rule of law, public authorities must establish and apply a regulatory framework that ensures transparent, effective and timely implementation of all public works.

However, the Court of Audit’s report identified significant shortcomings, deficiencies and delays on the part of the Greek authorities in implementing projects under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).