ANNEX V

The purpose of these guidelines is to serve together with this Regulation as a basis for the Commission to assess - in a transparent and equitable manner - the recovery and resilience plans proposed by Member States and to determine the financial contribution in conformity with the objectives and any other relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation. These guidelines represent the basis for the application of the assessment criteria and the determination of the financial contribution as referred to, respectively, in Articles 19(3) and 20(4). The assessment guidelines are designed to: give further guidance on the assessment process of the proposals for recovery and resilience plans submitted by Member States; provide further details on the assessment criteria and provide for a rating system to be established with a view to ensuring an equitable and transparent process; and define the link between the assessment to be made by the Commission under the assessment criteria and the determination of the financial contribution to be set out in the Commission proposal for a Council decision in relation to the recovery and resilience plans. The guidelines are a tool to facilitate assessment by the Commission of the proposals for recovery and resilience plans as submitted by Member States and to ensure that the recovery and resilience plans support reforms and public investment that are relevant and display high added value with regard to the objectives of the Facility, while ensuring equal treatment among the Member States. In accordance with Article 19(3), the Commission shall assess the recovery and resilience plans under the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. As a result of the assessment process, the Commission shall give ratings to the recovery and resilience plans submitted by the Member States under each of the assessment criteria referred to in Article 19(3), with a view to establishing the financial allocation in accordance with Article 20(4). For the sake of simplification and efficiency, the rating system shall range from A to C, as set out in the following: Relevance: 2.1. The recovery and resilience plan represents a comprehensive and adequately balanced response to the economic and social situation, thereby contributing appropriately to all six pillars referred to in Article 3, taking the specific challenges and the financial allocation of the Member State concerned into account. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the recovery and resilience plan contributes in a comprehensive and adequately balanced manner to all six pillars referred to in Article 3, considering the specific challenges of the Member State concerned and taking into account the financial contribution of the Member State concerned and the requested loan support. Rating A – | to a large extent B – | to a moderate extent C – | to a small extent 2.2. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the relevant country-specific recommendations including fiscal aspects thereof and recommendations made pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 where appropriate, addressed to the Member State concerned or challenges identified in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission in the context of the European Semester. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the relevant country-specific recommendations, including fiscal aspects thereof and recommendations made pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 where appropriate, addressed to the Member State concerned or challenges identified in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission in the context of the European Semester, taking into account the financial contribution of the Member State concerned and the requested loan support as well as the scope and scale of country-specific challenges and the information included in the National Reform Programme; and the recovery and resilience plan represents a comprehensive and adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned; and the challenges addressed by the recovery and resilience plan are considered as significant to boost the growth potential of the economy of the Member State concerned in a sustainable manner; and following the completion of the proposed reforms and investments, the related challenges would be expected to have been resolved or addressed in a manner that significantly contributes to their resolution. Rating A – | the recovery and resilience plan contributes to effectively addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or challenges in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester, and the recovery and resilience plan represents an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned B – | the recovery and resilience plan contributes to partially addressing all or a significant subset of challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or challenges in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester and the recovery and resilience plan represents an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned C – | the recovery and resilience plan does not contribute to addressing any challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations, or in other relevant documents officially adopted by the Commission under the European Semester and the recovery and resilience plan does not represent an adequate response to the economic and social situation of the Member State concerned 2.3. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to effectively contribute to strengthening the growth potential, job creation, and economic, social and institutional resilience of the Member State, contributing to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, including through the promotion of policies for children and youth, and to mitigating the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 crisis, thereby enhancing the economic, social and territorial cohesion and convergence within the Union. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the recovery and resilience plan contains measures that aim to foster economic growth and economic cohesion in an inclusive manner, in particular addressing weaknesses of the economy of the Member States, boosting the growth potential of the economy of the Member State concerned, stimulating job creation, and mitigating the adverse effects of the crisis; and the recovery and resilience plan contains measures that aim to strengthen social cohesion and social protection systems, including policies for children and youth, by reducing social vulnerabilities, contributing to the implementation of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and contributing to improving the levels of the indicators of its Social Scoreboard; and the recovery and resilience plan aims to reduce economic vulnerabilities of the Member State to shocks; and the recovery and resilience plan aims to increase the capacity of the economic and/or social structures and institutions of the Member State to adjust to and withstand shocks; and the recovery and resilience plan is expected to contribute to enhancing economic, social and territorial cohesion and convergence. Rating A – | high expected impact B – | medium expected impact C – | low expected impact 2.4. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to ensure that no measure for the implementation of reforms and investments projects included in the recovery and resilience plan does significant harm to environmental objectives within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’). The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope no measure for the implementation of reforms and investments projects included in the recovery and resilience plan does significant harm to environmental objectives within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’). Rating A – | no measure does significant harm to environmental objectives (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’) C – | one or more measure does significant harm to environmental objectives (the principle of ‘do no significant harm’) 2.5. The recovery and resilience plan contains measures that effectively contribute to the green transition, including biodiversity, or to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, and that account for an amount which represents at least 37 % of the recovery and resilience plan’s total allocation, based on the methodology for climate tracking set out in Annex VI; that methodology shall be used accordingly for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VI; the coefficients for support for the climate objectives may be increased up to a total amount of 3 % of the allocation of the recovery and resilience plan for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that credibly increase their impact on the climate objectives, subject to the agreement of the Commission. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to effectively contribute to the green transition, including biodiversity, and, where applicable, to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Union 2030 climate targets while complying with the objective of EU climate neutrality by 2050; and Member States apply a methodology consisting of assigning a specific weighting to the support provided, which reflects the extent to which such support makes a contribution to climate objectives. The weightings shall be based on the dimensions and codes for the types of intervention established in Annex VI and may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that credibly increase their impact on the climate objectives. The same weighting system shall apply for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VI; and the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – | to a large extent B – | to a moderate extent. C – | to a small extent 2.6. The recovery and resilience plan contains measures that effectively contribute to the digital transition or to addressing the challenges resulting therefrom, and that account for an amount which represents at least 20 % of the recovery and resilience plan’s total allocation, based on the methodology for digital tagging set out in Annex VII; that methodology shall be used accordingly for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VII; the coefficients for support for the digital objectives may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that increase their impact on the digital objectives. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to significantly contribute to the digital transformation of economic or social sectors; or the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to significantly contribute to address the challenges resulting from digital transition; and Member States apply a methodology consisting of assigning a specific weighting to the support provided, which reflects the extent to which such support makes a contribution to digital objectives. The weightings shall be based on the dimensions and codes for the types of intervention established in Annex VII and may be increased for individual investments to take account of accompanying reform measures that increase their impact on the digital objectives. The same weighting system shall apply for measures that cannot be directly assigned to an intervention field listed in Annex VII; and the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – | to a large extent B – | to a moderate extent C – | to a small extent Effectiveness: 2.7. The recovery and resilience plan is expected to have a lasting impact on the Member State concerned. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to bring about a structural change in the administration or in relevant institutions; or the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to bring about a structural change in relevant policies; and the implementation of the envisaged measures is expected to have a lasting impact. Rating A – | to a large extent B – | to a moderate extent C – | to a small extent 2.8. The arrangements proposed by the Member States concerned are expected to ensure effective monitoring and implementation of the recovery and resilience plan, including the envisaged timetable, milestones and targets, and the related indicators. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope a structure is tasked within the Member State with: (i) the implementation of the recovery and resilience plan; (ii) the monitoring of progress on milestones and targets; and (iii) the reporting; and the proposed milestones and targets are clear and realistic and the proposed indicators for those milestones and targets are relevant, acceptable and robust; and the overall arrangements proposed by the Member States in terms of organisation (including provision to ensure sufficient staff allocation) of the implementation of the reforms and investments, are credible. Rating A – | adequate arrangements for effective implementation B – | minimum arrangements for effective implementation C – | insufficient arrangements for effective implementation Efficiency: 2.9. The justification provided by the Member State on the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is reasonable and plausible and is in line with the principle of cost efficiency and is commensurate to the expected national economic and social impact. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the Member State provided sufficient information and evidence that the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is appropriate (reasonable); and the Member State provided sufficient information and evidence that the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is in line with the nature and the type of the envisaged reforms and investments (plausible); and the Member State provided sufficient information and evidence that the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan to be financed under the Facility is not covered by existing or planned Union financing; and the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is commensurate to the expected social and economic impact of the envisaged measures included on the Member State concerned. Rating A – | to a high extent B – | to a medium extent C – | to a low extent 2.10. The arrangements proposed by the Member State concerned are expected to prevent, detect and correct corruption, fraud and conflicts of interests when using the funds provided under the Facility, including the arrangements that aim to avoid double funding from the Facility and other Union programmes. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the internal control system described in the recovery and resilience plan is based on robust processes and structures, and identifies clear actors (bodies/entities) and their roles and responsibilities for the performance of the internal control tasks; it notably ensures appropriate segregation of relevant functions; and the control system and other relevant arrangements, including for the collection and making available of data on final recipients described in the recovery and resilience plan, in particular to prevent, detect and correct corruption, fraud and conflicts of interests when using the funds provided under the Facility are adequate; and the arrangements described in the recovery and resilience plan to avoid double funding from the Facility and other Union programmes are adequate; and the actors (bodies/entities) responsible for controls have the legal empowerment and administrative capacity to exercise their foreseen roles and tasks. Rating A – | adequate arrangements C – | insufficient arrangements Coherence: 2.11. The recovery and resilience plan contains measures for the implementation of reforms and public investment projects that represent coherent actions. The Commission shall take into account the following elements for the assessment under this criterion: Scope the recovery and resilience plan includes measures that contribute to reinforcing the effects of one another; or the recovery and resilience plan includes measures that are complementary to one another. Rating A – | to a high extent B – | to a medium extent C – | to a low extent In accordance with Article 20, the Commission proposal shall determine the financial contribution taking into account the importance and coherence of the recovery and resilience plan proposed by the Member State concerned, as assessed under the criteria set out in Article 19(3). For that purpose, it shall apply the following criteria: where the recovery and resilience plan complies satisfactorily with the criteria set out in Article 19(3), and the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is equal to, or higher than, the maximum financial contribution calculated for that Member State in accordance with Article 11, the financial contribution allocated to the Member State concerned shall be equal to the total amount of the maximum financial contribution calculated for that Member State in accordance with Article 11; where the recovery and resilience plan complies satisfactorily with the criteria set out in Article 19(3), and the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan is lower than the maximum financial contribution calculated for that Member State in accordance with Article 11, the financial contribution allocated to the Member State shall be equal to the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan; where the recovery and resilience plan does not comply satisfactorily with the criteria set out in Article 19(3), no financial contribution shall be allocated to the Member State concerned. For the purpose of the implementation of this subparagraph, the following formulae shall apply: where: for (a) above: If Ci ≥ MFCi the Member State i receives MFCi for (b) above: If Ci < MFCi the Member State i receives Ci i refers to the Member State concerned MFC is the maximum financial contribution for the Member State concerned C is the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan As a result of the assessment process, and taking into account the ratings: The recovery and resilience plan complies satisfactorily with the assessment criteria: If the final ratings for the criteria under point 2 include scores with: an A for criteria 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6; and for the other criteria: all As, or no majority of Bs over As and no Cs. The recovery and resilience plan does not comply satisfactorily with the assessment criteria: If the final ratings for the criteria under point 2 include scores with: not an A in criteria 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6; and for the other criteria: a majority of Bs over As, or at least one C.

← anx_IV__table · All articles · Assessment guidelines for the Facility →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-10-28 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.