How to spend it: CEE’s NextGenerationEU submissions reflect the past

In general, criticisms of the draft recovery plans outlined by the various governments in Central and Southeast Europe have centred on several areas: a lack of an overarching vision of transformation, a dearth of consultation with outside groups, not being green enough, and too open to corruption and cronyism.

Critics also worry about how determined European institutions will be in forcing the governments to make changes to their plans. After the countries submit a final version, the Commission has two months to evaluate them and pass them on to the Council, which has one month to approve the disbursements via a qualified majority. Then, it will allocate up to 13 per cent as an advance payment, with the rest being unlocked over the years up to 2026, subject to success in making the planned investments and reforms.

Sources in Brussels have been telling local media that the Commission has some serious concerns with Hungary's draft plans, for example, which Ursula von der Leyen, president of the Commission, raised during her meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Orban on April 23.

The recovery plans will also be subject to the new mechanism, introduced in December, that will make EU funds dependent on member states upholding the rule of law. The two countries most at risk of falling foul of the mechanism, Poland and Hungary, are unsurprisingly also the two that are challenging its legality in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

"Would-be strongmen like [Poland's Jaroslaw] Kaczynski and Hungary's Viktor Orban are preparing to challenge the EU system. If the EU fails to use its financial resources to stop the spread of autocracy, its post-pandemic recovery will at best become a Pyrrhic victory," Piotr Buras, a senior policy...