The European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT), which received €435m in taxpayer money in 2025, is the only EU agency out of a total of 43 whose accounts did not yield a “clean opinion” in the most-recent audit.
The accounts of the innovation hub did not properly reflect an €8.7m recovery uncertainty, according to a report by European Court of Auditors (ECA) last week.
Not great but I’d be more worried if the auditors didn’t find any wrongs.
That’s a lot of money, but also only 2%° of the total. I wonder how much damage you could do to the mission of the agency by trying to prevent these sorts of leaks in the future. It might be better to accept a bit of loss and litigate after the fact than to introduce more precautionary procedure into things.
° exactly 2%, actually, which makes me think one of the numbers in here have been found by dividing or multplying by 50.
The EUObserver is behind a paywall.
Your comment makes it sound like the link leads to a site which only shows the article titles. The freely accessible part has ca. 650 words and is reasonably self-contained. That’s longer than, what?
*Longer than half the texts that get linked in this community?
-
That’s longer than what 99% of users who open this thread are going to read?
-
That’s longer than any other article on this topic, unless you are willing to read the ECA report.
So what’s your point?
My point is that the article can’t be read.
Oh, yes, and I also read entire reports. You’d be surprised how much they differ sometimes from the articles that cover them …
My point is that the article can’t be read.
That’s, again, incorrect. You can read more than half of it.
Oh, yes, and I also read entire reports. You’d be surprised how much they differ sometimes from the articles that cover them …
Then you should launch a separate Community that focuses on long-form articles. You won’t be happy in this community. Most posts link articles behind paywall, behind cookie-wall or provide English summary of reports written in foreign language.
That’s, again, incorrect. You can read more than half of it.
How do you know that?
Most posts link articles behind paywall, behind cookie-wall or provide English summary of reports written in foreign language.
This is simply wrong. Almost all posts are accessible either via original or archived links.
How do you know that?
This is simply wrong. Almost all posts are accessible either via original or archived links.
TOP5 right now for me is: 2x Cookie-Wall (Heise.de, Guardian), 1x translated summary from dutch article (nos.nl), AP press release which has 400 words and militarnyi.com blog post which has 250 words. All of this is either behind a barrier or shorter than the 650 words text in OP’s post. Curiously, we haven’t seen tardigrade complaining below any of these posts.
Archive.today links are banned in this community. Fair-use archives like wayback machine are getting blocked by news sites as a casualty of their efforts to block AI scraping bots.
Heise, The Guardian, militarnyi. com and many others can all be archived and are then fully accessible, while neither the Internet Archive nor removepaywall .com works with EUObserver.
I don’t understand what’s so controversial that people should be able to read a full report instead of just the headline. Do whatever you want, I end this discussion.
Heise, The Guardian, militarnyi. com and many others can all be archived and are then fully accessible
None of the mentioned posts provides an archive link - neither in the post nor in comments. Unlike the current post, which has a link to full article in the comments.
neither the Internet Archive nor removepaywall .com works with EUObserver
Then you should launch a community which only allows internet archive or removepaywall.com links and stop complaining here.
-