Transport projects funded by the European Union in the Western Balkans address the region’s connectivity needs, but integration into the central European transport network is progressing slowly, according to a report by the European Court of Auditors. European auditors warn that, due to implementation delays and operational issues, the 2030 deadline for completing the core network in the Western Balkans is unlikely to be met.

The European Court of Auditors has published a special report analyzing how European Union financial support contributes to the development of transport infrastructure in the Western Balkans.

The report focuses on the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), a mechanism through which European grants are combined with loans from international financial institutions for infrastructure projects.

The European Commission is the main contributor to this mechanism, having transferred EUR 899 million to the joint fund since 2015, representing 86% of the funding.

The transport sector is the most significant within the WBIF analyzed by the Court, with an EU budget of EUR 2.665 billion, of which EUR 527 million was disbursed between 2015 and mid-2025.

The European Court of Auditors concludes that the projects analyzed are aligned with the connectivity priorities of the European Union and the Western Balkans. However, the report identifies issues in project selection, particularly regarding their maturity prior to funding approval.

The auditors note that projects typically started with a delay of 17 months, as some applications were approved before the preparatory documentation was complete and up to date. In some cases, important elements were missing, such as a cost-benefit analysis or a validated detailed design.

The Court recommends that the European Commission select only mature projects for which beneficiaries can demonstrate that preparatory work is complete and up to date, so that projects can start quickly after the grant is approved.

The sample analyzed by the European Court of Auditors includes 12 transport projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia, worth EUR 341.6 million. These were selected to assess advanced projects in road, rail, and inland waterway transport.

The report includes several railway projects relevant to connecting the region to the European network. Among these are Railway Route 10 in Kosovo, Corridor X, and Corridor Xc in Serbia, as well as Corridor VIII in North Macedonia.

The Court notes that six railway grants were approved in the four countries analyzed, but three of those lines remain unelectrified and are operated with diesel trains. Under these conditions, the environmental benefits are lower than they would have been if the lines had been electrified.

The report shows that, in the selection process, the Commission did not give sufficient priority to sustainable transport, such as rail or inland waterway projects that would have contributed more to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission indicated that checks on sustainable transport have been strengthened since 2022, following the adoption of the Economic and Investment Plan.

One of the examples highlighted by the Court concerns North Macedonia. The auditors point out that, at the time the grant was approved, a railway section on the central network was not connected to one of the neighboring countries, and there was no agreement with neighboring countries to ensure that the entire corridor would be operational.

The report cites a section of Corridor VIII, in the area connecting to Bulgaria, as an example of railway infrastructure funded before the entire corridor had clear connection and operational conditions.

The Court notes that projects may address real connectivity needs, but that approving sections with insufficient connectivity may limit the impact of European funding on the regional network.

The report also highlights issues with the Railway Route 10 in Kosovo project. According to the Court’s assessment, railway conditions were worse at the time of the audit than before the project began.

Traffic has been disrupted since 2020 following the collapse of tunnels during construction, and signaling and electrification had not yet been installed as of June 2025. The Court uses this case to highlight the risks associated with delays, beneficiary capacity, and the sustainability of results.

Overall, the report finds that the sustainability of seven projects in the sample was not fully ensured, due to factors such as unfinished administrative procedures, lack of funds to continue investments, insufficient maintenance, or unused infrastructure.

The European Court of Auditors notes that, for the oversight of project implementation, the European Commission relies on international financial institutions that manage loans and monitor grants.

However, the auditors note that this oversight has sometimes been insufficient. The Commission did not systematically request evidence from financial institutions regarding the assessment of implementation risks and proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, it was not always able to identify shortcomings in the oversight of public procurement procedures.

The Court recommends that the Commission obtain evidence from financial institutions regarding risk assessments, including beneficiaries’ limited capacity, conflicts of interest, or a lack of national ownership of projects.

The report also criticizes the monitoring of delays. The Court notes that the information received by the Commission through the financial institutions’ annual reports was not always sufficiently detailed or up-to-date to allow the identification and addressing of the real causes of delays.

In addition to start-up delays, many projects in the sample accumulated significant delays of over two years during the implementation phase. These delays were frequently caused by changes to the detailed design during construction and by delays in obtaining permits.

The Court notes that, in some cases, the Commission transferred amounts greater than those justified by the financial and physical progress of the projects.

To monitor overall progress, the Commission used three main indicators: GDP growth, the value of trade in goods and services, and the Human Development Index.

The Court considers that these indicators are influenced by numerous external factors and do not allow for a meaningful assessment of the specific effects of projects funded through the WBIF.

The auditors point out that it would have been necessary to collect information on the degree of completion of the funded corridors and the compliance of transport networks with EU standards. Such data would have allowed for a more accurate assessment of the impact of European funding.