EU Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho’s findings are based on three separate complaint-based cases that adhered to its own Better Regulation rules - standards designed to ensure that EU law-making remains evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive when preparing legislative drafts.
The concerns were based on the preparation for corporate sustainability due diligence (Omnibus I), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and countering migrant smuggling.
According to the Ombudswoman, key elements of these rules were bypassed in all three cases.
Anjinho said the EU Commission must retain the ability to respond quickly to geopolitical or policy challenges, but warned that “certain principles of good law-making cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency.”
She stressed that accountability and transparency must remain visible in all legislative processes and that the EU Commission should “clearly explain its actions to citizens.”
The inquiries included failing to fully justify the urgency of the legislative proposals to the public and to document its reasoning for deviating from its internal rules on lawmaking.
There were also problems specific to each of the three legislative processes, including:
- Reducing the consultation time between Commission departments to less than 24 hours over a weekend (Omnibus I)
- Publishing a document with evidence to support the legislative proposal late (migrant smuggling legislation) and after the bill had already been approved (CAP)
- No clear internal records of a climate consistency assessment being carried out (CAP and Omnibus I)
The Ombudswoman issued two recommendations calling for a predictable and consistent application of Better Regulation rules, even under urgent conditions, and urged the Commission to guarantee that future fast-tracked files remain transparent and evidence-based.
She also suggested the revision of the Better Regulation framework should explicitly require climate assessments across all legislative proposals and set minimum standards for stakeholder consultation during accelerated procedures.
All three inquiries were initiated following complaints from civil society organisations, who argued that bypassing internal rules weakened the integrity of the legislative process.
