EU Ombudsman Finds Maladministration in Omnibus

The European Ombudswoman has determined that the European Commission's management of the procedures regarding the Omnibus proposal amounted to maladministration, meaning it did not adequately fulfill its obligation under the Better Regulation rules to ensure evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive lawmaking.

Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho opened the inquiry in May 2025 after a complaint from eight nongovernmental organizations accusing the Commission of taking an undemocratic and rushed approach to amending the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) as part of the Omnibus simplification package.

The Omnibus finding was one of three cases submitted to the Ombudswoman regarding the commission's Better Regulation rules, the other cases relating to countering migrant smuggling and the Common Agricultural Policy. The Ombudswoman determined that procedural irregularities in all three cases amounted to maladministration.

In a LinkedIn post, Andreas Rasche, professor and associate dean at the Copenhagen Business School, said that although the Ombudswoman has no legal powers, her assessments carry significant weight, and that her findings indicate bigger problems with the Omnibus process as a whole.

“Today's outcome confirms what many have highlighted since February 2025,” said Rasche. “The Omnibus I process faces major procedural shortcomings, including the absence of a proper impact assessment and stakeholder consultation.”

Urgency Must Be Clearly Defined

The complainants in the case (ClientEarth, Anti-Slavery International, Clean Clothes Campaign, European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Friends of the Earth Europe, Global Witness, Notre Affaire À Tous, and T&E) raised the following complaints about the Omnibus procedures:

• The Commission failed to conduct impact assessments in accordance with the Better Regulation rules.
• The Commission replaced impact assessments with analytical documents that did not contain sufficient evidence to justify the proposals.
• The Commission breached Article 6(4) of the European Climate Law by failing to conduct climate consistency assessments.
• The Commission conducted insufficient ad hoc consultations that prioritized certain stakeholders instead of public consultations.
• The Commission rushed through interservice consultations that were not in line with the rules of procedure, since the consultation on the procedure was presented on a Friday evening with a 24-hour deadline for Saturday evening instead of the 10 working days envisioned in the Commission's rules of procedure.

The complainants argued that although the Better Regulation rules are not legally binding, the Commission ought to be consistent in how it applies them and engages in public consultation to ensure that every citizen can participate in the democratic processes of the EU. They also argued that since revising the CSDDD and the CSRD would have significant impacts on the environment, an impact assessment ought to have been carried out, especially since the legislation had not yet entered into force.

In its response, the Commission referred to the Draghi Report as evidence of the EU's deteriorating economic situation and alleged that the upcoming entry into force of the reporting obligations of the CSRD and CSDDD meant there was sufficient urgency to exempt itself from the specific requirements of the Better Regulation rules.

In a press release, Ombudswoman Anjinho said that although the Commission must be able to “respond urgently to different situations, particularly in the current geopolitical context,” it must still ensure that “accountability and transparency continue to be part of its legislative processes and that its actions are clearly explained to citizens.” She noted that the Commission did not clearly publish the results of any climate consistency assessment before adopting its proposals in accordance with Article 6(4) of the European Climate Law. She also said that although the Commission has the discretion to shorten interservice consultation, the 24-hour consultation period over a weekend “excessively limited the possibility of its departments to provide meaningful input on the legislative proposal in question.”

In her recommendations, Anjinho said the Commission should ensure a more predictable application of the Better Regulation rules by more clearly defining the concept of “urgency” to justify procedural exemptions and should establish procedures to ensure proposals adhere to the principles of transparent and evidence-based lawmaking.

“In future, a better balance needs to be struck between having an agile administration and guaranteeing minimum procedural standards for law-making,” said Anjinho in her press release. “Certain principles of good law-making cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency.”

However, Nikodemus Solitander, associate dean and researcher at the Hanken School of Economics, said in a LinkedIn post that despite the recommendations, the Ombudswoman's finding is unlikely to amount to any significant change in the Commission's approach to the Omnibus.

“It is clear that the empty signifiers of “competition” and “geopolitics” will most likely be used by the Commission again to justify bypassing the Ombudsman's ruling,” said Solitander.