Hybrid: Remote and at the Ombudsman’s office

Present

European Ombudsman

Lampros Papadias – Head of Cabinet of the European Ombudsman

Tanja Ehnert – Inquiries Coordinator

Vieri Biondi – Inquiries Officer

Michał Krajewski – Inquiries Officer

Maria Resende – Inquiries Trainee

European Commission

Directorate-General for Agriculture (AD AGRI):

• AGRI.I - Director
• AGRI.I.1 - Legal officer
• AGRI.A.1 - Policy and economic analysts

Legal Service (SJ):

• Member of the Legal Service – AGRI team

Secretariat-General (SG):

• SG.C.2 – Deputy Head of Unit
• SG.C.2 – Policy Officer
• SG.A.3 - Policy Officer
• SG.D.3 - Policy coordinator

Purpose of the meeting

The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to obtain answers to certain questions on the Commission’s written reply on this complaint, which were shared with the Commission before the meeting.

Introduction and procedural information

The Ombudsman inquiry team introduced themselves, thanked the Commission representatives for meeting with them and set out the purpose of the meeting. They outlined the legal framework that applies to meetings held by the Ombudsman, in particular, that the Ombudsman would not disclose any information identified by the Commission as confidential, neither to the complainant nor to any other person outside the Ombudsman’s Office, without the Commission’s prior consent.^[1]

The inquiry team explained that they would draw up a draft report on the meeting to be sent to the Commission to ensure that the contents were factually accurate and complete. The meeting report would then be finalised, included in the file and provided to the complainant. No confidential information would be included in the report or otherwise provided to the complainant or any third party.

Information exchanged

1. The transparency of the Commission’s reasons for derogating from certain requirements of the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidance and Toolbox

The Ombudsman inquiry team said that, according to their understanding, the Commission explained its reasons for derogating from conducting an impact assessment and public consultation in the explanatory memorandum to its legislative proposal (COM(2024) 139 final) published on 22 February 2024 and in the Staff Working Document concerning this proposal (SWD(2024) 360 final) published on 10 December 2024. The inquiry team also understood that there were no other public documents justifying the derogations. The inquiry team asked the Commission representatives to confirm or clarify this point.

The Commission representatives confirmed the inquiry team’s understanding. They added that it is the Commission’s practice of justifying the derogation conducting an impact assessment and public consultation in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislative proposal, which is in line with the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidance and Toolbox.

In addition, the Commission representatives explained the context of the proposal. The Commission had proposed the basic acts that the proposal in question was to amend[2] in June 2018, that is, before the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion on Ukraine. The basic acts required farmers to observe GAECs (good agricultural and environmental conditions standards). Subsequently, the Commission realised that these requirements were too demanding and burdensome for farmers to meet in practice. Faced with the protests of farmers in 2024, the Commission considered it extremely urgent to amend the basic acts, meaning that there was no time for an impact assessment or public consultation. The situation was exceptional due to the vast extent of the farmer protests throughout Member States, which had partly turned violent. There was a risk that the protests would get out of hand. To address the challenges in the sector and concerns raised by farmers, the European Council requested the Council and the Commission to take work forward as necessary.[3] The Commission representatives also drew attention to the recent court case in which the Court of Justice recognised the discretion of the Commission in deciding on matters of urgency concerning set-aside land.[4]

2. How the derogation was granted in this case

The Ombudsman inquiry team said that, according to their understanding, under the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidance and Toolbox there are two procedures for granting derogations, that is, before or after the political validation of the initiative to draft a legislative proposal. Before validation, it is the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for ‘Better Regulation’, who can grant derogations. In this case, the derogation is recorded in the IT system DECIDE, otherwise there is no special format for recording the derogations. After validation, it is the Director within the Commission’s Secretariat-General responsible for ‘Better Regulation’, who can grant derogations, acting in consultation with the Cabinet of the Vice-President responsible for ‘Better Regulation’.The inquiry team understood, based on the Commission’s written reply, that in this case the Secretariat-General, in consultation with the Cabinet of the President, granted the derogation in parallel to asking for the initiative to move forward. The inquiry team also understood, based on the documents provided by the Commission before the meeting, that there was no internal documentation of the decision to move forward without the impact assessment and public consultation.

The Commission representatives clarified that, under the current working methods, the Commissioner for Implementation and Simplification takes the above decisions to grant derogations from ‘Better Regulation’. Within the procedure for granting derogations after validation, the Director within the Secretariat-General must act ‘in consultation with’ the Cabinet of the said Commissioner. This means that the responsibility for granting derogations always lies with this Commissioner. In ordinary cases, at the stage of planning the initiative, the responsible department can ask the Commissioner for a derogation in line with the procedure mentioned above. In the present case, however, there was no prior planning of the initiative, as the proposal had to be prepared in urgency in response to the ongoing protests. This is why there is no internal documentation on the derogation decision or the formal political validation of the initiative.

However, the Commission representatives emphasised that the Commission’s political level tacitly granted its approval for moving forward with this initiative without an impact assessment and public consultation. In this context, the Commission representatives explained that the purpose of the validation and derogation procedures mentioned above is to ensure that the Commission departments do not prepare legislative initiatives (without an impact assessment) in the absence of the approval of the Commission’s political level. In the present case, there was a common understanding within the Commission that this proposal is to be put forward as soon as possible. In fact, it was the political level of the Commission that pushed for the initiative to happen, including the Commissioner responsible for ‘Better Regulation’.

A relevant record of the political validation of the initiative is the approval by the Secretariat-General of the inter-service consultation on the draft proposal. Subsequently, meetings of the cabinets of the Commissioners involved in the preparation of the proposal took place and, finally, the College of the Commissioners adopted the proposal. In this context, there is no doubt that the initiative, including the procedure for its preparation, obtained the necessary political approval. Moreover, there was full transparency regarding the work on this proposal within the Commission internally at all levels. What is missing is the written trace of the validation of the derogation.

The Commission representatives noted in this regard that the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidelines are applied in a proportionate manner that reflects the circumstances of each individual initiative, which means that exceptions to its requirements need to be made in certain situations. This is specifically foreseen in the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidelines themselves.

3. The selection of stakeholders for the targeted consultation

The Ombudsman inquiry team said that, according to their understanding, there must have been an internal decision taken on the selection of the stakeholders for the targeted consultation. They asked why the Commission did not share this decision, or any other written trace of this decision, with the inquiry team before the meeting. They also asked why the Commission decided not to consult other stakeholders within the same time frame.

The Commission representatives recalled that the main concern at the time was how to ease the administrative burden for farmers. The purpose of the stakeholder consultation was to get input from farmers on wherefrom the burden originates, help them tackle it and identify areas for improvement. In view of this, the responsible department of the Commission sought the input of the main farming organisations (representing farmers and agri-cooperatives in general, the organic sector, young farmers, and small and medium-sized farmers). It was considered that these organisations could provide the most hands-on information for the Commission, allowing it to develop the practical solutions put forward in the legislative proposal. The responsible department of DG AGRI proposed the targeted consultation of the main farming organisations. Subsequently, the Director-General approved this proposal and signed the letters inviting the four main organisations to share their views on the matter. At this early stage in the drafting of the proposal, it was considered that consulting other stakeholders would not be meaningful because the Commission wanted to discuss with the stakeholders directly concerned. It was therefore a conscious decision not to consult other stakeholders at the same time as the four main farming organisations. Targeted consultations, as opposed to public ones, are meant to gather input from specific and directly affected stakeholders, whereas in public consultations all stakeholders would be consulted, but this was not possible in this case due to the exceptional urgency.

Moreover, the Commission generally knew the position of environmental organisations on the matter. Sufficient information had already been gathered within the scope of the prior impact assessment and public consultation, and also the Commission was subsequently obtaining regular feedback from different stakeholders.

4. The time line of publishing the Staff Working Document

The Ombudsman inquiry team said that, according to their understanding, Staff Working Documents, which substitute for impact assessments, should in principle be published within three months after the adoption of the legislative proposal by the Commission. This way, Staff Working Documents can inform the final decision of the co-legislators and contribute to the transparency of the law-making process towards the public. Otherwise, it is difficult to see what purpose these documents would serve. In this case, the Staff Working Document was published approximately seven months after the adoption of the legislation by the co-legislators (which occurred in April/May 2024). The inquiry team asked whether the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidelines should be revised to clarify the timeline for publishing Staff Working Documents.

The Commission representatives emphasised that the Commission departments responsible for the initiative acted in urgency as soon as they received the relevant input from the consulted stakeholders. The Staff Working Document concerns also issues going beyond the legislative proposal, that is, other related and accompanying actions concerning the Common Agricultural Policy that formed part of the ‘simplification package’ announced by the Commission in February 2024. These actions also addressed some of the concerns and suggestions raised by stakeholders. The Staff Working Document  presented comprehensively and in a transparent, organised and clear way the input received (concerning the Common Agricultural Policy but also other related EU policies),  its assessment, and whether/how it was addressed which is why additional time was needed to finalise it. The Commission representatives added that, at the time of adopting the ‘Better Regulation’ Guidelines, the deadline of three months after the adoption of the proposal by the Commission appeared reasonable and feasible, and is still the case in almost all cases. Actually in many cases the staff working document is delivered ahead of the 3 months period and sometimes together with the proposal. However, the present case was exceptional as the co-legislators adopted the Commission’s proposal without any changes within two months only. This extremely swift adoption proves that the very serious urgency faced by the EU agricultural sector was shared by co-legislators.

5. Climate Consistency Assessment

The Ombudsman inquiry team said that, according to their understanding, and based on the documents provided by the Commission before the meeting, there was no internal documentation on a climate consistency assessment being carried out before the publication of the Staff Working Document. The inquiry team asked whether there is a separate internal procedure for recording the climate consistency assessment in the absence of an impact assessment. They also asked for a specific reference to the climate consistency assessment in the Staff Working Document.

The Commission representatives confirmed that, in this case, the climate consistency check was performed but there is no written documentation on the climate consistency assessment prior to the publication of the Staff Working Document. The Commission assessment concluded that the proposal had minimal consequences for emissions into the atmosphere (as explained on p. 31 of the Staff Working Document), meaning that the proposal would have no significant impact on the EU’s climate goals. This is shown in the staff working document, although, in line with its better regulation rules, in the absence of an impact assessment, there is no specific format to report it.

Conclusion of the meeting

The Ombudsman inquiry team thanked the Commission representatives for their time and for the explanations provided, and the meeting ended.

Brussels, 8 October 2025

TANJA EHNERT                                                                          MICHAŁ KRAJEWSKI

Inquiries Coordinator                                                                     Inquiries Officer

 

[1] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[2] Regulation 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (...), OJ L 435/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj/eng; Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (...), OJ L 435/187, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj/eng.

[3] 20240201-special-euco-conclusions-en.pdf

[4] Judgment of 10 July 2025, Case C-287/24, Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=5620F2B4A1B62953FAD6D506CD400373?text=&docid=302379&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7139100