Dear Ms X,

You recently submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the way in which it handled issues you raised about lobbying by interest representatives in relation to the EU universal restriction on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)^[1].

After careful analysis of all the information submitted to us, I regret to inform you that there are insufficient grounds to open an inquiry into your complaint.

You argue, in essence, that the Commission (i) failed to say whether it had investigated or would investigate the concerns raised, (ii) failed to explain adequately how it ensured “accountability” in its dealings with Plastics Europe, and (iii) referred you to the Transparency Register Secretariat instead of addressing the substance of your concerns itself.

As regards your first allegation about lobbying practices, the Commission explained in its meeting with you on 20 March 2025 that it was “not in a position to react to the substance [of your complaint] while the scientific assessment by ECHA was ongoing”. I consider that position reasonable. ECHA has the necessary scientific expertise to assess the risks linked to PFAS and to examine the arguments put forward by interested parties in the context of the restriction procedure. The Commission, by contrast, acts as risk manager and will take a decision, based on ECHA’s scientific assessment once it becomes available. As you are aware this process is on-going involving two committees within ECHA, namely the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC).

As regards your second allegation about lack of accountability in engaging with an industry group, the Commission explained that its contacts with the group concerned formed part of its regular stakeholder engagement across a range of policy files. It also stated that it was not aware of evidence of excessive access or undue influence by any stakeholder. Based on the information available, and taking account of the contents of the meeting reports referred to in your complaint, this appears reasonable. Those reports indicate that the Commission took note of the positions of the group concerned but do not indicate that the Commission was unduly influenced by those positions. In fact, in the conclusion of the meeting which took place on 10 March 2026, the Commission encouraged the group concerned to submit contributions to the SEAC as part of the committee’s public consultation informing the ECHA’s assessment.

As regards your third allegation about the referral to the Transparency Register Secretariat, I note that the Commission did not explicitly refer you to the Transparency Register Secretariat. Rather, it indicated, in general terms, that investigations into possible breaches of the Transparency Register code of conduct may be opened by the Transparency Register Secretariat, either following a complaint or on its own initiative. Insofar as your concerns relate to possible breaches of that code, that information was relevant. I also note that, based on the information available, you do not appear to have submitted such a complaint to the Secretariat.

More generally, it is for ECHA[2], and its committees, to determine the scientific risks associated with PFAS in the light of the restriction dossier submitted[3]. That process is still ongoing. On 26 March 2026, the RAC expressed in its final opinion and the SEAC in its draft opinion ‘support [for] an EU-wide restriction, subject to specific derogations, on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFAS.’ The final opinion of the SEAC is expected to be adopted by the end of the current year. Only at that point in time, will the Commission have the final scientific assessment of risk to enable it to adopt a decision concerning the restriction application. At this stage, therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the Commission has been unduly influenced in its work on this matter.

We have therefore closed the case.

I appreciate this may not be your desired outcome, but I hope you find these explanations useful.

Yours sincerely,

Jennifer King
Head of Inquiries Unit II (ad interim)

Strasbourg, 01/10/2026

 

[1] ECHA describes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as: “a large class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that are used throughout society. However, they are increasingly detected as environmental pollutants and some are linked to negative effects on human health. They all contain carbon-fluorine bonds, which are one of the strongest chemical bonds in organic chemistry. This means that they resist degradation when used and also in the environment. Most PFAS are also easily transported in the environment covering long distances away from the source of their release. PFAS have been frequently observed to contaminate groundwater, surface water and soil. Cleaning up polluted sites is technically difficult and costly. If releases continue, they will continue to accumulate in the environment, drinking water and food.” See: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas.

[2] See for more information: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas?p_l_back_url=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dpfas%2Brestriction%26search-button%3DSearch&p_l_back_url_title=Search.

[3] Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted the initial proposal to restrict PFAS under the EU’s chemicals regulation, REACH, in January 2023.