The case concerned a request for public access to documents related to coffee development programmes in Ethiopia. The complainant submitted his request to the Commission in August 2024.

The Commission first replied in December 2024. It granted full access to two documents, refused access to three documents in their entirety and gave partial access to the remaining 31 documents. In doing so, the Commission argued that (full) disclosure could undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, the protection of personal data and commercial interests, as well as the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in January 2025. In the absence of a reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in May 2025.

In June 2025, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission to reply to the complainant as soon as possible.

Following several exchanges with the Commission on the matter, on 20 April 2026, the Ombudsman sent a final reminder to the Commission, urging it to adopt a confirmatory decision by 12 May 2026 at the latest. The Commission failed to do so.

Since the Commission had still not replied to the complainant’s confirmatory application more than 15 months after the statutory timeline established by Regulation 1049/2001 has expired, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of maladministration.

The three cases concern how the European Commission applied its ‘Better Regulation’ rules and other procedural requirements when preparing legislative proposals concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (983/2025/MAS), countering migrant smuggling (2031/2024/VB) and the Common Agricultural Policy (1379/2024/MIK). The Commission considered these proposals to be urgent and, therefore, omitted steps foreseen in its rules, such as impact assessments and public consultations. The complainants, which are civil society organisations, considered these omissions to be in breach of the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ rules. In two cases, the complainants also argued that the Commission failed to check the legislative proposals’ consistency with the EU’s climate goals, as required by the European Climate Law. In one case, the complainant was further concerned that the Commission breached its Rules of Procedure on inter-service consultations.   

The Ombudsman opened inquiries into the three cases. She received the Commission’s written reply in all three cases, inspected the relevant files of the Commission and her inquiry teams met with representatives of the Commission in the context of two inquiries.

The Commission replied that the ‘Better Regulation’ rules are not binding law but a set of policy-making tools for collecting relevant information that should be applied in a proportionate manner. It also argued that it had collected all relevant evidence before adopting the legislative proposals in question, consulted stakeholders and conducted the climate consistency assessments and the inter-service consultation in line with the applicable rules.

Based on her inquiries, the Ombudsman found a number of procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals that, taken together, amount to maladministration.

In particular, the Ombudsman found that the Commission adopted a broad interpretation of ‘urgency’ and failed to sufficiently justify the ‘urgency’ of the legislative proposals towards the public and to document its derogations from the applicable Better Regulation rules. The Ombudsman also found that the Commission has not put in place a procedure that would ensure, as required by the Treaties and case law, a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive preparation of ‘urgent’ legislative proposals. The Ombudsman further found that, by not keeping proper records of mandatory consistency checks of its proposals with the EU’s climate goals, the Commission failed to act in an accountable manner.

To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman made two recommendations. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from the requirements set out in the rules. Furthermore, where derogations are granted, the Commission should establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals still complies with the principles of a transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-making process. To assist the Commission in this task, the Ombudsman made four suggestions, which include clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals and ensuring that the evidence supporting its proposals is published in good time to enable a public debate before legislation is adopted.

The case concerned an alleged conflict of interest involving the Commissioner for Agriculture. The complainant, an organisation representing Polish farmers, had lodged an infringement complaint concerning Polish agricultural legislation. The complainant subsequently alerted the European Commission to the fact that the brother of the Commissioner for Agriculture was among the members of the Polish Parliament who had proposed the legislation at issue.   

The Ombudsman found that the manner in which the Commission assessed the conflict of interest was flawed. Specifically, it had failed to take into account the fact that the Commissioner’s relationship with one of the legislation proposers could have influenced, or been perceived to influence, negatively the Commission’s independence in assessing the infringement complaint in question.  

The Ombudsman made a suggestion for improvement to address this, and urged the Commission to review its decision-making on the infringement complaint under the supervision of another commissioner. As the Ombudsman also identified procedural shortcomings in the case, she made a second suggestion for improvement to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry, asking the Commission to report back on the actions it has taken to address her suggestions.

The case concerned how, in assessing pesticides, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) takes into account the risks to biodiversity and ecosystems posed by the indirect effects of pesticides. The complainant argued that methodologies for assessing indirect effects are already available, and the fact that EFSA does not do so is at odds with the applicable legal framework.

In the course of the inquiry, EFSA gave more detailed explanations as to why, in its role as ‘risk assessor’, it cannot currently systematically assess the indirect effects of pesticides. In particular, EFSA explained that the European Commission, as ‘risk manager’, is currently still reviewing the criteria for assessing environmental risks in pesticides, the ‘specific protection goals’. Until such specific protection goals are developed and endorsed, EFSA cannot assess systematically for each pesticide the risks of indirect effects on the environment.

The Ombudsman found that EFSA clearly explained why, until relevant specific protection goals have been defined, it does not systematically take into account indirect effects in its assessments of the risks of pesticides to the environment. She noted, however, the delay in finalising the specific protection goals, which she intends to raise with the Commission.

While the Ombudsman welcomed EFSA’s engagement with the complainant’s concerns, she understood the complainant’s frustration that EFSA entered into such a dialogue only after her intervention. The Ombudsman found this regrettable. However, as EFSA has now comprehensively replied to the complainant, no further inquiries into the matter are justified. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement about how, in the future, EFSA should deal with similar concerns.