The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to an application for a mineral extraction and processing project to be recognised as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act and the Commission’s related assessment. The Commission considered that disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the company concerned, including because the project had not been designated as a Strategic Project. Amongst other elements, the complainant contended that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, arguing that the documents at issue are likely to contain important environmental information.

Based on the inspection of the documents at issue by her inquiry team, the Ombudsman found that it had been reasonable for the Commission to consider that disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the company concerned. In addition, while the documents contain some information about the anticipated environmental and social impacts of the project, this was not sufficient to establish an overriding public interest in disclosure.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry finding no maladministration in the Commission’s refusal of access.

The case concerned the time taken by the European Commission to conclude an infringement procedure, which it has opened in 2016 against Spain about its compliance with EU environmental noise rules. The complainant, a group of interested citizens concerned by airport noise in Spain, complained that the time taken by the Commission to investigate the matter was not reasonable.

The Ombudsman found that there was a period of three years showing no trace of any action taken by the Commission, which constituted maladministration.

The Commission subsequently resumed action on the case, which means that it would serve no useful purpose to make a recommendation. Given the major public health implications of the issues at stake, the Ombudsman expects the Commission to deal with the infringement procedure as a matter of priority.

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 how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning air quality in Bolzano, in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. The Commission had initially put the handling of the complaint on hold awaiting the outcome of ongoing court proceedings concerning the same matter. Following the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU, the Commission informed the complainant of its intention to close the case.

The Ombudsman inquired into the time taken by the Commission to deal with the complaint. During the inquiry, the Commission issued its final decision closing the case.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission had kept the complainant informed, and that it had not taken an unreasonably long time to deal with the complaint.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the Commission.