The case concerned a request for public access to a document related to the European Commission’s decision to designate a mineral extraction project located in Serbia as a ‘Strategic Project’ under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Specifically, the complainant sought access to the relevant approval of this decision by the non-EU country concerned. The complainant had submitted his request to the European Commission in July 2025.

The Commission first replied in August 2025. It identified one document as falling within the scope of the access request, to which it refused to give public access in its entirety. In doing so, the Commission argued that disclosure could undermine the EU’s international relations with the country where the project is located.

The complainant contested the Commission's decision by making a 'confirmatory application' in September 2025. When the Commission failed to provide an explicit reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in October 2025.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s implicit refusal to grant public access and, as a first step, asked the Commission to adopt as soon as possible an explicit reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application. In the absence of a reply within the time limit set, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the document in question, along with documentation on the consultation of the non-EU country concerned.

The Commission replied to the complainant in May 2026, granting wide partial access to the document at issue, redacting only limited personal data, which the complainant did not challenge. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complaint into the Commission’s implicit refusal of access had been settled by the access now granted. That said, the Ombudsman regretted the delay incurred by the Commission in handling the complainant’s access request, which persisted even after she had opened her inquiry. The Ombudsman continues to closely monitor the matter of delays based on complaints submitted to her.

 

The case was about how the European Commission informed the public about the status of its legislative initiative concerning the framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS), which formed part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy. Following this initiative’s inception and public consultation, the Commission did not include it in its 2024 work programme. The complainant, an organisation that participated in the public consultation, was concerned that the Commission had failed to inform the public about the initiative’s status and reasons for the delay in adopting a legislative proposal in relation to it.

During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission explained that, in 2023, it had revised its political priorities due to economic disruptions caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the farmers’ protests throughout the EU, and broader stakeholder concerns about EU agriculture. In 2025, the Commission adopted a new ‘Vision for Agriculture and Food’. As this document did not mention the FSFS, the Commission believed it was clear to stakeholders that this initiative had been discontinued. Moreover, the Commission said that it was in the process of updating information on all its policy initiatives available on its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s commitment to provide greater transparency about the status of its policy initiatives and considered that no further inquiries into this matter were justified.

The three cases concerned how the European Commission applied its Better Regulation rules and other procedural requirements when preparing legislative proposals concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (983/2025/MIK), 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 assess 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.

Based on her inquiries, the Ombudsman found procedural shortcomings in how the Commission prepared the legislative proposals in question, which, taken together, amounted to maladministration. To address these shortcomings, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission ensure a predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of its Better Regulation rules, by defining ‘urgent’ situations that justify a derogation from their requirements, as well as by recording and explaining the reasons for any derogations granted. 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 also made four suggestions for improvement, which included: clarifying its stakeholder consultation rules for urgent proposals; ensuring that the analytical documents replacing impact assessments and outlining the evidence supporting its proposals are published in a timely manner to enable a public debate before the legislation is adopted; issuing guidance on implementing climate consistency assessments; providing and recording justifications when shortening inter-service consultation periods below established thresholds.

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission agreed to reflect on defining ‘urgent’ situations during the upcoming revision of the Better Regulation rules, as well as to record and publish the reasons for applying any derogations from their requirements. The Commission also committed to ensure targeted consultations on its ‘urgent’ proposals, to publish the analytical documents with evidence supporting its proposals within three months of adoption, to include climate consistency assessments in both analytical documents and explanatory memoranda for future proposals and to provide justifications for shortened inter-service consultations.

The complainants, in their comments on the Commission’s reply, considered that the Commission’s commitments are neither clear nor concrete enough to guarantee a transparent, inclusive and evidence-based law-making process.

The Ombudsman welcomed the overall constructive reply of the Commission to her recommendations and suggestions for improvement. That said, the Commission’s response does not yet provide sufficient clarity on the concrete steps it intends to take to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and suggestions for improvement.

The Ombudsman will therefore monitor this matter based on future complaints and once the Commission has finalised the revision of the Better Regulation rules. At this stage, no further inquiries are justified, and the Ombudsman closed the three cases.