The case concerned the European Central Bank’s (ECB) refusal to give public access to documents containing advice relating to its gender policy and related measures. The ECB considered that disclosure would undermine the protection of legal advice and its internal decision-making. The complainant argued that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, namely in understanding the legal reasoning underpinning the ECB’s gender policy and related measures.

The Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the documents at issue. Based on this, the Ombudsman found that the content of the documents could reasonably be regarded as legal advice and that it had been reasonable for the ECB to consider that disclosure of the documents would have undermined the protection afforded to legal advice. In addition, the Ombudsman found it reasonable for the ECB to consider that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure.

The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry finding no 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.

This own-initiative inquiry concerned how the European Commission decides on applications submitted by companies for authorisations of particularly dangerous chemical substances under the EU Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (the ‘REACH Regulation’). Such particularly dangerous substances may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, or have endocrine disrupting properties. While the decision-making process on these applications is ongoing, companies that have submitted the applications within a deadline can continue using the substances in the EU. In view of concerns about delays in the Commission’s decision-making process, the Ombudsman inquired into the time it takes the Commission to decide on applications for authorisation of particularly dangerous chemical substances, as well as into the transparency of the authorisation process.

The Ombudsman found that, while the statutory deadline is three months, it took the Commission on average 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation. Moreover, the decision-making process lacked transparency. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s systemic failure to respect the statutory deadline and ensure transparency constituted maladministration.

The delays constitute a serious risk to public health and the environment. The delays also undermine the interests of companies whose economic activities may be disrupted due to persisting uncertainty as to whether an authorisation will be granted. Faced with these challenges, the Commission should do its utmost to present a clear plan of how to address the delays.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to the Commission to revise its internal procedures to ensure that it can take swifter decisions on these applications. As part of this, the Commission should apply the rule according to which the applicants must prove that they have met the legal conditions for authorisation (the burden of proof) and prioritise rejecting those applications that do not contain sufficient information in this regard. The Commission should also ensure that it publishes more meaningful summary records of the meetings of the ‘REACH Committee’, composed of Member States’ representatives, that approves the final decisions.

The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation to publish more meaningful summary records of the meetings of the ‘REACH Committee’. However, it disagreed with the Ombudsman’s analysis of the main causes of the delays, saying that the delays were mainly caused by factors beyond its control, namely the sheer number of applications, divergences among the members of the REACH Committee, and the time needed to implement changes required by the Court.

Regrettably, the Commission did not address the Ombudsman’s recommendation to review its lengthy internal procedures and provided inconsistent and incomplete information on its practice of enforcing the burden of proof when assessing applications for authorisation. Overall, the Commission did not present a clear and comprehensive plan on how to address the challenge of delays in the authorisation procedure. Further actions from the Commission are needed to fully implement the goals of the REACH Regulation and the recent case law to avoid delays in the risk management of particularly dangerous chemical substances. Therefore, the Ombudsman maintains her finding of maladministration.

This own-initiative inquiry concerned how the European Commission decides on applications submitted by companies for authorisations of specific uses of particularly dangerous chemical substances. These substances may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, or have endocrine disrupting properties. According to the EU Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (the ‘REACH Regulation’), while this decision-making process is ongoing, companies that have submitted the applications within a deadline can continue using the substances in the EU. Concerns have been raised about delays in the decision-making process — which means that such dangerous substances continue to be used — as well as about the lack of transparency of the process.  

The Ombudsman found that, while the statutory deadline is three months, it took the Commission on average 14.5 months and, in some cases, several years to prepare draft decisions for granting or refusing authorisation. These systemic delays and the Commission’s consequent failure to respect statutory deadlines in the decision-making process constitute maladministration. To address this, the Ombudsman made a recommendation that the Commission should revise its internal procedures to ensure that it can take swifter decisions on these applications. This would reflect the purpose of the legislation, which is urgently to phase out or control the use of particularly dangerous chemical substances. As part of this, the Commission should ensure that companies that apply for authorisations fulfil their obligation to submit applications that contain sufficient information for the Commission to decide whether the legal conditions for authorisation have been met, and should prioritise rejecting those applications that do not contain sufficient information. This would also mean that companies that fail to provide sufficient information with their application would not be able to continue to market the substances for the use in question.

The Ombudsman also took the view that the Commission fails to ensure sufficient transparency of the decision-making process, which constitutes maladministration. To address this, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission publish more meaningful reports from the meetings of the ‘REACH Committee’ that brings together representatives of the Commission and the Member States, and approves the final decisions. These reports should be published in a timely manner and certainly before the next meeting. Given the importance of the committee’s deliberations, the public should be able to follow its work at the different stages of the decision-making process regarding specific substances and understand the reasons for potential delays in order to hold the actors involved to account.