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.

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.