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 complainant worked as an expert for an external EU contractor on an EU-funded project in Tanzania managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community. The complainant claimed that the contractor breached Tanzanian law by failing to register in Tanzania, preventing him from obtaining a valid work permit. Subsequently, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract, taking into account concerns about the complainant’s work raised by the EU Delegation.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about how the Delegation handled both matters. In this regard, the Ombudsman referred to her consistently taken view that, where EU institutions seek the replacement of experts working on EU projects, those individuals should be heard before they are replaced. While the Commission argued that it did not ask for the expert’s replacement, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been involved in the replacement decision. The Ombudsman thus found that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to his replacement, which amounted to maladministration.  She made a suggestion for improvement aimed at preventing the issue from occurring in the future. 

In addition, the Ombudsman found that, as the complainant’s contract had been terminated, no further inquiries were justified into the work permit issue. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, inviting it to verify the matter as it may affect other experts working on the EU project. 

 

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit the complainant to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of transport due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.