President European Commission

Dear President,

I have received a complaint against the European Commission. The complaint is that the Commission has exempted so-called ‘Reality Checks’[1] from its standard transparency measures.

The complainant considers that transparency is about enabling the public to follow how decisions are made in the EU institutions, and that this is a cornerstone of EU democracy. The complainant is also of the view that all stages of EU decision-making must be covered by meaningful transparency measures, including when EU legislation is proposed to be amended for the sake of its simplification.

I have decided to open an inquiry into this complaint to examine the Commission’s practice of organising Reality Checks.

I have now concluded that it would be useful to receive a written reply from the Commission to clarify a number of issues raised in the complaint, as well as to inspect any related documents. Please see the annex to this letter for details.

I would be grateful to receive the Commission's reply by 18 September 2026. Please note that we are likely to send your reply and related enclosures to the complainant for comments^[2]. I may also decide to publish your reply.

If, in the course of this inquiry, the Commission becomes involved in court proceedings concerning the same subject matter as this complaint, I would ask you to let us know.

The Inquiries Officer responsible is Mr Koen Roovers.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 02/07/2026

 

Annex – Questions for the Commission in case 1029/2026/KR

1. The European Commission refers to an exemption in Decisions 2024/3081 and 2024/3082[3] for meetings involving "direct and specific requests [from the Commission] for factual information, data, or expertise“ to justify that Reality Checks meetings are not subject to standard transparency rules.

a. How does the Commission ensure that all Reality Checks strictly meet this criterion and do not become a form of industry consultation, involving exchanges of views on policy and/or possible legislative making? In other words, how does the Commission distinguish between a genuine request for expertise (justifying exemption) and a broader consultation (which should be transparent)?

b. Are there written guidelines or criteria for determining when a consultation qualifies for exemption of transparency rules (Decisions 2024/3081 and 2024/3082)? If so, the Commission is invited to submit these for inspection.

c. Is there an internal audit or oversight process to verify that Reality Checks comply with the exemption criteria? If yes, the Commission is invited to provide details.

2. The Communication on Simplification[4] identifies "practitioners in companies" as the primary target for Reality Checks.

a. How does the Commission ensure that business interests do not dominate the discussions? The Commission is invited to also address, in this regard, the complainant’s allegations of one-sided outcomes (for example in relation to the Digital Omnibus, chemicals, and due diligence Reality Checks).

b. Are participants required to complete and sign a declaration of interests, and declare conflicts of interest if they become aware of any?

3. The Commission indicated that its departments announce Reality Checks on their websites and include findings in synopsis reports, impact assessments, or explanatory memoranda.

a. The Commission is invited to provide the following documentation:

• A list of all Reality Checks conducted in 2025 and 2026, with links to where they were announced.
• 2025 and 2026 synopsis reports or legislative documents where Reality Checks findings were explicitly referenced (for example, with participant names, key arguments, or data sources), along with an indication whether these documents were public.
• Participant lists, including the practitioners’ professional affiliations, for the Reality Checks not publicly disclosed in 2025 and 2026.

b. How does the Commission ensure that citizens and other stakeholders, such as civil society organisations, trade unions, and academics can access Reality Check inputs in real time, rather than after legislative proposals are finalised?

4. The Commission indicated that the outcome of Reality Checks feed into the stress-testing of existing legislation (including evaluations and fitness checks) and the design of future simplification proposals. How does the Commission ensure that Reality Checks do not undermine the need for broad consultations with interested parties to ensure that its actions are transparent and coherent, as per the democratic principles that underpin the EU?

 

[1] ‘Reality Checks’ are a form of consultation with representatives of companies in the context of the Commission’s simplification agenda.

[2] If you wish to submit documents or information that you consider to be confidential, and which should not be disclosed to the complainant, please mark them ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.

[3] See Article 3(d)(iii) of Commission Decisions 2024/3081 on transparency measures concerning meetings held between Members of the Commission and interest representatives, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/3081/oj, and 2024/3082 on transparency measures concerning meetings held between Commission staff holding management functions and interest representatives, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/3082/oj, both of 4 December 2024.

[4] See Communication from the Commission [..]: ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’. COM/2025/47 final, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0047.