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.

D’oibrigh an gearánach mar shaineolaí do chonraitheoir seachtrach de chuid an Aontais ar thionscadal arna mhaoiniú ag an Aontas sa Tansáin arna bhainistiú ag Toscaireacht an Aontais Eorpaigh chuig an Tansáin agus chuig Comhphobal Oirthear na hAfraice. Mhaígh an gearánach gur sháraigh an conraitheoir dlí na Tansáine trí mhainneachtain clárú sa Tansáin, rud a chuir cosc air cead oibre bailí a fháil. Ina dhiaidh sin, chuir an conraitheoir an gearánach ar an eolas faoina chinneadh a chonradh a fhoirceannadh, agus ábhair imní faoi obair an ghearánaigh a d’ardaigh Toscaireacht an Aontais á gcur san áireamh.

D’oscail an tOmbudsman fiosrúchán ar ábhair imní an ghearánaigh faoin gcaoi ar dhéileáil an Toscaireacht leis an dá ábhar. I ndáil leis sin, chuir an tOmbudsman a tuairim in iúl go comhsheasmhach, i gcás ina n-iarrann institiúidí AE saineolaithe atá ag obair ar thionscadail AE a ionadú, gur cheart éisteacht a thabhairt do na daoine aonair sin sula gcuirtear daoine eile ina n-ionad. Cé gur áitigh an Coimisiún nár iarr sé go ndéanfaí an saineolaí a ionadú, chinn an tOmbudsman go raibh baint ag an gCoimisiún leis an gcinneadh athsholáthair. Dá bhrí sin, chinn an tOmbudsman gur theip ar an gCoimisiún a áirithiú gur urramaíodh ceart an ghearánaigh chun éisteacht a fháil sular tháinig sé ina ionad, arbh ionann é agus drochriarachán.  Rinne sí moladh le haghaidh feabhsúcháin a bhí dírithe ar an gceist a chosc amach anseo. 

Ina theannta sin, chinn an tOmbudsman, ós rud é gur foirceannadh conradh an ghearánaigh, nach raibh údar le tuilleadh fiosrúchán maidir le saincheist an cheada oibre. Mar sin féin, mhol sí don Choimisiún feabhas a chur air, agus d’iarr sí air an t-ábhar a fhíorú toisc go bhféadfadh sé difear a dhéanamh do shaineolaithe eile atá ag obair ar thionscadal an Aontais. 

 

Bhain an cás le cinneadh ón gCoimisiún Eorpach, a thug maolú don Spáinn ar riail sa Treoir maidir le Fuinneamh. Foráiltear leis an riail nach bhféadfaidh úinéireacht a bheith ag oibreoirí córais tarchurtha ar shaoráidí stórála fuinnimh. Leis an gcinneadh, deonaítear maolú ar an riail sin a mhéid a bhaineann le saoráidí stórála hidreachumhachta caidéalaithe sna hOileáin Chanáracha. Ba é an gearán leis an Ombudsman gur léirmhínigh an Coimisiún an riail go mícheart agus, in aon chás, nár comhlíonadh na coinníollacha maidir leis an maolú a dheonú.

D’fhiosraigh an tOmbudsman an tsaincheist agus chinn sé, cé nach raibh an gearán gan fiúntas, nárbh ionann gníomhaíochtaí an Choimisiúin agus drochriarachán. Mhol an tOmbudsman, áfach, gur cheart don Choimisiún a mheabhrú dá sheirbhísí an tábhacht a bhaineann le teagmháil shubstainteach agus mhionsonraithe leordhóthanach a dhéanamh le saoránaigh a tharraingíonn aird an Choimisiúin ar ábhair imní atá dea-argóinte agus mionsonraithe.