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.

Podnositelj pritužbe radio je kao stručnjak za vanjskog izvođača iz EU-a na projektu koji je financirao EU u Tanzaniji kojim je upravljala Delegacija Europske unije u Tanzaniji i Istočnoafričkoj zajednici. Podnositelj pritužbe tvrdio je da je ugovaratelj prekršio tanzanijsko pravo jer se nije registrirao u Tanzaniji, zbog čega nije mogao dobiti valjanu radnu dozvolu. Nakon toga ugovaratelj je obavijestio podnositelja pritužbe o svojoj odluci da raskine ugovor, uzimajući u obzir zabrinutost u pogledu rada podnositelja pritužbe koju je iznijela delegacija EU-a.

Ombudsmanica je pokrenula istragu o zabrinutosti podnositelja pritužbe u pogledu načina na koji je delegacija rješavala oba pitanja. U tom je pogledu Ombudsmanica uputila na svoje dosljedno stajalište da bi, ako institucije EU-a traže zamjenu stručnjaka koji rade na projektima EU-a, te pojedince trebalo saslušati prije njihove zamjene. Iako je Komisija tvrdila da nije zatražila zamjenu stručnjaka, Ombudsmanica je utvrdila da je Komisija bila uključena u odluku o zamjeni. Ombudsman je stoga utvrdio da Komisija nije osigurala poštovanje prava podnositelja pritužbe na saslušanje prije njegove zamjene, što je dovelo do nepravilnosti u postupanju.  Dala je prijedlog za poboljšanje kako bi se spriječilo da se to pitanje pojavi u budućnosti. 

Osim toga, ombudsmanica je utvrdila da, s obzirom na to da je ugovor podnositelja pritužbe raskinut, nisu bile opravdane daljnje istrage o pitanju radne dozvole. Međutim, Komisiji je dala prijedlog za poboljšanje i pozvala je da provjeri to pitanje jer bi to moglo utjecati na druge stručnjake koji rade na projektu EU-a. 

 

Predmet se odnosio na odluku Europskog ureda za odabir osoblja da ne prihvati podnositelja pritužbe u postupak odabira javnih službenika EU-a u području prometa zbog nedostatka radnog iskustva.

Ombudsmanica je utvrdila da je povjerenstvo za odabir ispitalo informacije navedene u prijavi podnositelja pritužbe i ocijenilo ih u odnosu na kriterije prihvatljivosti. Ombudsmanica nije utvrdila očitu pogrešku u načinu na koji je povjerenstvo za odabir ocijenilo prijavu te je zatvorila istragu i utvrdila da nije bilo nepravilnosti u postupanju.