Dear Chair,

Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

Thank you for inviting me to this important and topical discussion. It is always an honour to come to this Parliament. I firmly believe that our structured dialogue and – even more importantly – our common efforts have a concrete positive impact in closing the gap between European citizens and the European Union. Today´s discussion – and its proper follow-up – is a very good example.

Almost exactly one year ago, I sat before this Committee. At that time, our inquiries into how the Commission prepared urgent legislation were still under way, and I could only tell you what we were examining. Today, I come back to tell you what we found, what the Commission answered, and what remains to be done.

This practice matters. Accountability is not a single moment. It is a conversation that continues. Returning here, year after year, to account for our work and to hear yours is how two institutions serving the same citizens turn dialogue into follow-up.

In a moment, I will share my perspective on better law-making as European Ombudswoman. As you may know, my Office has received various complaints related to how the European Commission prepared recent legislative proposals. We have also carried out several inquiries and made concrete proposals to improve the Commission’s law-making practices.

But before I get into the details, allow me to briefly touch upon the role of my institution when it comes to how EU decisions are taken and how EU laws are proposed.

I see my Office as a bridge between citizens and their EU administration. In short, we are here to ensure that the administration treats all citizens fairly and respects all their rights.

In a democracy, one such right is the right to participate – to have a say in the rules and regulations that affect us.

Of course, democracy is not limited to elections. Europeans want to be involved in the decision-making process itself, especially when those decisions concern their livelihoods, their health, their security, or their values.

Increasingly, people expect not only to have a say in who governs them but also in how they are being governed.

Yet, just as citizens are moving in this direction, a series of overlapping global crises is threatening to pull their public institutions the other way. Geopolitical and economic pressures are increasingly leading to accelerated decision-making, to more centralisation, and to the prioritisation of speed over process.

Allow me to say that I recognise the pressure that the whole institutional framework – the Commission, but also this house and the Council – is under to respond to the many challenges the EU faces. From where I stand, citizens, companies, and organisations are also confronting the same uncertainty and feeling the same anxiety – this is a moment that demands adaptation.

But this quite understandable instinct to accelerate when the world is quickly changing might come with consequences if we don’t find a new equilibrium.

In particular, it risks creating a legitimacy gap between what citizens want their public administration to do and what that administration ends up doing. And if this gap is left unaddressed, it will not only undermine the efficacy of policies but also erode the foundations of trust and inclusion upon which our democracy stands.

Part of my role as Ombudswoman is precisely to make sure the EU administration does not stray from the law-making rules that protect participatory democracy; to ensure it does not abandon the procedures and processes that foster legitimacy and promote citizen trust.

This does not mean that my Office will inquiry into the policy itself. We don’t. Let me be crystal clear: the Ombudsman focuses exclusively on procedures. We look at the preparation of a policy to ensure it was sufficiently transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive – three pillars of the European project. We do not question the merits of legislative simplification.

In the past couple of years, my Office has carried out three notable inquiries that concern how the Commission applied its own Better Regulation rules when preparing legislative proposals it deemed urgent.

These inquiries were the result of complaints sent to us by civil society organisations. They argued that the Commission had failed to carry out the necessary public consultations and impact assessments for proposals simplifying sustainability due diligence rules for businesses (Omnibus I), for changes to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, and for new rules to counter migrant smuggling.

As the issues in each inquiry were similar, we decided to publish joint findings. In them, we identified procedural shortcomings that, when taken together, amounted to maladministration.

These shortcomings notably included the Commission failing to fully justify the urgency of its legislative proposals to the public as well as failing to document its reasoning for deviating from the Better Regulation rules for law making.

While these issues concerned all three legislative processes, we also found problems specific to each.

For instance, in the case of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commission published a document with evidence supporting its legislative proposal only after the legislation had already been approved. When it came to Omnibus I meanwhile, the Commission reduced the consultation time between its own departments to less than twenty-four hours over a weekend.

We made a series of recommendations and suggestions to ensure more predictable, consistent, and non-arbitrary application of the Better Regulation rules in the future. For example, we recommended that the Commission formally define the concept of ‘urgency’ and comprehensively record and explain decisions it makes to exempt certain proposals from the usual rule-making requirements.

I want to stress here that deciding that a proposal is ‘urgent’ is not just a technical or semantic matter. As we saw in these cases, this distinction is increasingly being used to set aside key elements of the normal law-making process, such as conducting public consultations and impact assessments – elements that help ensure EU laws are well-informed and that EU law-making is participatory.

The duty to consult widely is not a guideline. It is a Treaty obligation. Even the Treaty’s own urgency exception requires reason to be given.

In addition, we also recommended that the Commission establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals, when it does happen, still complies with the principles of transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive law-making.

The respect for these principles is not an abstract institutional goal. It is a concrete - and structural - demand for decision-makers, particularly for the institution that holds the right of initiative. This Parliament, as representative of European citizens, is not only called on to decide on future legislation; it is also entitled to be aware of all the circumstances that justify each initiative.

This matters also for the principles at the heart of your report. National parliaments have eight weeks to assess whether a proposal respects subsidiarity. They can only do so on the evidence placed before them. When an impact assessment is skipped and the supporting analysis arrives months later, that check is weakened before it begins. Good procedure is not separate from subsidiarity and proportionality; it is their precondition.

The Commission’s response to our findings was constructive overall, but it was not very concrete. The measures it said it intends to take were described in general terms and often lacking in detail.

As you know, the Commission also published a Communication on how it intends to reform its Better Regulation rules. In drawing final conclusions, we looked at this document as well. We found that it too does not contain sufficient information on whether the principles of good law-making will be upheld in urgent situations and whether the Commission will fully implement our recommendations and suggestions.

For example, one of the parameters the Commission has cited for assessing the need for urgent action is ‘political context’. In our view, this is too vague. It also raises the prospect that the pursuit of political goals alone could justify the use of urgent procedures. This in turn increases the risk of urgent EU law-making becoming the norm rather than the exception.

The Commission has publicly committed to improving its implementation of the Better Regulation guidelines and has stated that two simplification ‘omnibus’ proposals presented after our inquiry and its Communication already apply these new principles, including an impact assessment and an evaluation from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

Overall, the general nature of the Commission’s response leaves us currently unable to determine whether future urgent legislative proposals will be the result of a sufficiently transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based process.

My intention therefore is to continue to monitor how the Commission handles urgent law-making and how it follows its Better Regulation rules.

Apart from urgent law making, my Office continues to receive complaints about the decision-making procedures at the Commission. Recently, I opened an inquiry to examine how the European Commission ensures that its ‘reality check’ meetings with stakeholders follow transparency requirements. This inquiry is ongoing, and I cannot anticipate right now our conclusions, but it shows how participatory democracy is highly topical nowadays.  

May I make one concrete suggestion: that your report invite the Commission to report back to Parliament on how it has implemented these recommendations once its Better Regulation rules are revised.

Honourable Members,

Let me close with one final thought.

Our world today is one of rapid change and upheaval.

Times like these cannot help but test the limits of our traditional ways of governing – of open, deliberative, and inclusive rulemaking. There is an ever-growing temptation to find shortcuts and cut corners; to quickly patch the old structure rather than build new foundations.

I recognise that we must adapt. But we must find ways to do so that do not compromise our values or endanger our commitment to participatory democracy. We must show citizens that EU law-making can be simultaneously agile and inclusive. The laws we create will be better not despite the rules, but because of them. And our union will be stronger.

I hope to return next year, once the revised Better Regulation rules have been applied in practice, and to tell you whether the commitments have been followed.

Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.