European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho (pictured) has found a number of “procedural shortcomings” in how the European Commission prepared several legislative proposals that it considered urgent.
Taken together the shortcomings amounted to maladministration, says the official.
The findings are based on three separate complaint-based inquiries that examined the extent to which the Commission applied the standard policy-making rules and procedures when preparing legislative drafts concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (Omnibus I), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and countering migrant smuggling.
In a report, the ombudswoman said, “When preparing these legislative proposals, the Commission did not carry out certain parts of its own Better Regulation rules which are meant to ensure law-making is evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive.”
“The Commission must be able to respond urgently to different situations, particularly in the current geopolitical context. However, it needs to ensure that accountability and transparency continue to be part of its legislative processes and that its actions are clearly explained to citizens,” said Ms Anjinho.
“In future, a better balance needs to be struck between having an agile administration and guaranteeing minimum procedural standards for law-making. Certain principles of good law-making cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency.”
“The Commission should improve its Better Regulation rules so that preparation of urgent legislation remains transparent and evidence-based,” said the Ombudswoman.
The procedural shortcomings identified by the Ombudswoman’s inquiries included failing to fully justify the urgency of the legislative proposals to the public and to document its reasoning for deviating from its internal rules on law making, known as Better Regulation rules.
There were also problems specific to each of the three legislative processes including:
– reducing the consultation time between Commission departments to less than 24 hours over a weekend (Omnibus I)
– publishing a document with evidence to support the legislative proposal late (migrant smuggling legislation) and after the legislation had already been approved (CAP)
– No clear internal records of a climate consistency assessment being carried out (CAP and Omnibus I)
In her two recommendations to the Commission, the Ombudswoman asked it to ensure a “predictable, consistent and non-arbitrary application of the Better Regulation rules and that future urgent preparation of legislative proposals is always transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive.”
The Ombudswoman also made a number of suggestions in light of the upcoming revision of the Better Regulation rules.
These include clarifying that climate assessments should be carried out for all legislative proposals and clarifying minimum standards for stakeholder consultations in urgent procedures.
The Better Regulation Guidelines set out the rules that the European Commission follows when preparing new initiatives and proposals and when managing and evaluating existing legislation.
While the Commission has said that the Better Regulation rules are not legally binding, the Ombudsman has consistently found that EU institutions should apply the rules they have established for themselves.All three inquiries and legislative proposals were opened following complaints by civil society organisations.
