The European Commission should not skip public consultations, impact assessments, or other steps of good regulation by simply citing the vague ‘urgency’ of a legislative proposal, the European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho found in an inquiry on Thursday (27 November).
“In future, a better balance requireds to be struck between having an agile administration and guaranteeing minimum procedural standards for law-creating. Certain principles of good law-creating cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency,” Anjinho warned.
Her inquiry covered the policy-creating behind the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (Omnibus I), amconcludements to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and two proposals on countering migrant smuggling.
For the omnibus I, the commission presented its proposal in February, without carrying out an impact assessment.
Back then, the commission declared “the issue of competitiveness [was] of critical urgency as it directly influences the European Union’s ability to achieve sustainable economic growth and maintain its position in the global market”.
But even legal scholars have warned the commission that the proposal is likely to face legal challenges once adopted.
In March 2024, the commission proposed amconcludements to the CAP, lowering environmental obligations, in response to the widespread farmers’ protests rocking Europe.
It did not carry out an impact assessment due to the ‘political urgency’.
Likewise, two legislative proposals on migrant-smuggling prevention were presented without an impact assessment in November 2023. The proposal’s explanatory memorandum states no impact assessment was done, citing the urgent required to boost Europol’s support against migrant smuggling.
Commission pleads urgency
The commission has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that ‘better regulation’ rules just list standards for policy-creating without setting any binding legal rules. It also argues that exemptions from specific requirements apply, for instance, in urgent cases.
But Anjinho argued that case law displays that once the commission announces and proposes rules, it is bound by them.
She also criticised the commission for taking “a broad interpretation” of what counts as ‘urgent’, without properly explaining the urgency of the proposals to the public.
The Omnibus I and CAP amconcludements raise even deeper concerns. “By not keeping proper records of mandatory consistency checks of its proposals with the EU’s climate goals, the commission failed to act in an accountable manner,” the ombudswoman declared.
To avoid similar future scenarios, the ombudswoman called on the commission to clearly define what ‘urgent’ situations mean.
And even in such an emergency, Anjinho urges the Brussels-executive to ensure “transparent, evidence-based and inclusive law-creating process” — by clarifying stakeholder consultation rules in this situation and ensuring that the evidence supporting its proposals is published promptly.
Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.
If you’re not already, become a supporting member today.
Leave a Reply