EU Watchdog Warns Commission on Rushed Omnibus Process

Key Takeaways

• Finding of Maladministration: The European Ombudswoman concluded that the Commission’s handling of three “urgent” legislative proposals amounted to maladministration due to procedural shortcomings.
• Weekend Omnibus Consultation: A key internal consultation on Omnibus I ran for less than 24 hours over a weekend, well below the usual 10-day period and even the 48-hour fast-track minimum.
• Missing Climate Checks: Climate consistency assessments required under the European Climate Law were not clearly documented for the Omnibus and CAP proposals, undermining accountability on climate impacts.
• Narrow Stakeholder Input: Consultations on the Omnibus and CAP files focused on a limited set of stakeholders, with business and farming groups prioritized while broader civil society and environmental voices were sidelined.
• Better Regulation Overhaul: The findings will feed into the Commission’s 2026 Better Regulation review, and the Commission must submit a detailed response to the Ombudswoman’s recommendations by 25 February 2026.

Deep Dive

Europe’s top administrative watchdog has issued a reminder to the European Commission that urgency is no justification for abandoning its own standards.

In a recent decision, European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho concluded that the Commission strayed from its Better Regulation framework while rushing forward proposals on sustainability due diligence, migrant smuggling, and agricultural policy. Those rules exist to safeguard transparency, evidence, and public participation in EU lawmaking, even when timelines tighten.

“Certain principles of good law-making cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency,” Anjinho warned, noting that multiple procedural shortcuts, taken together, amounted to maladministration.

The Omnibus Case and a Weekend Sprint

The headline findings focused on the Omnibus I package, where the Commission moved to amend the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive before it fully took effect. Officials said Europe’s competitive position and regulatory burden left no time for a standard impact assessment.

But inside the Berlaymont, urgency became extreme when a key inter-service consultation, the moment when different departments challenge and refine a draft, was squeezed into less than 24 hours, spanning a Friday night to Saturday evening.

Even the Commission’s fast-track rules set a 48-hour minimum. Here, no written reasoning was recorded.

This proposal also lacked a clear audit trail for its mandatory climate consistency check, a requirement under the European Climate Law to ensure new EU rules align with the bloc’s 2050 net-zero target.

Migration Pressures and CAP Politics

Similar shortcuts emerged in two other politically charged files:

• A pair of migrant smuggling proposals in late 2023 arrived without any impact assessments, justified as urgent responses to operational pressures at Europe’s borders.
• A CAP reform in spring 2024, drafted after major farmer protests, became law in under two months, again without a full assessment.

To fill the gap, officials prepared abbreviated “analytical documents.” But in the CAP case, that document surfaced more than nine months after the proposal, seven months after the legislation had already been passed.

As Anjinho noted, transparency that arrives after public debate is no transparency at all.

Narrow Consultations on Broad Consequences

Consultation, another pillar of Better Regulation, also thinned out as the calendar compressed.

For the Omnibus file, the Commission cited a mix of prior feedback on reporting simplification and select workshops. Yet those events were dominated by business interests, not the civil society groups that had raised concerns about watering down climate and human-rights safeguards.

For the CAP reform, only four major farming organizations were consulted, even though loosening environmental standards has direct climate implications. To critics, it showed urgency becoming selective inclusivity.

The Commission’s Defense and the Ombudswoman’s Rebuttal

The Commission insisted that Better Regulation guidelines are tools, not legal constraints, and that flexibility is expected when political developments demand rapid intervention. It also argued that the evidence it did collect was sufficient and that urgency was real in all three cases.

Anjinho didn’t dispute the pressures. What she disputed was the lack of clear justification and documentation, making it difficult for citizens, Parliament, or the courts to evaluate whether urgency was truly warranted. If the rules can be set aside without record, she said, predictability and accountability evaporate.

The Ombudswoman has urged the Commission to clarify what qualifies as “urgent,” properly record and explain all deviations from Better Regulation procedures, and ensure that even fast-tracked files include timely analytical evidence and documented climate checks.

Her recommendations are expected to shape the Commission’s 2026 overhaul of the Better Regulation framework. Brussels must submit its detailed response by 25 February 2026.

The stakes extend beyond paperwork. The EU’s claim to evidence-based policymaking, and public trust in its democratic machinery, depends on proving that speed does not override scrutiny. In Anjinho’s words, fast-moving Europe still needs to show its work.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.