Originally published on the website of ClientEarth
Commission admits transparency failures but refuses to fix flawed lawmaking exposed by Ombudswoman
ClientEarth lawyers say the European Commission has been forced to a partial climbdown after the EU Ombudswoman found it broke democratic rules — but warn its response fails to address the root causes of unlawful fast-tracked lawmaking.
In its official reply to the Ombudswoman’s maladministration findings, which follow two complaints by ClientEarth and other organisations, the Commission committed to improving how it records and explains decisions to fast-track legislation while pledging to better justify the evidence on which it bases its legislative proposals.
Lawyers considered these improvements are all the more needed at a time where the Commission increasingly relies on urgency to water down essential environmental protections under the pretext of ‘simplification’.
However, they deeply regret that the Commission refused to acknowledge that its current practice of bypassing impact assessments, limiting consultations, and inadequately assessing climate impacts is fundamentally flawed. These are safeguards to protect democratic rights, ensure high-quality lawmaking, and to keep the EU on track to meet its legally binding objective of climate neutrality by 2050.
ClientEarth lead lawyer Sebastian Bechtel said:
“The Commission’s reply concedes modest improvements but refuses to fix the underlying problem. Improving paperwork won’t ensure that our laws are made in accordance with basic democratic principles, and based on facts and science rather than political whim. Impact assessments, public consultations, and proper climate checks are legal safeguards designed to ensure EU laws are credible, evidence-based, and respect people’s rights.”
Lawyers have identified several shortcomings in the Commission’s response. In particular, it contains no guarantee that stakeholder consultations will meet the required inclusivity, openness and transparency. Nor does it ensure meaningful change in the way the Commission carries out its climate consistency assessments. Overall, the Commission stopped short of committing to reserve derogations from essential procedural safeguards for truly exceptional cases.
Bechtel added:
“Political pressure does not justify bypassing democratic safeguards. In a time of geopolitical tensions and growing pressure on Europe, democratic decision-making is not a weakness — it is our greatest strength. It is what makes European laws credible, protects citizens from arbitrary decisions, and ensures the transition to a sustainable economy is fair and durable.”
As the Commission is currently revising its Better Regulation Guidelines, lawyers urge the institution to implement their recommendations and fully restore lawful, transparent and inclusive lawmaking processes.
Notes to editors
About the Ombudswoman’s findings
In a landmark finding on 27 November 2025, following complaints by ClientEarth and partner organisations (Birdlife, Anti-Slavery International, Clean Clothes Campaign, European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Friends of the Earth Europe, Global Witness, Notre Affaire à Tous, Transport an Environment), the EU Ombudswoman concluded that the Commission committed maladministration when it proposed to weaken key sustainability rules under the pretext of urgency.
Her investigation, which covered the Omnibus I corporate sustainability package amending the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as well as the simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), found that the Commission unjustifiably bypassed essential procedural safeguards required by the Better Regulation Guidelines, the 2021 European Climate Law, and the EU Treaties. These including impact assessments and public consultations, while failing to ensure sufficient transparency or properly justify the use of urgency. She issued recommendations to prevent such failures from recurring in future legislative proposals.
The EU Commission’s response to the Ombudswoman’s findings is available here.
About the EU Commission Better Regulation guidelines
The Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines normally requires impact assessments, public consultations, and evidence-based analysis before adopting legislative proposals. These requirements are designed to ensure EU laws are transparent, accountable, and grounded in scientific and economic evidence.
As the Commission is planning to revise these guidelines, ClientEarth recently responded to the EU Commission call for evidence.
