EU Ombudsman Grills Commission On Omnibus Procedures

In what is a major development emerging at the center of the furores over transparency and accountability in the legislative process of the EU, EU Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho has officially called on the European Commission to come clean over its procedural aberration in its implementation of the contentious "Omnibus" proposal. The proposal that was intended to roll back some company-friendly sustainability regulations for businesses operating within the EU has been under fire since its implementation in February 2025.

The Ombudsman letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen comes in on an on-going investigation launched in May 2025. The inquiry came about following a number of complaints that the Commission circumvented its own "Better Regulation Guidelines" — a set of rules governing EU policy-making aimed at making it more transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive. Consistent with such practices, any significant legislative proposal is supposed to go through exhaustive procedures like public consultations, impact assessments, and internal scrutiny, all of which seem to have been bypassed or waived completely in the Omnibus package.

The Omnibus proposal is a broad attempt at relaxing corporate sustainability reporting norms, which fundamentally transforms fundamental EU environmental and human rights policies. The package contains anticipated revisions to major laws like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Taxonomy Regulation, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Among the most significant proposals is the revision to remove the majority of companies from the scope of the CSRD and limit the extent of information those left behind must provide. It also recommends that firms only carry out extensive due diligence on human rights and environmental issues with direct business partners, excluding wider supply chain obligations and limiting such audits to a lesser degree. Small firms would be spared excessive sustainability information demands.

Among the Ombudsman's key concerns is the Commission's choice to steer clear of an extensive impact assessment. Instead, the Commission published a short analytical report to the public. Ombudsman Anjinho strongly criticized this step in his letter, saying that a comprehensive impact assessment is standard procedure for proposals of this scale. The Commission had justified its step in the context of the "critical urgency" of the reforms, but the reason given by the Commission was not accepted by the Ombudsman. The Commission has not appeared to sufficiently justify derogating from its rules here," Anjinho argued, noting that there was no "sudden or unexpected event" that would warrant such urgency.

The Ombudsman also cited a failure to consult the public as particularly nasty. There were only two stakeholder meetings in February 2025, weeks short of the release of the Omnibus proposal — and both of those were controlled by business and industry representatives. The Ombudsman challenged the Commission's contention that wider public input would have been of no value. It is not known why the stakeholder interactions included in the explanatory memorandum implied that a public consultation would have not produced new information," the letter stated, noting some of the affected stakeholders were not consulted.

Adding to the Ombudsman's concern was the Commission's refusal to undertake a climate consistency check. According to the European Climate Law, the EU policies are to be subjected to testing for compliance with the ambition of the block becoming climate-neutral by 2050. The Commission had argued that there was no need, as the Omnibus amendments would not adversely affect the European Green Deal. This argument, however, was not premised upon any formal evidence or analysis contained in the formal documents, as rightly pointed out by the Ombudsman. The lack of any such scrutiny raises the question of whether the proposal is compatible with the EU's wider environmental objectives.

The letter further made a criticism about how internal consultations on the proposal were conducted. Such inter-departmental examination in the normal course takes at least ten days' time, with scope for rapid passage in exceptional circumstances — normally to 48 hours. But the Commission gave only a 24-hour period for review, and fixed it for a Friday evening, so the consultation ran until a Saturday evening. The Ombudsman has requested a full explanation why an exceptionally short and poorly timed consultation period was selected.

Ombudsman Anjinho has obviously put the Commission under a deadline to reply — September 15 — and stated that an extension is not going to be granted. "In light of the seriousness of this request, and in consideration of the fact that the Commission is drafting further 'Omnibus' proposals, I am not going to grant any extension of this deadline," states the letter.

The increased scrutiny that has enveloped the Omnibus package is a reflection of tensions between simplification of regulation and ensuring the quality of environment and social governance standards across the EU. With the Commission set to table further proposals under the umbrella of Omnibus, the verdict on the Ombudsman investigation has seismic implications for the regulation of corporate sustainability across the bloc in the future.