Reply to the call for evidence on Better Regulation Ares(2026)120046

The document argues that the European Commission is increasingly abandoning impact assessments (IAs) and public consultations under the guise of 'political urgency', which ClientEarth claims increases legal risks and the likelihood of unintended environmental and social consequences. It recommends strictly limiting IA exemptions, increasing transparency by publishing assessments earlier in the legislative process, and ensuring balanced stakeholder representation to prevent corporate capture. Additionally, it criticizes the use of 'Omnibus' proposals for simplification, suggesting instead that the Commission focus on removing truly duplicative requirements and tying EU funding to law compliance.

• The European Commission has established a pattern of abandoning impact assessments by citing 'political urgency', a practice the European Ombudsman found to be insufficiently justified in cases involving the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), migrant smuggling, and Omnibus I (CSRD and CSDDD).
• Reducing the use of impact assessments creates significant legal risks, potentially leading the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to annul legislation if the legislator cannot demonstrate that all relevant factors were considered.
• The Commission is accused of replacing broad public consultations with 'targeted' formats like 'reality checks' and 'implementation dialogues', which ClientEarth claims lack transparency and disproportionately favor large corporate lobbyists over civil society and SMEs.
• The European Climate Law requires a climate consistency assessment for all draft measures to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement, yet the European Ombudsman found no record of such assessments being carried out or published for certain proposals.
• ClientEarth argues that the current 'Omnibus' approach to simplification creates legal uncertainty and may dilute protections for human health and nature, recommending instead a focus on the 'once-only' principle for data reporting.

APA

ClientEarth (2026). Reply to the call for evidence on Better Regulation Ares(2026)120046. https://www.clientearth.org/media/3qqldbsz/better-regulation-call-for-evidence_clientearth-reply_040226.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Reply to the call for evidence on Better Regulation Ares(2026)120046. 2026. https://www.clientearth.org/media/3qqldbsz/better-regulation-call-for-evidence_clientearth-reply_040226.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=Reply to the call for evidence on Better Regulation Ares(2026)120046 |date=4 February 2026 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/3qqldbsz/better-regulation-call-for-evidence_clientearth-reply_040226.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2026reply, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Reply to the call for evidence on Better Regulation Ares(2026)120046}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/3qqldbsz/better-regulation-call-for-evidence_clientearth-reply_040226.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }