The EU’s watchdog is ready for the fight over fairness in the EU’s future farming policy just as NGOs launch another round of legal scrutiny over the Commission’s conduct in the handling of the next Common Agricultural Policy.
“I will not hesitate in the exercise of my mandate,” EU Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho told journalists on Wednesday (18 March), promising to “continue to uphold, without compromise, the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity”.
The European Ombudsman is an independent and impartial body that investigates complaints about maladministration within the institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies of the EU.
And the Ombudsman’s office is no stranger to CAP controversy, having already delivered its verdict on the speedy changes to the CAP pushed through at breakneck speed in 2024.
At the end of last year, it delivered its conclusions on the rushed overhaul of the policy in 2024, flagging “a number of procedural shortcomings”. Taken together, those missteps “amounted to maladministration”.
It took umbrage in particular with the Commission’s sweeping definition of “urgency”, sidestepping its own internal checks in the process. For the Ombudsman, that shortcut came at a cost — not least when it comes to public trust.
“When institutions are under pressure, there can be temptation to move faster and communicate less. But when citizens feel uncertain or excluded, the demand for transparency and accountability only grows stronger,” noted Anjinho.
Not her first rodeo … or her last, probably
Her comments come on the back of a sharp rise in complaints to the EU Ombudsman, which surged by nearly a fifth from 2024 to 2025.
They also fell on the same day that NGOs filed a fresh complaint with the Ombudsman, this time over how the Commission is preparing its post-2027 CAP and the broader National and Regional Partnership framework for 2028–2034.
The complaint, lodged by green NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), warns of maladministration, focusing on what the EEB describes as systemic failures to follow the Commission’s own guidelines for fair policymaking, the so-called ‘better regulation’ guidelines.
In particular, the NGO highlights three key omissions: the absence of a proper impact assessment, the failure to carry out a climate consistency check as required under Article 6(4) of the EU Climate Law, and the lack of a dedicated public consultation on the CAP proposals.
According to the EEB, these procedural gaps undermine both the credibility and legality of the reform process.
Democracy, but make it participatory
For Anjinho, the curtailing of vital steps such as impact assessments and public consultations could mean the “validity of the participatory dimension that is at stake.”
It goes further than procedural nitpicking, cutting to the core of how EU democracy is supposed to function.
“Democracy does not reside in institutions alone,” but in “dialogue grounded in reason with the aim to reach mutual understanding,” she said, pointing to the need for real dialogue with citizens and civil society.
Strip away those participatory steps, and something more fundamental is at risk.
As such, these fears are “absolutely valid,” said Anjinho. “If you have institutions going one way and the citizens the other, [there could be] a huge lack of trust,” she warned.
And that trust gap, she suggested, isn’t confined to Brussels insiders. “Anxiety is not only coming from NGOs, but from citizens,” she noted.
The proof is in the policymaking
Stressing the need for exceptions not to “become normalised”, she maintained that the Commission’s response to her CAP conclusions from November was “constructive”, noting a commitment to “guaranteeing minimums of transparent and inclusive and evidence-based decision-making”.
As such, she remains hopeful the recommendations will be taken into account, but watchful. “The key will be whether future legislative proposals of the Commission are sufficiently inclusive, transparent and evidence-based,” she said.
For Anjinho, meaningful change is “incremental”. “Change in institutions does not come easy,” she said, vowing to keep a watchful eye on proceedings. “If there’s no change, then I’ll go back again,” she said.
“If there are the same issues and the same problems, it will lead to the same conclusions,” she said, adding that, if it is necessary, she “will make the same call” in response to this complaint.
The fact that she recently dealt with a similar case may well speed things along for the next complaint, she said, adding that the case will be prioritised as needed given the timeline of the next reform, which will likely be sealed within the next two years.
Have some thoughts to share on this topic? We’d love to hear from you on LinkedIn or Bluesky!
More
EU’s Simplification Saga Set to Continue Despite Legal Warnings
The Year of the CAP & Big Budget Overhaul – Key EU Policy Moments to Watch in 2026
What hope on the horizon? From Farm to Fork to a grand bargain in 2026
Brussels News Roundup – Ombudsman Launches Inquiry into CAP Fast-Track
Visit from India: Natural Farming, A Women’s Agricultural Revolution of Diversity
Menu of Food Voices – Transforming the Food System from the Bottom Up
Mercosur will make European farmers more vulnerable to international capital & commodities flows
Why Mercosur hits a nerve in rural Poland – for farmers and the environment
