An investigation by the European Ombudsman has concluded that the Commission breached established transparency procedures during the development of anti-migrant smuggling measures, specifically the Facilitation Directive and Europol Regulation. The inquiry found insufficient justification for the invocation of urgency, which the Commission used to circumvent its own Better Regulation framework and avoid conducting public consultations, comprehensive impact assessments, and systematic evidence collection.
European Commission slammed for breaching transparency laws
The Ombudsperson's findings show that the Commission disregarded core transparency obligations under the Better Regulation guidelines when preparing the two pieces of legislation aimed at countering migrant smuggling. The complaint that triggered the investigation came from European Digital Rights (EDRi) and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), acting on behalf of the Protect Not Surveil coalition, an organization dedicated to opposing digital surveillance practices in migration policy.
According to the Ombudsman's determination, the Commission relied on an excessively broad and inadequately substantiated assertion of urgency to sidestep Better Regulation requirements, which include public consultations and evidence gathering. The Ombudsman concluded that these procedural failures constitute maladministration.
Failure to conduct impact assessment overlooks human rights risks
As the coalition representatives noted in their complaint, the Commission neglected to perform a thorough impact assessment of the two proposed measures, despite having a clear obligation to do so. This oversight is particularly significant given that a research study commissioned by the Commission itself had explicitly recommended conducting such an assessment for the Facilitation Directive. The Commission only released this study publicly several months after unveiling the proposed Directive, and only in response to an information access request filed by PICUM.
The Commission's decision to forgo an impact assessment has serious consequences: it has allowed significant human rights concerns associated with both instruments to go unexamined and unaddressed.
Source: EDRi (European Digital Rights)
