The European Ombudsman opened an investigation in October 2024 into the Commission's proposal to weaken the protection status of wolves following a complaint from an NGO that the proposal was not based on sufficient scientific evidence and proper stakeholder consultation. A year later it closed the inquiry at the request of the European Commission.
By then, the European Parliament had already voted in an emergency procedure on the Commission’s proposal and decided on an amendment to the Habitats Directive which downgraded the protection of wolves from ‘strictly protected' to ‘protected'. The amendment entered into force on 14 July 2025.
But the legal process is not yet exhausted. In December 2024 five other NGOs, after their complaint to the Ombudsman had been rejected as inadmissible, appealed to the European Court of Justice to annul the Council decision based on the Commission’s proposal because “the fundamental principles of transparency and objectivity required under EU law were not observed”.
Normally, that would require the Ombudsman to close its investigation or inquiry because the same or similar issue had fallen under the review of the court (see Ombudsman Statute, art 2(9): ‘legal proceedings in progress or concluded concerning the facts which have been put forward’). This did also happen but only after the Commission has missed three deadlines for replying to the Ombudsman.
Only in a reply to the Ombudsman on 28 June 2025 did the Commission mention two paragraphs (191 and 195) of the application to the court where the applicants specifically referred to the European Ombudsman’ open inquiry.
Even according to the Commission, the overlap between the complaint and the now on-going court case was not clear. The subject matter is not identical. The complaint alleged maladministration by the Commission. The court case was lodged by other NGOs and challenged the legality of the Council decision.
Redacted documents
Access to public information is key to holding government accountable. Sweden recognized freedom of the press and the right to access to public documents already in the 18th century. Requests for access to documents held by the EU institutions and agencies continue to be a major topic of the Ombudsman’s inquiries, according to its annual reports.
In 2024, 42 % of the over 400 inquiries that were closed that year concerned transparency and accountability. According to the Transparency Officer at the Ombudsman office, they broadly refer to complaints concerning refusal of public access by the EU institutions. In recent years, the Ombudsman has also received on average around 30 requests per year including access to its own files.
In October, The Brussels Times submitted a request to access to the complaint file in the wolve case after it had been closed. The complaint, submitted by the NGO Client Earth, claimed that the Commission’s proposal on downgrading the protection status of wolves was not based on sufficient scientific evidence and proper stakeholder consultation.
The Ombudsman identified 32 documents as falling within the scope of our request and provided a list of all documents. However, it only provided full access to three documents. As for the remaining documents, it provided partial access. These documents were redacted with a view to protecting the personal data of the data subjects concerned as well as the Ombudsman's decision-making process.
While an inquiry was opened, the Ombudsman did not reach a conclusion on the substance of the case as the inquiry was closed on the above-mentioned procedural grounds. “Therefore, disclosing preliminary internal views on the matter without having carried out a full inquiry could compromise the principle of loyal cooperation between institutions,” according to the Ombudsman.
Furthermore, disclosing such preliminary views might prejudice the Commission’s rights of defence and the ‘principle of equality of arms’.
This principle requires that parties in a legal proceeding have a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case on an equal procedural footing. The Ombudsman fears that disclosing preliminary views, internal views and replies that were provided on the basis of confidentiality could compromise the willingness of the Commission and other EU bodies to share relevant information.
Photo: Magnus Lundgren/Swedensbigfive.org
Missed deadlines
The Ombudsman opened the inquiry on 28 October 2024. The initial deadline for replying was set to 24 January 2025 but was not complied with by the Commission. According to the rules, the Commission can ask for a deferment of the deadline which the Ombudsman accepted.
Nor the second deadline on 28 February was complied with. A third deadline was set to 28 March and again the same story. The Ombudsman was obliged to remind the Commission about providing the reply. Only on 24 April could the Ombudsman confirm that it had received the reply which had been due to 28 March.
According to the Ombudsman’s redacted summary of the case, the Commission did not mention the court case in its reply. The reply addressed both aspects of the inquiry - the targeted data collection in September 2023 and the ‘in-depth analysis’ which was published in December 2023.
The ombudsman intended according to a mail on 6 May to publish the Commission reply at its website. Until then, the Commission had not informed the Ombudsman about the court case. While the Ombudsman says that it was aware of the court case in January, it asked the Commission if there was an overlap in beginning of May.
The Ombudsman asked to receive the writs lodged before the court to assess whether there was an overlap. The issue was discussed at a meeting on 26 May 2025 requested by the Commission. At the meeting, the Ombudsman received a copy of the application to the court to assess the overlap. The Commission’s lawyers requested confidential handling of the reply and that the case should be closed.
Unanswered questions
The Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, wrote to Commission President von der Leyen on 1 September to inform her that the case had been closed and to thank the Commission’s staff for their ‘good cooperation’ in the case. The Commission did not reply in time to a request for comment on how it had handled the case.
The Ombudsman’s questions to the Commission
|
As regards the first question, the Commission explained, judging by the redacted documents in the Ombudsman’s file, that the data collection was not a standard, 12-week long, on-line public consultation and that the targeted nature of the exercise justified the chosen period for reply. The documents do not disclose if the Ombudsman questioned this explanation.
The Commission also stated that it had received more than 19,000 submissions, the vast majority of which (98%) provided an opinion on the protection status of wolf. Only less than 2% actually provided the requested data on wolf populations and damage to livestock. As regards the scientific evidence, the Commission referred to its in-depth analysis.
The Commission claimed that the analysis provided the latest available data per Member State and per livestock, showing that “predation has increased, affecting more and more regions.” The Ombudsman noted that the analysis was detailed (109 pages) and referred to many reports and sources from Member States.
In fact, as reported by The Brussels Times, member states were divided on the proposal when discussing it during the Belgian EU Presidency during the first half-year of 2024. Some member states opposed the proposal or indicated doubts. Concerns were raised about the scientific data and lack of evidence pointing to a favorable conservation status in the EU.
Update: The article has been corrected about the timing when the Ombudsman office became aware of the court case.
The Commission commented that its working relations with the Ombudsman are constructive and effective, with the common aim to promote good administrative practices. “The Commission always attaches great importance to transparency and will continue to do so.”
