The content of the first ‘omnibus’ text, designed to simplify a number of pieces of legislation, sparks debate in the European Parliament. As the European Commission officially presents its work programme for 2025 to MEPs on Wednesday 12 February in Strasbourg, consultations are getting under way between the political groups on the future implications.
The first draft texts are expected to start circulating within the various departments of the European Commission at the end of the week, at which point a large number of decisions will have to be taken. The Commission hopes to present its first ‘omnibus’ on 26 February, at the same time as the ‘Clean Industrial Deal’.
In a provisional version of its work programme, the Commission indicates that the first part will focus on the texts on due diligence, CSRD and the European taxonomy (see EUROPE 13573/17), but discussions are underway to also include the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) (see EUROPE 13576/10).
It remains to be seen what the scope and “degree” of simplification envisaged in the ‘omnibus’ will be, with some groups fearing that the very essence of the texts will be altered.
Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French), coordinator of the Committee on Environment , warns of “a battle of interpretations” that is likely to be played out on 26 February and which could “make things more complex to read”.
This ‘omnibus’ represents a genuine “first legislative test of the existence of a ‘von der Leyen’ majority in Parliament”, he said.
According to the French MEP, it would therefore be appropriate for there to be “a form of political pre-agreement in VDL majority format” in the next few days. He explains that this would give the possibility of opening up texts, but in a controlled way, otherwise “you can have anything whatsoever on all texts”, even “amendments to delete the entire text, as in the case of the law on the protection of nature”.
Such an agreement appears difficult given the complexity of the subject and the strong political interest. Christian Elher (EPP, German) has little faith in this. “There are discussions between the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe, but it could be complicated to have a centrist majority and a pre-agreement on a Commission initiative of which we do not have all the details”, he said at a briefing.
Pascal Canfin also acknowledges that this discussion process promises to be difficult.
The start of the political battle. While the details are likely to divide Parliament, the principle of simplifying the rules appeals to most of the political groups, who are making their demands day after day.
The EPP welcomes the possible inclusion of CBAM in the ‘omnibus’. In particular, the group is pushing for a two-year postponement of the mechanism - which is due to come fully into force in 2026.
On Monday 10 February, the EPP’s spokesman on the environment and climate, Peter Liese (German), explained that it was “not appropriate to burden SMEs that import a package of screws from outside Europe with detailed declaration obligations”.
He also welcomed the desire to simplify the REACH programme by reducing the requirements for industry (see EUROPE 13576/22).
More generally, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group has called on the Commission, in a communication, to go further and stop “imposing excessive regulation and ideological ‘Green Deal’ policies that are damaging competitiveness and jobs”.
Conversely, the European Socialists are questioning “the promise” made by the Commission, particularly during the hearings of European Commissioners, to “simplify without deregulating”.
According to Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D, French), the solution to “simplify, while increasing ambition and without deregulating” could be inspired by the ‘governance’ Regulation put in place for the 2015-2018 period, which has made it possible to summarise and merge several energy and climate initiatives within a single Regulation, “which has simplified life for Member States (...) and given rise to national energy and climate plans”.
The Greens/EFA and The Left also fear that reopening legal texts will create “unpredictability” by calling into question institutional stability and legal certainty for businesses, and will set back achievements on climate and human rights. (Original version in French by Pauline Denys and Léa Marchal)