Deregulation plans break EU law, legal scholars warn
, Amsterdam
, 10 November 2025 12:18
More than 100 European legal experts have warned that EU plans to cut green and social reporting rules through a so-called ‘Omnibus simplification package’ breached EU law and were likely to face legal challenges once adopted.
In a letter sent to the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee (JURI) on Monday (10 November), the group said the proposal (due for a vote in parliament on Thursday) “fails to meet the constitutional standards the EU’s own legal order demands.”
They urged the committee to seek additional legal opinion and delay the vote. Agreement on the current text “could set a dangerous legal precedent,” they warned.
At the start of the year, von der Leyen pledged to slash EU regulations by 25 percent to ease the “regulatory burden.”
Its first test, the Omnibus I, pares back the EU’s new sustainability and due diligence laws, which require companies to report on their environmental footprint and prevent human rights and environmental abuses in their supply chains.
Among other changes, the Omnibus would delay reporting deadlines, raise company size thresholds, and limit due diligence to direct suppliers only, cutting most of the supply chain from scrutiny.
According to the signatories, the commission is using the omnibus process as a “procedural shortcut” to push through deregulatory changes, without proper consultation or impact assessments.
Conflicts with core principles
“The Omnibus conflicts with EU core constitutional principles,” said co-signatory Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU law at HEC Paris, on social media.
Alemanno, who published a detailed legal analysis of the Omnibus I directive on Sunday, argued that it breached EU law in at least two ways: by failing to prove the measures are proportionate and necessary, and by rolling back existing human rights and environmental protections without proper justification.
This, he argued, was in conflict with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality set out in the treaties. His conclusions echoed an earlier analysis from Swedish law firm Cirio.
A legal working paper commissioned by the European Central Bank published earlier this month also warned about the litigation risks.
Alemanno’s legal opinion said the commission hasn’t shown that the proposed changes were suitable, necessary, or that their benefits outweigh the harm to protected rights. No impact assessment was carried out, and no alternative options were compared.
One of the most controversial changes would limit due diligence duties to companies’ direct suppliers, effectively cutting out most of the supply chain.
Critics say that will gut the CSDDD and remove protection for workers in high-risk sectors like mining, textiles, and agriculture.
The EU Court of Justice only permits removing such rights if it’s justified and based on proper evidence. Because there was no impact assessment or analysis of alternatives, the letter writers argue that justification can’t be demonstrated.
A June study by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) think-tank in Brussels, commissioned by the parliament’s legal committee, also found a “legion” of faults in the Omnibus process .
“The process has been so flawed that it’s hard to even assess the substance properly,” professor Scott Marcus and lead author of the CEPS study said in a May committee hearing.
That same month, a group of nearly 100 economists warned that the EU rollback plans risked undermining both human rights and Europe’s clean industrial future.
But pressured by EU member states (and US diplomats) to weaken the law, the commission so far hasn’t heeded the warnings.
“It’s cynical and disappointing,” Dutch socialist MEP Lara Wolters told a group of business people in Amsterdam in June, warning that a US-style green “culture war” was being waged in Brussels.
Tweaks, not total rewrites
Traditionally, the omnibus process was used for minor technical updates to old laws.
The current commission, however, is using it to rewrite substantial parts of recently agreed ones. “This marks a qualitative and quantitative departure from historical patterns,” said Alemanno.
Sustainability reporting only came into force in 2023, while the due diligence law was due to start in 2027.
The directive that aims to water them down will be voted on in parliament on Thursday. If a majority is found, negotiations with member states are expected to start.
If the directive passes close to its current watered-down form, the legal experts warn it faces a “high risk of annulment” before the EU’s top court.