When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made simplification and speed her “first priority” at a press event in Budapest in November 2024, few anticipated how that would ricochet across the EU institutions.
Now firmly embedded in the Commission’s to-do list, the programme to clean up the body of EU law through a series of cross-cutting omnibus proposals is causing growing tension internally, and shifting Brussels’ balance of power.
Von der Leyen has been no slouch. On 8 July, the European Commission unveiled its sixth omnibus simplification, reopening EU chemicals legislation.
This follows earlier simplification packages revisiting corporate sustainability laws on reporting and due diligence (the CSRD and CS3D), the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and rulebooks for defence, agriculture and small businesses. More are in the pipeline, covering energy, environment and agriculture once again.
“The omnibus machine is starting to get clogged,” one EU official said, as the process encounters growing resistance and shakes up institutional dynamics.
Simplification or centralisation?
For some, the programme is the European equivalent of DOGE — the controversial US cost-cutting measures spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk.
“Has Donald Trump become your role model?”, Manon Aubry, co-president of the radical left group in the European Parliament, asked the Commission at a debate in March. “Clearly, his great deregulation wind has blown all the way across the Atlantic.”
Others make less contemporary comparisons.
“Ursula von der Leyen is unravelling at night what was woven during the day,” lamented S&D MEP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, citing the fruitless labours of Penelope unpicking her loom in The Odyssey.
Within the Commission, frustration largely stems from the lack of prior consultation. “It wasn’t part of our work plan at all — the omnibus came from the top, out of the blue — and now we have to deal with it on top of everything else,” said one Commission source. EU Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho is also interested in why the Commission appears to be skipping routine checks for its omnibus plan, and has asked the executive for answers by September.
For many officials, this is yet another sign of how centralised the institution has become under von der Leyen’s second mandate. The political priority is now enshrined in every Commissioner’s mission letter, and a dedicated Commissioner for Simplification, Valdis Dombrovskis, reports directly to the President.
Aligning with her agenda offers an easy way for Commission members to score points with von der Leyen, and raise their profile.
“Every Commissioner wants their own omnibus to sell to the media,” said another official.
This structure makes life easier for the EU executive’s coordination arm, the Secretariat-General. “It’s very different from the last mandate,” said one official. “It’s no longer just the President asking the DG from afar, with them able to say they have other priorities. Now we have DGs whose Commissioners are saying: ‘I want simplification.’”
The rank-and-file are sometimes less keen to be associated. Some Commission heads of unit have reportedly been apologising to stakeholders, emphasising that the constant backtracking “isn’t their fault”, but instead comes from above.
This top-down approach has created a climate of uncertainty. Staff at the Directorate-General for Energy (DG ENER) have been left guessing which aspects of their work might be affected by an energy omnibus, announced by Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen in an interview with Contexte in May.
A similar mood prevails at the Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV), bracing for its own omnibus in the autumn — for which some details were revealed in a 22 July consultation.
“The mood in some parts of the Commission is really grim,” said one seasoned observer. A Commission insider added: “Colleagues are complaining about having to undo their previous work.”
Disruption
Most of the institutional representatives Contexte spoke to did not dispute the need for simplification, but criticised how it is being managed.
Among co-legislators, there’s fatigue, frustration and procedural discomfort. Earlier this year, the Council decided to give handling of the omnibus packages to the Antici group — senior advisors to EU ambassadors. That shifts responsibility to Coreper II, which normally deals with finances, foreign policy and institutions. Sectoral experts from Coreper I, who in many cases negotiated the original files, have been sidelined.
The rationale may, in part, have been to disrupt negotiations — as those who shaped the initial texts might be too invested to assess them critically. “Fresh eyes can help”, a diplomat said. “But in reality, the people handling it now often lack the technical background — and there’s no real discussion of substance.”
This is “making the legislative process ineffective,” another Council source added. “What we decide as co-legislators can just be swept aside by the executive. How is that even possible?”
Some in the Commission aren’t exactly unhappy with this. “At the Council, they don’t understand the text, so they don’t change anything,” compared to the Commission’s initial simplification proposal, said one official.
The Parliament has sounded the alarm too. In a letter sent to the Commission in May, Bernd Lange, chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs, warned that the proliferation of omnibus files could “prevent Parliament from having a proper overview” of amendments. The compressed timelines, he added, put “excessive political pressure” on MEPs and are “having a negative impact on the quality of our legislative work.”
In the left of the chamber, many feel nostalgic for flagships under the previous mandate, such as the Fit for 55 package, and lament the lack of momentum.
“I don’t see many exciting new things happening,” said one left-wing MEP.
“You can’t really sell a fight to voters when all you’re doing is trying to save what’s left,” added one parliamentary assistant.
On the right and far-right, the criticism is different: simplification doesn’t go far enough. The centre-right EPP group says that it’s a start — but not enough.
Playing the blame game
Conservative and far-right parties criticising Brussels’ bureaucratic bloat is nothing new.
In a recent parliamentary debate, Sebastian Kruis of the far-right PfE said “what we really need is not an omnibus, but a chainsaw.”
But they’re not the only ones raising concerns about ballooning rulebooks.
According to think tank Bruegel, the average length of EU legislative proposals — counting articles and annexes — has steadily increased over the last 25 years. Under the Prodi Commission (1999–2004), proposals averaged 4,501 words; during von der Leyen’s first mandate, that figure rose to 8,582.
Some officials say longer laws are needed to address more complex issues, in areas such as digital policy.
Others within the Commission blame co-legislators for byzantine rules. “Compromises between Council and Parliament add layers: implementing acts, reporting obligations, and so on,” said another source.
Some cite MEPs now intervening more often and in greater detail; others, member states which seek to limit exemptions to ensure a level playing field.
One diplomat blamed the Commission for originally “setting the thresholds too low” in laws such as CS3D, CSRD or CBAM, resulting in small and medium-sized companies having to comply with overly complex rules — an issue the omnibuses offer a chance to resolve.
Omnibusiness-friendly
The idea of using omnibus laws to eliminate “redundant, obsolete and inconsistent regulations” through fast-track procedures came from Enrico Letta’s April 2024 report on the Single Market.
But some voices within the Commission privately blame von der Leyen for yielding to pressure from the right and from business lobbies.
Others even suggest that her supposedly pro-competitiveness drive might prove counterproductive.
“We used to pride ourselves on legal stability as Europe’s strength compared to the US. We shouldn’t undermine that,” said one Commission official previously quoted.
Frustration is also growing among private companies, as the stop-go approach discourages those who seek to promptly comply with EU law. “We’re penalising early movers — they’re just going to be fed up,” said one diplomat.
