A nine-vote margin was enough to overturn a key Commission text. Behind this rejection, the future of the European Green Pact is at stake, between industrial pressure, the urgency of climate change and the democratic divide at the heart of the Union.
The rejection of the European Omnibus Act at the October 2025 session of the European Parliament is much more than a technical setback for the Commission. Presented as a “major simplification” of the European Green Pact, the law aimed to make three essential pillars more flexible: ESG reporting, green taxonomy and duty of care. But under the guise of economic efficiency, the entire balance of the European model was shaken.
“Behind every word of simplification lies a standard that has been abolished, a protection that has been weakened. Climate inaction is no longer an option”.
(Plenary session, October 2025 – Marie Toussaint, Greens/EFA)
The text, defended by the right (EPP) and some of the centrists, proposed raising the thresholds for applying these rules, delaying certain obligations and reducing the scope of the duty of care. In short: fewer constraints for companies, more “flexibility” in climate and social policies. A seductive speech on paper, but a nightmare for civil society, which saw it as a historic step backwards.
A law considered opaque and under influence
NGOs, trade unions and MEPs have denounced the“undemocratic, opaque and hasty” way in which the law has been drafted. Behind the talk of simplification, many observers point to the intense pressure exerted by industrial and financial lobbies in the drafting of the text. Energy, finance, agri-business: the major groups have stepped up their lobbying of the Commission and the MEPs in favour of the draft, fuelling the feeling that the text has been devised “in the shadows”.
This law has provoked such opposition because it embodies a Europe governed by technocracy and economic interests, to the detriment of transparency and citizens.
ESG reporting, green taxonomy and duty of care are three major safeguards against greenwashing and human rights abuses. By weakening them, the Commission has given the impression that it is abandoning its role as guarantor of the common good.
A clear political divide
The Greens and the radical left have joined forces to oppose the law, supported by NGOs and citizens’ movements. On the right, the prevailing view remains that Europe is “over-regulated”, stifling its economy. The Socialists, for their part, were divided: part of the PSE Group voted with the right, while another abstained or voted against, helped by the secret ballot requested by the far right, a procedure that is rare but made all the difference during this vote.
“Under the guise of simplification, the Commission is organising the dismantling of the ecological transition. What Europe needs is not simplification, but coherence and courage”.
(Plenary session, July 2025 – Manon Aubry, La Gauche – The left)
The result: a text rejected by just nine votes, a clear political signal sent to the Commission, and a European Union more fractured than ever.
For the time being, this rejection is blocking the trialogue negotiations (Parliament, Commission, Council), which have been postponed until November. In the meantime, civil society will be able to keep up the pressure, with NGOs calling for transparency and citizens reminding us that simplification cannot be used as a pretext for social and ecological dismantling.
Europe’s Omnibus law in the midst of a trade war
The European Omnibus Act is taking place against a tense global backdrop: a trade war between the United States, China and Europe, the return of protectionism and the rise of deregulation.
With the re-election of Donald Trump, Washington is encouraging massive deregulation, pushing Brussels to imitate its model in order to “remain competitive”. Beijing, for its part, is flooding the European market with low-cost products, undermining local industry.
As a result, the EU finds itself caught between the pressure of global trade and the urgency of climate change.
Can Europe be competitive without abandoning the ecological transition?
The answer is not simple. But every regulatory setback weakens the Green Pact and jeopardises the Union’s international credibility. The rejection of the Omnibus Act ultimately reveals a deeper battle: that of the identity of the European project.
On the one hand, an economic Europe, aligned with the logic of the market; on the other, a political and social Europe, committed to democracy and climate justice.
Nine votes were enough to prevent an historic shift, but the battle has only just begun.
Yohann T
❓ Frequently asked questions – European Omnibus Act
Why was the European Omnibus Law rejected?
The law was rejected by a narrow majority, mainly because of the lack of transparency in its drafting and the influence of industrial lobbies. Green and left-wing MEPs felt that it weakened essential provisions of the European Green Pact and threatened social and environmental rights.What were the three main pillars affected by the law?
– ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) reporting: this obliges large companies to report on their social and ecological impact.– The European Green Taxonomy: this defines the economic activities considered to be sustainable and directs investments towards the climate transition.
– Duty of care: this requires multinationals to prevent human rights and environmental abuses in their supply chains.
The Omnibus Act therefore sought to make these three mechanisms more flexible, raise the thresholds for their application and postpone certain obligations.
