The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) failed to provide essential information in a timely manner, which influenced the development of the current European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) opinion on lead restrictions in ammunition. It took EFSA more than seven months to process a request from FACE, with the deadline being repeatedly extended. The European Ombudsman considers that "delayed access is denied access".

"The Ombudsman found that EFSA committed an administrative error in handling the complainant's request, specifically highlighting that EFSA did not comply with the time limits set out in EU legislation on public access to documents".

The problem: the delay was so long that the public consultation organised by ECHA closed before the aforementioned data became available. Furthermore, upon closer inspection, several issues were identified that could not possibly have been flagged once the public consultation had concluded.

FACE's dissatisfaction is based on another instance of improper process administration in May 2020, when national and European politicians expressed concerns regarding the actions of the European Commission (Directorate-General for Environment) in relation to the restriction of lead ammunition in wetlands (under REACH). Members of the European Parliament were also concerned at the time, with the European Commission denying any wrongdoing. However, the European Ombudsman concluded that:

"...the Commission’s request went beyond what was necessary for the promotion of its legitimate interests, in that it explicitly asked NADEG members to contact their national authorities to support a positive vote on the draft regulation prepared by the Commission. According to the rules, the role of expert groups is to provide the Commission with advice and expertise. Their activities do not appear to extend to influencing voting in a committee".

In response to the Ombudsman's recommendations, I have sent a letter to the relevant authorities requesting that the public consultation be reopened to ensure a "fair game". The EU’s fundamental principles – transparency and the rule of law – were not upheld. A change in direction is required to ensure fairness.