EU’s Omnibus Package: cutting red tape for businesses

The European Commission has announced a major initiative to cut red tape and simplify regulations for businesses across the EU. Published on the 26th of February 2025, the proposal aims to ease compliance burdens, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while boosting competitiveness. Alongside this, the first EU Omnibus Package introduces targeted regulatory adjustments, divided into Omnibus I and Omnibus II.

  • Omnibus I focuses on amending sustainability reporting (CSRD), due diligence (CS3D), and the EU Taxonomy Regulation, while also revising the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).
  • Omnibus II addresses investment programs like InvestEU, promoting financial support for businesses.

This marks the beginning of a broader reform, with more Omnibus packages expected in the coming months.

Why the EU Omnibus Package? A Response to Business Concerns

The EU Omnibus Package is a direct response to growing concerns from businesses about excessive regulatory burdens, high compliance costs, and the complexity of sustainability and due diligence requirements. Over the past few years, companies—especially SMEs—have raised concerns about the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), arguing that their obligations are too complex and expensive to implement.

Additionally, political pressure and economic challenges have pushed the EU to rethink its approach. With a slowing global economy, competitiveness issues, and the need to attract investment, the EU aims to balance sustainability goals with business-friendly regulations. The Omnibus Package seeks to:

  • Reduce compliance burdens, particularly for SMEs.
  • Delay sustainability reporting requirements for many businesses.
  • Simplify due diligence obligations, especially in supply chains.
  • Ensure regulatory consistency across EU member states, preventing overly strict national laws.

While the EU Green Deal remains in place, this reform signals a shift toward a more flexible regulatory approach, prioritizing business competitiveness while maintaining core environmental and social standards. However, some critics argue that these changes could weaken corporate accountability and sustainability commitments.

Key Changes in Sustainability Reporting (CSRD & EU Taxonomy Regulation)

A major shift in sustainability reporting requirements is proposed:

  • 80% of companies would be removed from mandatory CSRD compliance. The new threshold applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and either €50 million in turnover or a €25 million balance sheet.
  • SMEs listed on stock exchanges would no longer be required to report under CSRD.
  • A two-year delay (until 2028) for reporting obligations of companies in “waves 2 and 3” under CSRD.
  • Introduction of a voluntary reporting standard for SMEs, reducing the burden on companies indirectly affected through supply chains.
  • EU Taxonomy reporting to be simplified, with a 70% reduction in required data points. Companies will only need to assess the taxonomy alignment of economic activities that contribute at least 10% of their total turnover, CapEx, or assets.

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D) – What’s Changing?

  • No changes to which companies fall under CS3D, but the transposition deadline is delayed to 2027 and first compliance obligations to 2028.
  • Focus shifted to direct business partners only, reducing compliance burdens. Companies must only assess indirect partners if there is specific evidence of risks.
  • Mandatory business relationship termination is removed, replaced with suspension of activities in cases of due diligence failures.
  • Stronger harmonization across EU countries – Member States cannot introduce stricter national laws beyond EU-level due diligence rules.
  • Fewer compliance checks – due diligence measures will be reviewed every five years instead of every 12 months.
  • Penalties and enforcement softened – No fixed 5% of turnover penalty; instead, Member States will determine fines.
  • Civil liability removed – National courts will decide on cases, and NGOs and trade unions can no longer file lawsuits on behalf of victims.

Analysis: What This Means for Businesses

The proposed changes represent a significant regulatory shift that could reduce compliance costs and increase flexibility, particularly for SMEs. Key takeaways:

✅ Massive reduction in sustainability reporting burdens – Many businesses will no longer need to comply with CSRD or EU Taxonomy, reducing administrative costs.
✅ More time for compliance – Delays in sustainability and due diligence obligations give companies additional breathing room.
✅ More predictable EU-wide rules – The harmonisation of CS3D reduces the risk of strict national variations, making cross-border operations easier.
✅ Focus on direct business partners only – This eliminates unnecessary regulatory burdens in supply chains.

However, the reforms also raise concerns about potential deregulation:

⚠️ Weaker sustainability obligations – Some stakeholders worry that reducing CSRD scope and delaying obligations may undermine the EU’s Green Deal goals.
⚠️ Loosening of due diligence enforcement – The removal of civil liability and stricter penalties could reduce corporate accountability in cases of human rights or environmental violations.

What’s Next?

The proposal now heads to the European Parliament and the Council, where it could face opposition from environmental and human rights advocates. Fast-tracking is expected for key elements, such as the delay in CSRD and CS3D reporting, but full legislative approval may take up to 18 months.

The Omnibus Package reflects a major shift in EU policy, signaling a move toward business-friendly reforms while maintaining sustainability objectives. However, the debate over whether these changes strike the right balance or undermine corporate responsibility is only just beginning. Businesses should closely monitor how final rules will shape their compliance obligations in the coming months.

Dalli Advocates is here to support your ESG practices and ensure compliance. Reach out to us to take this discussion futher.

Bodycam unveils police perjury, contradicting courtroom testimony

A recent call for greater respect toward the police has sparked widespread discussion, but should this reverence to authority go unquestioned?

Lawyers Dr. Veronique Dalli and Dr. Dean Hili represented Mr. Lazar Mitic in a case where CCTV footage contradicted Police claims that Mitic had threatened, resisted arrest, and assaulted officers. Instead, the footage revealed that the officers had ignored his report of being threatened by a third party—choosing to lounge in a restaurant rather than investigate his claims.

The court condemned the officers’ “outright lies,” urged disciplinary action, and cleared the defendant of major charges.

In a recent judgment delivered by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) As a Court of Criminal Judicature, a Magistrate has urged the Police Commissioner to consider disciplinary action against two constables after CCTV footage contradicted their account in an assault case, revealing what the court unquestionably refers to as “outright lies.”

The case involved an incident outside a kebab shop in San Ġwann, where Mr Lazar Mitic, 27, reported to the Police what he perceived to be threatening behaiour by a knife wielding man, during an argument in which this aggressor alleged that the defendant had damaged his car while parking. Mitic approached nearby officers for help upon their arrival, but instead of investigating, they first perceived him as the aggressor and then continued with dining at the same restraurant.

CCTV footage showed Mitic approaching them, visibly distressed and pointing toward his alleged attacker.

The officers later claimed that Mitic became unruly and assaulted them, but footage revealed him simply pacing anxiously outside before they handcuffed him. He was charged with assault, resisting arrest, and other minor offenses, but pleaded not guilty.

In court, the officers described Mitic as challenging them to a fight and acting erratically, but bodycam and CCTV footage showed no such behavior. The Magistrate criticized the officers’ failure to investigate, noting that their inaction likely worsened the situation.

Mitic was found to be innocent of the major charges, and was only found guilty of minor offenses, resulting in a one-year conditional discharge.

Mitic was represented by Dr. Veronique Dalli and Dr. Dean Hili

Freedom of speech: Are we too ‘woke’?

The recent decision by the Court of Magistrates in the case of content creator raises important questions about digital expression in an era of evolving social norms.

The case centered around an Instagram story published by the content creator, in which she jokingly asked her dog whether they should “burn down the circus” after its operator had been fined €2,000 for animal cruelty during one of its shows. Though she explicitly framed her statement as a joke “for legal purposes,” the court found this constituted a criminal threat.

While the court’s commitment to public safety is commendable, its interpretation of Malta’s amended communications laws may warrant further examination. Legal amendments in 2023 were specifically designed to protect artistic and satirical expression that doesn’t constitute a “credible and realistic” threat. In applying these provisions, courts face the challenging task of distinguishing between genuine threats and protected speech.

Several contextual factors in this case might have warranted deeper consideration: the statement was addressed to a pet, explicitly labeled as humour, and came from an individual with no history of violence but a documented commitment to animal welfare. Importantly, no actual harm materialized, and no evidence suggested anyone interpreted it as a genuine threat.

The ruling raises important questions about freedom of expression in digital communication. Social media regularly employs hyperbole, satire, and pointed humour to comment on social issues. Finding the right balance between protecting public safety and preserving space for legitimate social commentary requires careful consideration.

The decision also invites reflection on how courts might interpret the recent legislative reforms designed to protect satirical speech. A key question emerges: how can we maintain public safety while ensuring legitimate social criticism through humor? This balance is particularly relevant in cases involving commentary on documented wrongdoing, as in this instance.

The implications extend beyond this particular case to broader questions about social advocacy. How might courts distinguish between passionate advocacy and genuine threats? What role should context play in evaluating social media speech? These questions deserve careful consideration as our legal system continues to adapt to digital communication norms.

Going forward, there may be value in developing more nuanced frameworks for evaluating digital communication. This could help courts navigate the complex landscape of online expression while maintaining necessary protections against genuine threats.

The challenge lies in protecting public safety while preserving the vital role of free speech in public discourse. Through thoughtful debate, we can work toward interpretations that serve both these important objectives.

Disclaimer: Dalli Advocates provided legal counsel in this case.

Conflicting instructions by a Contracting Authority: PCRB cancels tender

In Case 1692, the Public Contracts Review Board (PCRB) (Case 1692) addressed the disqualification of a bidder from a tender for professional services related to the extension and restoration at the Manoel Theatre.

The case revolved around conflicting instructions given by the contracting authority on one of the criterions for qualification: the bidders had to submit a list of completed projects that they had worked on in the previous five years having a total value of at least €500,000.

The bidder had asked the contracting authority whether they could also submit ongoing projects – rather than just completed ones – as part of the submission. In its clarification reply, the contracting authority said “If proof can be submitted that the ongoing projects within the last five (5) as indicated in Section 1, Clause 5(c), these can be considered valid.” This clarification implied that ongoing projects would be accepted, provided they were within the specified time period. Based on this, the bidder submitted ongoing projects, assuming compliance. 

However, the contracting authority later disqualified their bid on the grounds that they had not submitted completed projects, as required by the original criterion. The contracting authority’s rectification note issued on 12th October 2021 further added to the confusion, stating that the submission was non-compliant as it “only includes ongoing projects.” 

The bidder argued that they were misled by the conflicting instructions, and the PCRB agreed. The board found that the contracting authority had created an ambiguous situation, first allowing ongoing projects to be considered and then rejecting the bid for following those instructions. The PCRB emphasized that clarity and consistency in tender requirements are critical, and once a bidder is permitted to submit certain information, such as ongoing projects, they should not be penalized for doing so.

The Board criticized the authority for issuing conflicting instructions and for not providing clear guidance to ensure fairness for all bidders. It cancelled the original evaluation decision and ordered a re-evaluation of the bid, by a newly composed evaluation committee, to ensure an impartial and fair re-evaluation. 

This decision underscores the importance of clear communication in public procurement, ensuring that tender processes are consistent, transparent, and fair to all parties involved.

With extensive experience in the sector, Dalli Advocates has provided support to both bidders and government entities in public procurement law.

Guaranteeing online platform users more digital protection and freedoms

The Digital Services Act (DSA), officially known as Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, is designed to make the digital world more transparent, accountable, and fair, particularly when it comes to how online platforms handle their users. Being a regulation, it automatically applies across all EU countries, meaning its rules don’t require extra national laws to come into effect. One of the important features of the DSA is that it requires online platforms to offer out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms. 

The DSA ensures that larger platforms, especially very large online platforms (VLOPs), have clear internal systems for users to challenge decisions such as content removal or account suspensions. This gives users a straightforward way to appeal platform decisions. However, if the internal complaints process doesn’t resolve the issue, the DSA takes things further by requiring platforms to provide independent out-of-court dispute resolution.

Platforms must give users access to certified independent bodies to resolve disputes. These bodies have to meet strict EU standards of fairness and impartiality, and may consist of private arbitration,  mediation or conciliation, as long as they are fair, transparent, and certified by the relevant authorities. The aim here is to ensure users have easy and affordable ways to settle disputes without getting caught up in costly legal proceedings.

The DSA’s rules on dispute resolution don’t exist in isolation. They build on existing EU frameworks, especially Directive 2013/11/EU on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This directive, which applies to all consumer disputes, ensures that people in the EU can resolve issues with companies through independent bodies, without going to court. The DSA brings this idea into the digital space, specifically focusing on the relationship between users and online platforms.

By working together, the DSA and ADR Directive offer a robust system of protection for users. The ADR Directive provides the general foundation, while the DSA ensures that online platforms comply with these principles. This means that users have reliable and straightforward paths to resolve disputes, whether the issue is with a traditional business or an online platform.

For platforms, this means they need to offer both an internal complaint system and access to certified independent bodies that can handle more complex disputes. For users, the DSA is a win, as it gives them more power to challenge unfair decisions, whether it concerns content being taken down or an account being suspended. Users now have multiple ways to get their grievances heard, starting with the platform’s internal process and, if necessary, moving to an independent body that can fairly resolve the dispute.

In a nutshell, the Digital Services Act—or Regulation (EU) 2022/2065—is a significant step forward in making the online world more transparent and fair. By requiring platforms to offer independent dispute resolution, the DSA complements the ADR Directive, ensuring that consumers have accessible, affordable options for resolving disputes. Together, these regulations create a legal framework that protects users from unfair treatment, allowing them to challenge decisions made by digital platforms without needing to go through expensive legal battles.

Dalli Advocates can provide legal services in this field of law.

Discipline done right: how clear processes benefit both employers and employees

Employers must follow fair and transparent disciplinary processes before making any serious decisions, such as terminating employment. Dismissal should be the last resort, and employers must ensure that all necessary warnings and procedures have been followed before taking action. Employees must be given clear communication of their misconduct and an opportunity to correct their behaviour. The absence of such procedures or failing to notify the employee often leads to rulings of unfair dismissal.

An employer cannot terminate an employee without prior disciplinary action, even though the employee had violated company policy. A lack of a formal disciplinary process especially when there are no established or known procedures, would be tantamount to an unjust dismissal. Employees are to be provided an opportunity to explain or defend their actions, under clear and comprehensive procedures. Disciplinary procedures must be properly communicated to employees to ensure fairness. Lack of communication or failure to follow a transparent process can lead to unfavorable outcomes for employers.

Dalli Advocates can provide assistance in industrial relations and disputes.

PCRB cancels award over tender committee lack of expertise

A recent decision by the Public Contracts Review Board (PCRB) (Case 1973) highlights several key principles of public procurement law in the context of a tender for the regeneration of St Paul’s Bay, Bugibba, Qawra, Xemxija and Salina Area.

Dalli Advocates assisted its client to challenge the evaluation committee’s reccomendation, upon which the tender was awarded.

The tender used the BPQR method, which requires the contracting authority to award the contract based on technical aspects and other qualitative considerations, rather than just price. The principle highlighted in this case is that evaluators must conduct a thorough and detailed assessment of each bid, scoring each one of the several technical criteria according to a gradation system (out of 100). This ensures that all technical and financial elements are fully considered.

In this case, the PCRB found that the evaluators did not fully comply with this requirement, since they graded every technical criterion with a score of 100 out of 100, rather than using the incremental grading system as was required. This gradation system allows for differentiation in quality, with scores ranging from 0 to 100 based on how well each submission meets the tender’s specific criteria. By assigning perfect scores across the board, the evaluators failed to make a meaningful comparison between the bidders, thus disregarding the requirement to thoroughly analyse each aspect of the tender submissions. This approach undermined the integrity of the evaluation process, as it did not reflect the nuanced differences between the bids, which should have been the basis for awarding marks incrementally according to merit. 

Tied to this principle, the PCRB also stressed that evaluators should possess a basic understanding of the subject matter they are evaluating. In this case, it turned out that the evaluation committee lacked the assistance of a technical expert, and some of the evaluators admitting to having no knowledge in critical areas such as ecology or urban development, even though these were obviously important components of a tender concerning urban regeneration. 

The Board noted that a properly constituted evaluation committee with relevant technical expertise is crucial for the integrity of the process. An evaluation board cannot possibly evaluate a bid thoroughly and in detailed manner if its members do not have specialized knowledge in the subject-matter at hand. 

For these reasons, the PCRB revoked the evaluation’s board decision and the contracting authority to re-evaluate the bids through a newly composed Evaluation Committee composed of new members having a basic understanding of the subject matter.

With extensive experience in the sector, Dalli Advocates has provided support to both bidders and government entities in

Magisterial inquiry finds no negligence by medical staff following patient’s death

A magisterial inquiry into the death of Stephen Mangion concluded that no negligence or criminal responsibility lies with the medical professionals who treated him. Mangion, of 55 years old, passed away from an aortic dissection after collapsing in Mater Dei Hospital’s emergency waiting room. The inquiry, led by Magistrate Joe Mifsud, found that the doctors and nurses had acted appropriately and could not have foreseen Mangion’s condition due to his atypical symptoms.

The report revealed that Mangion had first experienced symptoms early in the morning but delayed seeking medical attention for approximately 15 hours, despite advice from friends and family. He eventually sought treatment at the Floriana health center, where an initial ECG was conducted, but it did not reveal any imminent danger. Mangion was later transported to Mater Dei Hospital by a friend, where two more ECGs were performed, none of which indicated a heart attack or an immediate threat to his life. His underlying issue, an aortic dissection, was difficult to diagnose given the symptoms presented at the time.

The report also addressed the public outrage following Mangion’s death, which was fueled by social media claims that he had waited for hours despite reporting chest pains. However, the inquiry dismissed these allegations, revealing that Mangion had not been left unattended and that healthcare staff had taken all reasonable measures to assist him. The claims on social media were found to be based on misinformation spread through a fake profile.

On the day of the incident, the emergency department was overwhelmed, handling 251 patients, with many cases classified as urgent. Mangion’s case was particularly challenging due to the lack of clear indications that he was suffering from an aortic dissection, which ultimately led to his sudden collapse and death.

Dalli Advocates represented one of the medicial specialists in the Magisterial Inquiry.

Google fined €2.4bn for exploitation and abuse of dominant position in shopping comparison service

The European Court of Justice confirmed a decision of the European Commission back in June 2017 when it ruled that Google had unfairly prioritised its own comparison shopping service over competitors’ in 13 countries within the European Economic Area (EEA). Google promoted its service with prominent display boxes featuring images and text, while rival services were relegated to basic blue links, often pushed down in search results by Google’s algorithms.

The Commission found Google had abused its dominant market position in online searches, imposing a fine of €2.42 billion, with Alphabet (Google’s parent company) jointly responsible for €523 million. Google and Alphabet appealed to the General Court of the European Union, which largely upheld the Commission’s decision in November 2021, though it did not find conclusive evidence that Google’s actions affected the general search market.

Google and Alphabet then appealed to the European Court of Justice. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the General Court’s ruling. The Court emphasised that EU law prohibits the abuse of a dominant position, particularly when it harms competition and consumers. It affirmed that, in this case, Google’s favouring of its own services was anti-competitive.

The Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, supporting the General Court’s ruling. It reiterated that under EU law, the mere existence of a dominant position is not unlawful, but the abusive exploitation of that position is. The Court clarified that exploitative behaviour, distinct from exclusionary behaviour in Competition Law, is prohibited when it hinders competition on the merits and is likely to cause harm to individual undertakings and consumers. In this case, Google’s favouring of its own services over competitors was deemed anti-competitive and not within the scope of fair market competition.

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Critical Raw Materials and Their Role in Global Energy Security

Historically, the energy sector focused on securing fossil fuels—oil, gas, and coal—to meet global demands. However, driven by the Paris Agreement and national commitments (NDCs) to carbon reduction, countries are transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal. While these technologies rely on abundant natural resources, they require critical raw materials (CRMs) such as rare earth elements and platinum group metals (PGMs). This introduces new vulnerabilities, as CRMs are costly and their supply is concentrated in a few countries, making renewable technologies less accessible and more expensive.

The growing demand for CRMs has moved their trade to the center of global priorities. International trade plays a key role in bridging the gap between widespread demand and concentrated supply. This reliance on trade is particularly urgent in the short to medium term, as expanding mining and recycling capacities can take years. Global supply chains are highly interconnected, but many CRMs are controlled by a handful of countries, such as China for rare earth elements and the Democratic Republic of Congo for cobalt.

This concentration of supply creates market power dynamics, allowing resource-rich countries to manipulate prices or limit availability, either for economic gain or as a geopolitical bargaining tool. Trade tensions, such as those between the U.S. and China, have already sparked concerns about access to CRMs critical to industries like defense, electronics, and clean energy.

To mitigate risks, several strategies are being pursued:

  • Supply chain diversification through new sources and international partnerships,
  • Increased recycling capacity to ease the demand for newly mined CRMs,
  • Stockpiling reserves to protect against future shortages, and
  • International cooperation to ensure stable and fair access to CRMs.

In the U.S., the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, originally focused on national defense, was expanded in March 2022 to include critical minerals for clean energy technologies. This interagency effort between the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense reflects the growing importance of CRMs for both military and energy needs. Stockpiling these materials stabilizes prices and supports domestic industries, spurring innovation and the development of supply chains for extraction, processing, and recycling.

Similarly, the EU responded with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) in May 2024, aiming to secure diversified and sustainable CRM supply chains. The Act targets reduced reliance on China by fostering partnerships with resource-rich countries and setting ambitious goals for domestic CRM production—10% from local extraction and 15% from recycling by 2030. Strategic Projects in the EU and beyond will benefit from easier financing and faster permitting processes. The EU will also create a Joint Purchasing Mechanism to aggregate demand and negotiate with suppliers, similar to mechanisms used during the Ukraine crisis.

Growing demand for critical materials calls for better stewardship within a circular economy framework. Both the U.S. and the EU are making significant efforts to secure access to CRMs, essential for their clean energy transitions and broader industrial needs. These policies are critical to building resilient and sustainable supply chains in an increasingly competitive global market.

Dalli Advocates can assist in the energy sector and provides advice on both regulatory and transactional matters.