European Ombudsman has closed European Steel Tube Association complaint against the European Commission concerning the Commission’s procedure for revising the EU Emission Trading Scheme State aid Guidelines, which no longer included the seamless steel pipes sub-sector. European Ombudsman’s Director of Inquiries wrote “After a careful analysis of all the information submitted to us, I am sorry to have to tell you that the Ombudsman cannot continue her inquiry into your complaint. I have therefore closed the case. I appreciate this may not be your desired outcome but I hope you find these explanations useful. Thank you for having contacted the European Ombudsman.”European Ombudsman had opened case against European Commission in July 2021 after receiving a complaint on behalf of the European Steel Tube Association in May 2021. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the lack of transparency of the revision process of the ETS Guidelines and into the steps the Commission took to allow for a meaningful participation of the public and the stakeholders concerned. The complainant was concerned with how the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the seamless steel pipe sector was assessed in the context of the European Commission’s revision of the 'State Aid Guidelines' for the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme.All three complaints primarily allege lack of transparency in the Commission’s revision process. As each complaint also raises issues concerning the relevant sub-sectors in the context of the revision procedure, I have decided not to join the complaints. The complainant considers that there was a lack of transparency as the sector specific analysis was disclosed only with the adoption of the ETS Guidelines. The complainant claims that the analysis on which the Commission based the ETS Guidelines suffers from many errors and a misapprehension. In this context, the complainant states that the seamless steel pipe sub-sector was previously included in the list of eligible sectors for compensation with the sector manufacture of basic iron and steel and of ferroalloy. The complainant further claims that the Commission failed to consider data submitted by interested parties during the various consultations. The complainant argues that the Commission’s methodology of setting higher thresholds for trade and emission intensity, which have to be met independently, are not in line with the ETS Directive and lead to an unequal treatment among the sectors.