go to the original language article
The hearings of the appointed commissioners have been scheduled for the period from November 4 to 12, but one can only be certain about the start date of the process and not when it will conclude.
This is because, looking at what has happened in similar cases in the past, from the first implementation of the hearings during the election of the Santer Commission in 1995, to the election of the von der Leyen Commission in 2019, MEPs have not hesitated to reject several commissioners due to inadequacy, forcing elected presidents to either replace them or change their portfolios, causing, at times, even “political turmoil” in member state governments.
Therefore, no one can know what might arise during the mandatory “interrogation,” which each of them must undergo separately by the MEPs. Given that some of them will go through not just one committee of the EP, but several committees in a joint session, depending on the portfolios they are called to undertake.
Approval, Replacement or Change of Portfolio
Last Thursday, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament announced that all 26 appointed commissioners successfully passed the evaluation of potential or actual conflicts of interest concerning their respective portfolios. This is a necessary prerequisite for the appointed commissioners to participate in the hearings. It is a confidential process conducted behind closed doors and, according to information from the APE-MPE, it was not easy for some candidates of the new European Commission, as their statements were deemed inadequate and further details were requested to evaluate all relevant and available information so that the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs could draw conclusions. This was also apparent from the statement made by the chairman of this specific committee, MEP from Bulgaria and the political group Renew, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, who said that “from a procedural point of view, some reasonable criticism of the existing legal framework may arise, which we will have the opportunity to analyze and propose amendments if necessary.” The statements of interest submitted for examination will be posted on the special website before the start of the hearings.
During the hearings, the MEPs have complete freedom in their questions, and there are three paths they can choose from after the completion of the oral and public hearing and after they have previously studied the written responses of the candidate commissioners to a relevant questionnaire, which they must send by October 22:
1st: To give their approval to the appointment of all 26 appointed commissioners so that the process can proceed, and the election of the new European Commission can take place in the plenary session held on November 25-28, in Strasbourg, allowing them to take office from December 1st
2nd: To reject a commissioner due to inadequacy for covering the commissioner position, forcing the elected president, von der Leyen, to proceed with the replacement. The rejection does not bind the elected president, but she knows in advance that if she does not ask the government of the state that proposed the (inadequate) commissioner to appoint a new person, she will not be able to receive approval for her new Commission in the one plenary vote that will be held for all the appointed commissioners. With the appointment of a new candidate, the hearing process starts from the beginning. The time required for the replacement is unknown, but based on past events, the replacement is carried out swiftly as a new person of recognized stature and usually common acceptance is selected. It is estimated that the new European Commission will not be able to take office until the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025 (depending on the number of rejections).
3rd: To consider someone inadequate for managing the portfolio assigned to them but capable of covering the commissioner position. In this case, they force Mrs. von der Leyen to either review the portfolios (to change a portfolio or modify the responsibilities) to address – or even completely satisfy – the objections that led the MEPs to this decision. It is reminded that, after the hearing, each EP Committee conducts two votes: one for the adequacy of covering the commissioner position and one for managing the portfolio adequacy.
Which candidate commissioners were cut by MEPs and for what reasons
Nonetheless, the MEPs, based on their stance in the past, have “cut” appointed commissioners both at the conflict of interest check stage in the Committee on Legal Affairs and during the hearings, demanding both replacement and portfolio change. Specifically:
Santer Commission Election (1995-1999):The hearing of the European Commission members was first implemented in 1995 in the Santer Commission, whose term ended prematurely in 1999, earlier than the end of the five-year term, with the resignation of the entire Commission due to “mismanagement.” MEPs focused their criticism on the lack of specialized knowledge of some candidates for the portfolios they would undertake, as well as their vague answers and unwillingness to make commitments, citing the collective decision-making at the College of the European Commission (meeting of all commissioners). This led to repeated hearings for some appointed commissioners to better and more thoroughly prepare and request specific commitments, even signing these commitments. However, it took almost a decade for the practice of signing commitments to be examined (by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the EP during the hearing of candidate commissioners Joachim Almunia, Michel Barnier, and Olli Rehn).
In addition to the critical comments, they requested that the Irish appointed commissioner, Pádraig Flynn, be assigned a different portfolio than the initial one (Employment and Social Affairs). Pádraig Flynn, who had held many ministerial positions in his country, was already a commissioner responsible for Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs from 1993, also in the last Delors Commission. He remained in the position until the collective resignation of the Santer Commission and during the transitional period under Spanish President Manuel Marín and until the election of the Prodi Commission (1999-2004).
Election of the 1st Barroso Commission (2004-2009):The first time the European Parliament exerted pressures for replacing an appointed commissioner during the hearings of the candidates of the first Barroso Commission. It is reminded that the European Parliament started to strengthen its role in the intervening period, i.e., after the institutional changes caused by the tumultuous period following the resignation of the Santer Commission and subsequent developments at (pan)European level in which the Prodi Commission sometimes took the lead (introduction of the euro, agreement on enlargement to 25 members from 15, etc.). Initially, the pressures faced by the Commission of former Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Barroso in its first term concerned the candidacy of the Italian commissioner Rocco Buttiglione and what he said during his hearing, specifically his comments about “the role of women” and “homosexuality” (stating that it is a sin). Mr. Buttiglione said that these were his personal views and would not affect his duties. However, the MEPs of the competent committee were not convinced and voted against his approval. José Manuel Barroso then had to ask the EP to postpone the plenary vote and returned with a new general proposal, two new appointed commissioners, and a portfolio change.
Specifically, the Italian government withdrew Buttiglione’s appointment, replacing him with Franco Frattini, who eventually “inherited” the Justice, Freedom and Security portfolio. Latvia withdrew the candidacy of Ingrida Udre due to “possible involvement in political and legal violations,” and Andrej Piebalgs was proposed instead, whose candidacy was ultimately approved. Meanwhile, the Hungarian candidate, László Kovács, criticized for his lack of preparation and specific knowledge of his future portfolio (Energy), was reassigned the Taxation and Customs Union portfolio.
Election of the 2nd Barroso Commission (2009-2014):The candidate commissioner from Bulgaria, Rumiana Jeleva, was at the center of MEPs’ criticism due to her “business dealings,” and during the hearing, her “ability” to manage her portfolio (Humanitarian Aid) was questioned. The Bulgarian government withdrew her candidacy and proposed Kristalina Georgieva. Ms. Georgieva retained her position in the subsequent Commission under Jean-Claude Juncker’s presidency, was appointed vice president responsible for the Economic Planning and European Budget, and now is the head of the IMF.
Election of the Juncker Commission (2014-2019):In 2014, the Committees on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and Industry, Research and Energy in a joint session rejected the candidacy of the Slovenian commissioner Alenka Bratusek. They found that the appointed commissioner and vice president for Energy Union had “poor knowledge of the portfolio,” while also raising “ethical concerns related to her appointment as an appointed commissioner by a government led by her” (Ms. Bratusek was the country’s prime minister). Slovenia withdrew her candidacy and appointed Violeta Bulc, who took on the duties of the Transport Commissioner.
Additionally, the Hungarian candidate commissioner, Tibor Navracsics, received approval, but not for the initially proposed portfolio, as MEPs “criticized the allocation of citizenship-related responsibilities due to his close ties with the Hungarian Prime Minister.” His initial portfolio concerned Education, Youth, Culture and Citizenship, and after pressure, the elected president Juncker was forced to transfer responsibility for Citizenship to another commissioner to secure the European Parliament’s approval in the relevant vote. It is reminded that the vote for the approval of the Commissioners is one and carried out for the entire European Commission members after the successful completion of hearings.
Election of the 1st von der Leyen Commission (2019-2024):2019 is considered the year when the European Parliament demonstrated its growing power in overseeing the composition of the future European Commission. For the first time, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) did not approve the financial interest statements of the appointed commissioner for Transport, Rovana Plumb (Romania), and appointed commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, László Trócsányi. Furthermore, after personal appearances (as required), the Committee on Legal Affairs did not approve their general declarations of interest, which under EU law and EP regulations, prevents them from continuing the hearing process, prohibiting them from holding any position in the College of Commissioners. They were replaced by Adina Vălean (Romania) and Oliver Várhelyi, who eventually received the approval and vote of MEPs and assumed their respective portfolios.
Additionally, in 2019, the EP’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee and Industry, Research and Energy Committee rejected the choice of the French government, Sylvie Goulard, who would undertake the Internal Market portfolio, due to “various allegations associated with her previous political employment” (she was an MEP). France replaced her with Thierry Breton, who eventually received confirmation from the European Parliament. Mr. Breton resigned from the Commission in early September, implying (clearly) that President von der Leyen asked the French government not to renew his term in exchange for a better portfolio for France in the next Commission. France enters the hearings of the upcoming days with former Foreign Minister, Stéphane Séjourné, as the appointed commissioner and executive vice president.
Election of the 2nd von der Leyen Commission (2024-2029): It is an open secret in Brussels that after the hearings of the Juncker Commission’s members and more so after the von der Leyen Commission hearings, it has become clear that, at times, this is “an extremely politicized appointment process.” Furthermore, the difficulties of the European Parliament in thoroughly examining the adequacy of the appointed commissioners and documenting, at times, the outcome, for example, of examining financial interest statements to determine whether there are personal (potential) interests that would conflict with those they will undertake and serve as a commissioner, were revealed.
According to the above, it remains unclear which proposed members of the new von der Leyen Commission will face the strong blow, as well as whether the ground, reason, or even the pretext will be found for another “blow” from the MEPs, to confirm in all directions the power and role of the European Parliament in the accountability of the European Commission to MEPs.
Additionally, sources from Brussels, told APE-MPE that the scheduling of the hearings by the Conference of Presidents of the EP (EP president and political group leaders) after consultation with the Committee chairs is not accidental. For example, they pointed out that the hearing of the six (6) appointed vice-presidents of the new Commission, namely, the Frenchman, Stéphane Séjourné (Prosperity and Industrial Strategy), Estonian, Kaja Kallas (EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy), Italian, Raffaele Fitto (Cohesion and Reforms), Spaniard, Teresa Ribera Rodríguez (Clean, Fair and Competitive Transition), Finn Henna Virkkunen (Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy), and Romanian Roxana Minzatu (People, Skills and Readiness), has been scheduled for the last day of the hearings (November 12). The hearing of the appointed commissioner for “Sustainable Transport and Tourism” is scheduled for Monday, November 4, by the Transport Committee, with members of the Environment Committee present.
The same sources assured the APE-MPE that “beyond any ‘political’ or ‘substantive’ message that MEPs will want to send during these hearings,” the hearings of the appointed commissioner from Austria, Magnus Brunner, proposed for the “Home Affairs and Migration” portfolio, following recent developments regarding European migration policy, but also Danish appointed commissioner Dan Jørgensen, proposed for the “Energy and Housing” portfolio, which concern all member states and it has already been decided that initiatives must be undertaken on a pan-European level, will be of particular interest.
For the time being, the staffs on both sides, both MEPs and appointed commissioners, are working feverishly (and exhaustively searching the internet) to… discover and prepare for possible ‘blows’ during the hearings.
Chrysostomos Bikatztzis