PARLIAMENT - COMMISSION
The elected Commissioner hearings are underway in the Brussels office of the EU Assembly. It is an out-and-out technical and political test, in view of the vote of confidence for the entire constituency which will be cast at Strasbourg’s plenary session next 23 October. But not everything is going smoothly and there is the risk that a proper democratic procedure will turn into a series of traps for each aspiring candidate.
The hearings of the candidates nominated for the offices of European Commissioner are facing an uphill battle. Each aspiring commissioner must pass an oral and written “examination” by the European Parliament committees responsible for his or her department, as laid down in the Rules of Procedure. Thus, for example, on the first day of the hearings on Monday 30 September (pictured), Slovakia’s Maros Sefcovic, in charge of inter-institutional relations, was “x-rayed” for three hours straight by the Constitutional Affairs and Legal Affairs Committees; Bulgaria’s Mariya Gabriel, who holds the Innovation and Youth portfolio, faced the MEPs of the Industry, Research and Energy and Culture and Education committees; while next in line was Ireland’s Phil Hogan, who was confirmed as the new EU Trade Commissioner. The hearings will continue at an accelerated pace – up to six a day – for a week.
Two rejections. Not everything seems to be going smoothly though, as following a prior assessment by the Committee on Legal Affairs, the European Parliament rejected two of the candidates: Romania’s Rovana Plumb, who was in line to become the EU’s transport commissioner, and Hungary’s Laszlo Trocsanyi, who had been picked to take on the EU enlargement portfolio. Both rejections were attributed to a “conflict of interest”.
Thus the President of Parliament, David Sassoli, wrote to the President-elect of the Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, asking how she intends to proceed
(i.e. whether she will ask Bucharest and Budapest to indicate other names for the executive). Meanwhile, the two respective hearings have been suspended. Trocsanyi strongly protested, speaking of “lies” and of “a deliberate violation of the rule of law and the principles of democracy”. At the same time, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbàn, has already informally announced his alternative candidate – Oliver Varhelyi, a diplomat. There has been no response for the moment from the Romanian government.
“European way of life”? Other names are also hanging in the balance. Firstly the candidate for agriculture, Poland’s Janusz Wojciechowski, whose handling of some travel expense reimbursements which he received when he was an MEP was questioned by the anti-fraud office of the Union (OLAF): Wojciechowski had to return 11000 euros to the Eurochamber coffers. Secondly, there is the case of France’s Sylvie Goulard, whose portfolio relates to the single market, who was the subject of an investigation by OLAF regarding the management of an assistant’s salary when Goulard (who has already reimbursed 45000 euros) was a Strasbourg MEP. In addition there is a mounting controversy over the ‘European way of life’ portfolio, an initiative of Von der Leyen which is hotly contested in political and academic circles, and which was assigned to Greece’s Margaritis Schinas, who among other things, is considered to be too close to the controversial former Secretary-General of the Commission, Martin Selmayr.
Three positive aspects. Legal, financial, geographical, political, party political and even temperamental elements come together in this complex picture.
Hearings are generally considered to have at least three positive aspects.
First of all, the hearings assign a decisive role, which will be completed with the Hemicycle final vote on the entire Commission which will take place at the October plenary, to the European Parliament in inaugurating the Von der Leyen constituency, thus exercising a “democratic control” over the executive body of the EU. Secondly, the procedure reinforces the “democratic investiture” of the Commission, gaining the confidence of the Assembly which the citizens of Europe elected by universal suffrage. Lastly, the procedure strengthens the political link between the two most ‘communitarized’ institutions as opposed to the third institution, the Council, which traditionally tends to represent the interests of the Member States (which often differ from each other and are far removed from the European ‘common good’).
Excessive “politicization”. The possible excessive politicization of the hearings should not be overlooked, as this is not just a “technical” examination of the powers of the future Commissioners regarding their powers: the aim is also to find out to what extent each candidate sides with the European Union, and how well they work as a team under the directives of the head of the Commission, as well as keeping good relations with the Parliament and the Council. However,
it is also true that a number of MEPs come to the hearings bearing prejudices about the candidates with regard to their nationality, their political biography and their party affiliation,
which raise the risk of reciprocal tripping between representatives of different nationalities and different political affiliations. This could cast a dark cloud over the transparency of the hearings, which – let’s not forget – include the decisive vote of the examination committees. The path of the hearings has only just begun: if there are no surprises, they will continue until October 8 or 15 at the latest, and will be concluded with a vote of confidence in Strasbourg on 23 October. It is an elaborate democratic machine, and a test of the cooperation between the institutions of the EU, as well as a possible positive signal towards public opinion: for these reasons it is an opportunity that should not go to waste.
