The European Parliament will hold hearings on new European Commission candidates from 4 to 12 November. Ancrit is Here’s how hearings have evolved since their introduction in 1995 and what this year’s candidates can expect from the process.
The European Parliament organizes hearings for all those nominated as new European Commissioners. These candidates must undergo parliamentary scrutiny before their appointment to the EU executive is confirmed. The latest hearings will be held between 4 and 12 November to evaluate the candidates submitted after the 2024 European Parliament elections.
In contrast to the shrouded process that determines the selection of political leaders in member states, the European Parliament has made key parts of its committee appointment process more transparent. These confirmation hearings are live-streamed and attract significant media attention. This allows MEPs to review a candidate’s integrity, skills and policy plans. Over the past 30 years, evolving practices have changed hearings, increased the European Parliament’s influence over the Commission, and, as a result, have led to ever-increasing scrutiny.
Pre-hearing investigation
Since the first hearings in 1995, the information provided to the European Parliament before public Q&A sessions has become increasingly comprehensive, as can be seen in Table 1. At the first hearing, 30 years ago, only candidates’ resumes and distribution information were provided. I have shared some of my portfolio in advance. Following the resignation of the Santer Commission in 1999, the European Parliament introduced additional requirements. Candidates were required to answer a series of written questions before the hearing, providing insight into their policy approaches and priorities.
Since 2004, candidates have been required to file a declaration of financial interests to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This scrutiny intensified in 2019, with the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee reviewing such declarations as a mandatory step before candidates can proceed to the next stage of hearings. When this new procedure was first implemented, candidates from Romania and Hungary failed this exam directly due to financial problems.
Table 1: Information provided prior to public hearing (1995-2019)
The increased detailed documentation of the candidates allowed MEPs to prepare more incisive and focused questions during the three-hour Q&A session, based on evidence provided in advance. In response to the heightened scrutiny, candidates began preparing more thoroughly for hearings, which became a true test of their knowledge, capabilities, and policy plans.
Policy-focused research
Extensive pre-hearing screening provides two major benefits. This allows MEPs to rigorously question candidates who have questions about their experience or past performance, while also focusing on the future policy plans and actions of more qualified candidates.
MEPs ask candidates to describe their vision, key priorities and how they will implement specific actions. Candidates should also clarify their timeline and the feasibility of their proposals. The process not only tests candidates’ policy knowledge and communication skills, but also gives MEPs the opportunity to shape the agenda of future members.
MEPs are increasingly encouraging candidates to make specific promises about the steps they will take once they take office. For example, in 2004, the European Parliament called on Viviane Reding to lower data roaming charges during a hearing. Drawing up a clear list of pledges after hearings has been regular practice since 2014, and lawmakers see securing political commitments as a key part of the hearing process.
Candidate Evaluation
After the hearings, the European Parliament evaluates each candidate based on their suitability, integrity and policy plans. Most candidates receive positive reviews and support for their appointment. But sometimes questions may arise. Since 2004, the Congress has identified 19 candidates as problematic or unacceptable.
Table 2: Commissioner nominees rated negatively (1999-2019)
Note: Temporary changes by the University also require hearings, but are not included in this table. This table includes only appointments at the beginning of the committee’s term. Commissioners may fall into several categories of concerns. University membership excludes the President of the European Commission.
A negative review doesn’t always mean the candidate is completely blocked. Often the European Parliament requests additional information, holds additional hearings or asks the Commission President to adjust portfolio distribution.
If a candidate is deemed problematic or controversial, a replacement may be required. Of the 21 candidates challenged by the European Parliament over the past 30 years, seven were ultimately replaced. For example, in 2004, Latvian candidate Ingrīda Ūdre was withdrawn by the government over concerns about financial irregularities.
In 2009, Bulgarian candidate Rumiana Jeleva withdrew because the European Parliament had problems with her relationship with lobbying firms and was unfamiliar with her portfolio. In 2014, Slovenian candidate Alenka Bratušek failed to convince parliament of her suitability after performing poorly. In 2019, French candidate Sylvie Goulard was replaced due to ethical concerns about her work at an American think tank.
The threat of a veto from a major political group in Congress is often enough to force committee chairs to adjust portfolios or candidates to make or even backtrack on promises. Objections to candidates typically stem from concerns about their integrity and competency, including lack of knowledge about their portfolio, giving vague answers, and facing issues related to potential conflicts of interest or financial irregularities. Political considerations rarely lead to rejection. The only exception to this was in 2004, when Italian candidate Rocco Buttiglione’s views on women and homosexuality caused controversy.
CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING CONTROL
Over the past 30 years, the European Parliament has had increasing influence over the political direction and composition of the European Commission. This was mainly achieved by informally expanding authority during confirmation hearings.
Through subtle political pressure and the development of strong procedures, Congress effectively achieved a veto over political appointments to the Commission. MEPs use these sessions to secure commitments from candidates and encourage coordination of plans. This process is critical in the EU’s fragmented party system, where influencing the political agenda can be difficult.
Ultimately, these developments demonstrate the strengthening of democratic control and accountability for the Commission, along with the empowerment of the European Parliament. This can be understood as a response to the increasingly challenging political environment in which the Commission operates. This is an environment that requires this part of the Executive to competently address the complex challenges facing the EU.
Note: This article gives the views of the author and not the position of EUROPP (European Politics and Policy) or the London School of Economics. Main image source: © European Union, 2024
