CHOOSING EU COMMISSIONERS

Theoretically, each member state is free to appoint its own candidate, the portfolio of which is negotiated with the Commission President. The European Parliament holds confirmation hearings and votes on each nominee.

Choosing an EU Commissioner

1. Sending an opposition candidate and hoping he/she doesn't come back: It may be surprising, but it isn't as odds as one might think: many State and Government Chiefs choose their own opponent as Commissioner Candidate. Southern-European governments seem specialists in this practice.
2. Sending a specialist: Taking into account that the European Commission is renowned for the technicality with which it addresses its competences, many member states prefer to send specialists. Placing their faith in their Commissioner candidate's knowledge of the subject, certain governments wish that in return they will obtain a strategic portfolio. In general, such a strategy turns out to be expensive and, contrary to what one might think, among these specialists few have carried out national ministerial duties and aren't necessarily the least political.
3. Sending an activist to Europe: In general, it is possible to identy the European activists in terms of the number of publications that they have written about Europe, or in terms of the mandates that they hold in Brussels. Besides, such personalities are usually in the vanguard of their party, or even of their country, according to European subjects. Strengths: The political activists serve the European cause and are a guarantee of independence, of relative proficiency and of neutrality. Weaknesses: European activists sometimes struggle to reconcile their faith in Europe and their former national or partisan bonds.
4. Sending a heavyweight: He/she is a sharp tactician and negotiator, and has got an outstanding knowledge of the dossiers and of languages.
5. The coalition engagements: In quite a few federal countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium), the Commissioner's portfolio forms part- in the same status as the national ministers- of the negotiation for the positions within a governmental coalition. Under this perspective, the political label of the personality sent to Brussels is decisive. Other considerations can be taken into account as well. The Belgians who are fully in line with this pattern, have generally alternated Flemish and Walloons for the Commissioner position. The risk of such a system is to treat the European Commissioner almost as a national minister, and thus to send a personality without caliber or without any particular competence. In this respect, the choice of German Commissioners have been heavily criticized.
6. Brussels a consolation prize: Contrary to European activists, certain Commissioners have gone to Brussels reluctantly or have received the Commissioner position as a consoltaion prize. The inconvenience of sending to Brussels those that one wants to get rid of in the national capital, is that it is often not clear how well these Commissioners are engaging with the post and how effective they are.
7. Brussels, cemetery for Prime Ministers (or former party heads). For many Heads of State and those in government, the appointment as European Commissioner is understood as a reward for service to the nation or to the party. Thus, many European Commissioners are former ministers, Prime Ministers or Heads of parties. The Heads of State want to honour those who were their mentors, their guides or those who were their old opponents. On the other hand, sending a former Prime Minister can represent a guarantee of credibility and independence. However, the risk of such strategy is that the European Commission will eventually turn into a retiring home where the occupants are bored to death. Howeever, to look at things in this slightly cynical and sceptical fashion, is to misunderstand a Community political life which is more and more proactive and stimulating.

Beware of Hearings

Parliament evaluates the Commissioners-designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It also assesses their knowledge of the prospective portfolio and their communication skills. Parliament takes particular account of the need for gender balance. It may express views on the allocation of portfolios proposed by the President-elect.

Step by step Procedure

Parliament’s approval procedure consists of the following steps:

1. Parliament receives the Commissioner-designates’ curriculum vitae and their declarations of financial interests.
2. Parliament puts to the Commissioners-designate a series of written questions dealing mainly with the candidates’ policy priorities in their respective fields of responsibility. The candidates’ written replies provide the basis for the oral stage – the hearings.
3. Each Commissioner-designate is invited to a three-hour public hearing with the parliamentary committee(s) responsible for the portfolio concerned. These hearings enable the committees to get to know the personalities of the Commissioners-designate and have a detailed exchange of views with the various candidates on their priorities in their prospective areas of responsibility.
4. The committees then evaluate each of the Commissioners-designate. They check that the Commissioners-designate have the skills required not only to be Members of the Commission in general, but also to be in charge of a particular portfolio.
5. The results of the hearings are sent to the President of Parliament and considered by the Conference of Presidents, comprising the President and all political group leaders, and by the Conference of Committee Chairs.
6. The Commission President presents the College of Commissioners-designate and their programme to a plenary sitting of Parliament which the Council of the EU is invited to attend. This presentation is followed by a debate.
7. Lastly, Parliament votes on approval of the whole European Commission as a body. The new Commission can then be formally appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.