The EU Commissioner Hearings

By Nina Cullen

What are they? 

The European Parliament holds public hearings for all nominated European commissioners to scrutinise their qualifications before approving their appointments to the EU executive. The latest hearings, which take place from 4-12 November, follow the 2024 European Parliament elections. Unlike more opaque national leader selection processes, these hearings are transparent, live-streamed, and widely covered by the media. They allow Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to evaluate nominees’ integrity, expertise, and policy plans. Over the past three decades, the hearings have become more rigorous, strengthening Parliament’s oversight and influence over the Commission.

How do they work? 

Four steps: 

JURI Committee evaluation, pre-hearing security, oral hearing, and the decision. 

1. JURI Committee evaluation 

• The European Parliament’s JURI Committee begins the commissioner hearing process by assessing potential conflicts of interest among the 26 nominees. It reviews detailed disclosures of candidates’ assets, financial interests, and employment histories, including investments over EUR 10,000 held by them, their partners, and their children. Candidates must also outline their entire career history to aid in evaluating any potential conflicts. If concerns arise, JURI can request clarifications and require candidates to resolve issues before the hearings. While candidates have declared financial interests since 2004, JURI’s formal conflict-of-interest assessments began only in 2019, when it notably rejected two candidates. For the 2024 cycle, however, all nominees have been cleared by the Committee.

2. Pre-hearing scrutiny: 

• During the European Parliament’s hearing preparation, two standardized questions for each commissioner-designate are formulated to assess general competence and portfolio-specific management skills. Additional questions are permitted based on committee involvement, but committees often exploit a grey area by clustering multiple sub-questions under single headings. This practice can lead to lengthy questionnaires, as seen in cases like Commissioner-designate Michael McGrath, who faced 75 sub-questions, and Magnus Brunner, who received 49, despite minimal committee involvement. Although rules prohibit sub-questions, enforcement is lax.

3. The oral hearings:  

• During the hearings, MEPs probe candidates on their vision, priorities, implementation plans, timelines, and the feasibility of proposals, effectively testing policy expertise and communication skills. This process also enables MEPs to influence the future commissioners’ agendas. Over time, MEPs have increasingly pressed candidates to make specific commitments, such as Viviane Reding’s 2004 pledge to reduce data roaming charges. Since 2014, compiling lists of these commitments has become standard, with MEPs seeing such promises as integral to the hearings.

4. The decision: 

• After the hearings, the European Parliament assesses each commissioner candidate’s suitability, integrity, and policy plans. While most nominees receive approval, issues sometimes arise, leading to requests for further information, additional hearings, or adjustments in portfolio assignments. Since 2004, Parliament has flagged 19 candidates as problematic, with seven ultimately replaced due to significant concerns. Notable examples include Latvian nominee Ingrīda Ūdre (2004) for financial concerns, Bulgarian Rumiana Jeleva (2009) for ties to lobbying, Slovenian Alenka Bratušek (2014) for inadequate qualifications, and French nominee Sylvie Goulard (2019) for ethical issues. Often, the mere threat of a veto leads the Commission President to make adjustments, with objections typically centred on integrity, portfolio knowledge, or potential conflicts of interest. Political disagreements are rarely grounds for rejection, with Rocco Buttiglione’s controversial views in 2004 being a notable exception.

Conclusion: 

The European Parliament’s influence over the European Commission’s appointment process has grown significantly, with increased scrutiny and power to shape the Commission’s composition and portfolio distribution. While the process has professionalized, issues like limited follow-up questions and party politicization remain challenges. Despite this, the EP continues to leverage its power to push for changes, with political considerations playing a larger role in shaping the outcome of the 2024 hearings.