Brussels – The hearings of the candidate European Commissioners are approaching, and Parliament is getting organised. There are two possible windows, working intensively, to allow the next European Commission to take office on 1 November: between 14 and 18 October, at the rate of 4-6 hearings per day, or between 4 and 12 November, at the same pace. This second window is considered by some to be the most likely.
The proposal for these windows comes from the office of Bernd Lange, chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairmen (he, a German Socialist, chairs the one on International Trade) and Eunews had the chance to see the document sent sent tonight as ‘Urgent’ to his fellow chairmen, ahead of the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament which will take place on 1 October and which will have to establish the final details of the calendar.
It should be noted that in the proposed committees that will conduct the hearings for each candidate, for Raffaele Fitto , in addition to the competent one, Regional Affairs, five others will be invited, which will result in the Italian being the person who will have to answer to more parliamentary committees, together with his Finnish colleague Henna Virkkunnen. Their hearings, like those of the other three vice-presidential candidates, will last three and a half hours, the same duration set for three ‘simple’ commissioners but with two portfolios (Sefcovic, Dombrovskis and Lahbib). For the other members, the time is set at three hours.
Of course, much of the timetable will depend on the possible rejection of one or more candidates, which could easily lead to a postponement of the entry into office of the next European Commission.
Beyond the calendar, what will MEPs ask the candidates? Most of the questions will be specific to each one, some will be written down (and have written answers) before the hearing and some will be asked de visu. Lange proposes today (27 September), as per the rules, to make some common to all. Eunews has seen them. Read them below.
There are actually several questions, divided into two major themes. The first concerns skills, commitment to the Union and, very importantly, personal independence.
‘What aspects of your personal qualifications and experience are particularly relevant to become a commissioner and to promote the general European interest, particularly in the area for which you would be responsible?’ is the first one proposed for approval by the committee chairmen. The second one asks how the candidate plans to contribute ‘to the implementation of the Commission’s policy guidelines?’. Then it is intended to ask ‘how will he/she implement gender mainstreaming in all policies for which he/she would be responsible’. All candidates might then be asked ‘what guarantees of independence are you able to provide and how would you ensure that any past, current or future activities you undertake cannot call into question the performance of your duties in the Commission?’
The second block will concern portfolio management and cooperation with the European Parliament. Here the first proposed question is ‘how do you intend to ensure that Parliament is duly informed about your actions and those of your services?’, which could be followed by a question on how the candidate ‘holds himself or herself accountable to Parliament?’, MEPs will however also ask ‘what specific commitments’ the candidates are willing to fulfil ‘in terms of commitment and presence in Parliament, both in committee and plenary, transparency, cooperation and effective follow-up to Parliament’s positions and requests for legislative initiatives’. Finally, a not easy question: regarding ‘planned initiatives or ongoing procedures, are you willing to provide Parliament with timely information and documents on an equal footing with the Council?’
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
