Ursula von der Leyen is collecting nominations. It is important to know that the Commissioner does not represent the national interest, comments Yiannis Papadimitriou.

The position of EU Commissioner is certainly the most important choice for national governments’ relations with Brussels. With his recommendations, the Commissioner co-shapes European policy. With his vote (in the College of Commissioners) he affects the lives of all of us. With his presence, he can change for the better or even worsen the image of Europe in each national audience.

But there is one misunderstanding that needs to be clarified from the outset: The Commissioner is not a representative of his country in Brussels. This role belongs to the ministers who participate on a regular basis in the Council of Ministers on matters of their competence and certainly to the prime minister, who attends the European Council.

The Commissioner does not represent the national interest, nor the government that has proposed him. Exactly the opposite happens: he represents the community interest towards his country, but also to all the other member states.

That is why the Founding Treaty of the EU expressly provides (Article 17) that “the Commission promotes the common interest of the Union” and “executes its duties with complete independence”while its members “they do not seek or accept instructions from governments, institutions, other bodies or organizations”.

Theory and action

The simplest and most obvious example: If the Commission comes to the conclusion that a country does not comply with Community law and decides to launch a procedure against it “in breach of the Treaty”, for the Commissioner who comes from that country it is legally impossible, but and politically infeasible to prevent an appeal to the European Court. From time to time the Commission has appealed against many European governments, including Germany.

You will say, of course: Are there any examples, in which a Commissioner has been accused of promoting the interests of his country? But the overwhelming rule is different. Not only in legal theory, but also in political practice. Example: As Budget Commissioner the German Ginter Oettinger had not only repeatedly pointed out how much Germany benefits from the EU and the single market, but he had also publicly criticized the Merkel government because it was delaying important decisions in Brussels. And this despite the fact that Merkel and Oettinger come from the Christian Democratic Party (CDU), which at that time ruled in Berlin.

Another example: When in 2019 the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán proposed Lazdo Tročany for Ursula von der Leyen’s first Commission and the European Parliament realized that Tročany, as Minister of Justice, was one of the pillars of Orban’s authoritarian rule and therefore could not represent reliably the community interest, he “cut” him off with summary procedures. In fact, Trotsani’s candidacy did not even reach the Plenary of the European Parliament, but was already rejected at the first stage of consultation by the Legal Affairs Committee.

Difficult procedure in the European Parliament

At this point, attention will also need to be paid to the candidacy of Apostolos Tzitzikostas, who is still not that well known at the European level – with the exception of course of his participation in the European Committee of the Regions, which he chaired for two and a half years. It is recalled that in 2014, when Federica Mogherini was to be appointed EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, he was strongly criticized in the European Parliament on the grounds that he “does not have sufficient experience”, although he had already been the head of the Italian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, as well as foreign minister for a few months.

Finally, MEPs approved Mogherini’s candidacy. But it is now a tradition for the European Parliament to “cut” at least one, if not two candidates for the Commission. There are substantial reasons for such a strict attitude, but sometimes the vigilance of MEPs to remind them of their institutional role and their obligation to control the executive power also plays a role. Last time she was “paid” by the Hungarian Lazdo Trocani, but also by the Romanian Rowana Plab.

This time it is certain that whoever is vying for the portfolio for the first time will receive many and aggressive questions from the MEPs in Strasbourg. Especially at a time when far-right and anti-establishment groups are strengthening and competing with each other in their zeal to weaken pro-European political forces.