The Commission

A key institution in the EU System

By Florence Di Bonaventura,

Marianna Manoukian

and Cédric Gosse-le-duc. 2010-2011

The commission

Appointment and composition Organisation Power resources Responsibilities The influence of the COM in the EU Conclusion

The College of commissioners

At the top of the commission: Commissioners

In charge of particular policy areas (portfolios) Further to the Nice treaty: one commissioner for

each member state as from 2005 and until an enlargement of 27 countries (after that: reduction)

BUT NEVER happened because of the Irish ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009

Appointment procedure (1)

Before 1993: every four years by common accord within member states.

With Maastricht Treaty: strengthening of the link between the COM and EP– EP consultation for COM president and vote of confidence on the

college-designate.– EP and COM: close alignment – five-year term.

With Amsterdam Treaty: – EP veto confirmed for the COM President appointment.– Potential veto of the President-designate over the national

nominees for appointment to college.

With Nice Treaty: EC qualified majority for college/President nomination and appointment

Appointment procedure (2)

With Lisbon Treaty:– The president: EC, according to EP elections, after consulting, by

qualified majority suggests to the EP a candidate for COM presidency [shall BE ELECTED BY THE EP (by majority)]

N.B.: if not, another canditate in one month (the same procedure).

– The college: C+President: list of potential commissioners on Member states’ suggestions. After EP individual hearings and consent, appointment of the COM college by EC.

– The High Representative: Appointment by EC+President (among commissioners)

In practice: Change of application further to certain circumstances, many informal discussions between institutions and some political interferences related to the choice of the college.

Impartiality and independance

COM: Promoting the general interest of the EU

Commissioners: Independent Chosen on the ground of their general competence

and European commitment No instructions from any GVT or other institution,

body, office or entity

But in practice full impartiality doesn’t exist

Characteristics of commissioners

No rules but former (senior) ministers. Political balance reflecting the political composition of

GVTs in Member States Crucially: Commissioners = be pro-european and no

link with extremist party

Ex. Barroso II College: 13 Commissioners of Centre-right, 8 liberals and 6 centre-left

The COM President

is the main representative dealing with EU institutions and outside bodies

gives the guidelines to his commissioners + to the COM

allocates Commissioners’ portfolios may require Commissioners to resign is directly responsible for overseeing some of the

most important adm. Services (SG.,…). may take on policy responsibilities of his own (usually

with other commissioners)

Cabinets Composition: Small team of officials/support staff, with at least 3

nationalities and recruited from EU adm

Tasks: Gather information for their commissioner. Liaise with other parts of the COM Act as «unofficial advocate/protector » of the interests

of their Commissioner’s country

President’s cabinet: Involved in brokering different views and interests

amongst commissioners Ensuring the COM is clear, coherent, cohesive and

efficient

The COM bureaucracy

Biggest element of the whole EU adm. Framework (in 2008: Commission’s staff just under 26.000: 20.000 employed in administration and 6.000 at senior policy-making). Permanent and temporary multinational staff on a meritocratic way but not always (informal quota for a better representation among countries).

Organisation

The Directorates General and other services

– Commission: divided into organisational units

(DG or Specialised services)

– Various size and internal organisation of DGs & Specialised services

Staff: 200-500

4-6 directorates

Each divided into 3-4 units

Organisation (2)

The hierarchical structure

o Clear structure but with some complications due to:

- Imperfect match between Commissioners’ portfolios & the responsibilities of services

- Halfway position of Commissioners (= more than permanent secretaries, less than ministers)

Individual responsibility difficult to apply to Commissioners

o Question: Should Commission be subject to collective responsibility ? (art. 234 TFUE)

- YES: all Commission proposals & decisions made collectively- NO: to undertake ≠ tasks Commission is dependent on other

EU actors

Organisation (3)

Decision-making mechanisms

− An initial draft is drawn up in the lead DG− Progress is monitored by the Secretariat General− The draft is passed upwards until reach the College of Commissioners

(possibility to revise the draft) − Decision of the College of Commissioners: accept/reject/refer it back

to the DG/defer

‼ all sort of variations are possible ‼ Ex: in case of urgency -› procedures to prevent logjams

Other procedures are:

- “written procedure”- When policy issues cut across the Commission’s administrative

divisions

Organisation (4) Provision for liaison and coordination in the Commission: 4

procedures 1. At the level of the DGs: problem of horizontal coordination 2. The Secretariat General: charged with ensuring that proper

communication & coordination takes place across the Commission3. The ill-defined coordinating responsibility of the President of the

Commission4. The College of Commissioners: strong position to coordinate activity &

to take a broad view of Commission affairs

‼ However, there is a feeling that the Commission continues to function in too compartmentalised a manner + insufficient attention on overall EU policy coherence

Some of the problems are:

- Commission’s rigid organisational framework- Too jealously guarded demarcation lines - Difficulty to look much beyond their own tasks (for Commissioners

& senior officials)

Organisation (5)

Power Resources

Commission = political & administrative institution

- Exclusive & non exclusive power of initiative- Neutrality - Present in all decision-making forums and at all stages- Access to EU’s policies information & needs - Smaller states look to the Commission for protection (most EU

states = small)

Key responsibilities

Proposer and developer of policies and legislation

Executive function

The guardian of the legal framework

External representative and negotiator

Mediator and conciliator

Promoter of the general interest

Proposer and developer of policies and legislation

Policy initiation and development

Legislative initiation and development

Commission’s advisory committee network:− Experts national experts and specialists− Consultative private experts− Hybrid combination national/private

Executive functions

Rule-making powers− Similar to national executives− LT: legislative acts vs delegated/implementing− Few areas: more ‘policy-making’

Management of EU finances

Supervisor / overseer of policy implementation

Comitology: implementing committees

Guardian of legal framework

Non-compliance by M.S.: Since Maastricht: ECJ can specify financial penalty

Firm breaching EU law (restrictive practices and abuse of dominant market position):

Comm. tries to reach an agreement O/W: fines

Firms breaching EU law on State aid

Potential breach on merger cases

Other responsibilities

External representative and negotiator

EU’s external trade relations and other agreements, High Representative is a member of the commission, key point of contact with non-member states, support for CSFP policies,…

Mediator and conciliator

seeking agreement between competing interests

Promoter of general interest

‘conscience of the union’, finding a ‘general’ path to reconcile all interests. But what is ‘General Interest’?

The varying influence of the Commission in the EU System

Circumstances favourable to the exercise of Commission leadership when:- it has strong & clear powers- QMV (qualified majority voting) applies in the Council - Weak control mechanisms- Uncertainty of information amongst the member states- Absence of strong conflicts in the Council & the EP- Possibility to exploiting differences between member states

Number of factors explaining why it has happened:

- The increasing influence of the EC & EP- Loss of status - Defeats & failures - The growing importance of the use of “new modes of governance” - Notions of rolling back the responsibilities

Concluding remarks

Commission = the most distinctive of the EU’s institutions

Extensive debates & different views Two “polar” views - The intergovernmentalist- The supranationalist

BUT: !! Commission remains central and vital to the whole EU system !!

Thank you for your attention!