The appointment of European Commissioners of Romanian and Bulgarian nationality has rekindled the debate on the Commission, its role and the way it operates. From what one reads and hears, the Union's institutional workings are not well known and are not well understood. The current interpretation going round is that the two new Member States have “appointed their Commissioners”, which proves how firmly anchored the idea is that Commissioners are in Brussels to represent their own countries. This is just one example of misunderstanding. The appointment procedure (involving approval from the Commission president, a hearing and vote in the European Parliament and nomination by the Council) is also largely unknown.
Apart from this general remark, some reflection is needed on how events unfold.
Designation and appointment. There was quite a stir when the Romanian Commissioner was designated as the first name given by Bucharest was firmly rejected by part of the European Parliament, and Mr Barroso had quite simply refused to accept it. The Romanian government had committed a political and legal blunder by considering that it could designate a person of its own choosing without first of all seeking consensus from the Commission president and without taking into account how the Parliament would react. The Romanian press attributed this “faux pas” to Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu, who then had to back-pedal. The first Commissioner designated, Varujan Vosganian, was forced to withdraw. While asserting that the accusations hanging over him both in Bucharest and in Brussels were unfounded, he said he wished to prevent the continuation of a polemic that could damage the image of his country. The candidate finally selected was Leonard Orban who, without being a top political personality, has the “European experience required” as he had conducted the negotiations for his country's membership of the Union.
The designation of the Bulgarian Commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, European Affairs Minister in his country, did not give rise to any objections.
Hearings before the European Parliament will begin at the end of the month. MEPs will no doubt be severe and demanding, but no surprises are expected.
Task attribution. President Barroso has not followed up the suggestions inviting him to seize the opportunity provided by this occasion to reshuffle the Commissioners' competences. Revelations more or less founded, albeit denied by those concerned, spoke of the possible resignation of Mr Verheugen (after his declarations on the excessive powers of senior officials) and of Mr Michel who, displeased with the unwieldy nature of the European administrative machinery, apparently said he wished to return to national politics. Mr Barroso has not given weight to these rumours and, far from suggesting a reshuffling, has simply entrusted to the two new Commissioners part of the competences today covered by others. To Meglena Kuneva he attributed consumer protection (currently entrusted to Markos Kyprianou, who remains responsible for health policy) and to Leonard Orban he attributes “multilingualism”, which is currently one of the responsibilities shouldered by Jan Figel, who will keep his sphere of responsibility covering education, culture and training.
It would be excessive to claim that the two new Commissioners are to take on overwhelming responsibilities. But consumer protection could take on added weight if it exceeds the legal area of specific directives to deal with the impact that Community policies have on the daily lives of citizens: trade policy, energy policy, farm policy, transport policy, etc. And multilingualism is becoming of significant political importance from the point of view of defending national cultural identities against the domination of a single language, and because of the difficulties that the Commission itself meets in communicating with the Union citizens in their mother tongues. At any rate, the two new Commissioners will take part in collegial deliberations on all issues, if they have the resolve and the ability to do so and if the principle of collegiality is respected.
Future developments. In addition to individual cases, current enlargement of the Commission again means that the general issues referring to its composition are of topical importance. These issues concern the maximum size of the Commission for efficiency, its future developments, and the overwhelming weight of the small countries in its composition (which causes doubt about its legitimacy when taking simple majority decisions). I shall endeavour to take stock of these difficult questions tomorrow. (F.R.)