1. The Commission A key institution in the EU System By Florence Di Bonaventura, Marianna Manoukian and Cédric Gosse-le-duc. 2010-2011

2. The commission  Appointment and composition  Organisation  Power resources  Responsibilities  The influence of the COM in the EU  Conclusion

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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).

11. 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

12. Organisation (2)  The hierarchical structure oClear 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 oQuestion: 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

13. 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

14. 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 Commission 3.The ill-defined coordinating responsibility of the President of the Commission 4.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)

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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’?

21. 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

22. 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 !!

23. Thank you for your attention!