chapter 9 - european commission Flashcards
hybrid character
both less and more than the civil service of the EU:
- less: day-to-day administrative responsibilies mostly are for member states
- more: greater policy-initiating and decision-making powers than national civil services
it is both political and administrative
The College of Commissioners
size + appointment + independence and impartiality + characteristics of commissioners + President of the College + Commissioners’ portfolios + Commissioners’ cabinets
= sits at the summit + constitutes the political branch
size = became greater with enlargement (+ prior to 2000 Nice summit the larger states had 2 representatives)
appointment = first every 4 years by gov. member states, Maastricht Treaty ->
- Maastricht Treaty: strengthened link between Commission and EP
formalizing appointment: consulting with EP about president, College-designate obliged to present itself before the EP for a vote of confidence
alignment: College would serve 5 year terms + take office 6 months after EP elections - Amsterdam Treaty formalized de facto confirmatory power EP had assigned to itself on the appointment of the Commission President
- Nice Treaty: QMV for decision on the appointments of the Commissioners
- Lisbon Treaty: nomination for President should take into account results latest EP elections + candidate needs to be elected, not approved, by the EP + one of the Commissioners should be the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
!didn’t change appointment process, it did give the EP a larger role
impartiality and independence =
- Commissioners are not supposed to be national representatives, they need to represent the general interest of the EU
(in practice: no full impartiality, nor do they try to achieve this: some national ties are useful for agenda setting, clear national obstacles and help finances)
characteristics of Commissioners = no rules, but usually former national politicians, pro-European + not extremist
president of the College = larger and larger role (presidentialisation of the Commission)
- most known Commissioner, principle representative, gives sense of direction, allocates portfolios, can require Commissioners to resign, oversees administrative services, responsible for coordination activities
Commissioners’ portfolios = areas of responsibility (e.g. Trade, Competition, and Environment), Commissioners aren’t the heads of services, they are political reference points and overseers
- prior to Amsterdam Treaty: allocation portfolios matter of negotiation and political balance
- Amsterdam Treaty: President allocates portfolios (still: they are lobbied) + could reshuffle responsibilities
e.g. Juncker College made hierarchical structure: new type of portfolio with 7 Vice-Presidents overseeing broad branches and more specific Commissioners + one First Vice-President (Frans Timmermans)
Commissioners’ cabinets = Commissioners have personal cabinet (and support staff) to assist them, how many you have depends on your portfolio/role
- at first mainly nationalist, Prodi introduced rule that they should have >3 nationalities
- tasks cabinet: gather information + engage with other cabinets + unofficial advocate in the Commission of the interests of their Commissioner’s country
the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as Commission President
- Lisbon Treaty -> EP right to initiate who should be the nominee for president -> worked together with political parties, that each proposed a candidate
- May 2014 EP elections with Spitzenkandidat sustem
- some countries argued (Hungary, UK) EP had no rights to nominate, that it interpreted the Lisbon Treaty wrong
- late June used QMV to determine nominee, largest candidate of the largest political group in the EP was chosen = European People’s Party -> Jean-Claude Juncker (Lux) as nominee
- Juncker campaigned in EP, nomination was confirmed (422 against 250 votes)
this election = high profile + more separated from appointment other Commissioners + there’s no going back
the appointment of the (Juncker) College
stages in the process of appointing Commissioners
- nomination stage: first nomination of President and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, then all remaining member states nominate ‘their’ candidates
*often President-designate tries to influence nomination, but has little effect (also bc some countries release names before nomination president) - EP approval stage: approval of the whole College, not individual nominees (still can threaten to reject whole if one is not eliminated), designates appear individually before ‘examining’ EP committees in hearings (EP committees covering the designates portfolio)
- formal appointment stage: approval of the govs of the member states (meeting in the forum of the European Council)
Juncker college
- limited success in influencing nominations: some states already released names + some states held back names Juncker preferred to persuade him to give important portfolio + EP said it would not confirm College-designates if there weren’t at least 9 females (as in the Barroso 2 College)
- Spitzenkandidat process -> political tensions. late oct. 2014 consent new College
there were reservations in 5 cases, Slovenian nominee was seen as performing to poorly to be accepted
The Services
= the Commission’s administration
= biggest element of the EU administrative system
- in comparison with size of administrations in the member states it is small, bc it does not deal with ‘front-line’ policy implementation (member states admin is resp)
appointment= permanent staff, competitive hiring
- meritocracy + policies to provide reasonable national balance among staff
- internal mobility is encouraged + in senior/sensitive posts obligatory
- top jobs filled via internal promotion
organisation = Commission’s services divided into organisational units: Directorate General (DG) s and general or special services (!distinction is not clear, non-DG should not be seen as junior to DGs)
- size depends on policy importance, workloads, specialization etc.
e.g. DG Translation is the largest (2300 staff) - distinction DG and not-DG not clear, non-DG services tend to be more focused on supporting policies than handling them, but not always
e.g. Secretariat-General is a DG (function: make Commission function as a whole)
e.g. Legal Service non-DG
The Commission’s Hierarchical Structure
- important matters are channelled through weekly meetings College of Commissioners, usually consensus decisions (sometimes majority)
- agenda items are discussed by Commissioners groups + must be ‘cleared’ by relevant Vice-President and First Vice-President
- Commissioners have leadership responsibility in particular policy areas
- DGs are formally headed by Directors General, they are responsible to the Commissioners
- Directorates are headed by Directors, they report to the Director General or Deputy Director General (in large DGs)
- units are headed by Heads of Unit, they report to the responsible Director
in practice sometimes complications bc
- imperfect match some portfolios and responsibilities of services
- lines of division responsibilities Vice-Presidents and other Commissioners
- Commissioners’ half-way position: more than permanent secretaries, less than ministers
-> perhaps unreasonable that the Commission is subject to collective responsibility + it is difficult to apply individual responsibility
Decision-making mechanisms in the Commission
‘model route’ =
- initial draft drawn up at the middle-ranking policy grade level in the ‘lead’ DG (liaison with other DGs that have an interest + often outside assistance sought and contracted)
- progress is ‘monitored’ by the Secretariat-General
- draft is passed/revised upwards: superiors in DG, cabinet of Commissioner, weekly meeting of chefs de cabinet, College of Commisioners
- College of Commissioners accepts, rejects, refers or defers from making a decision about the proposal
there are plenty of deviations from this model route
- e.g. ‘written procedure’: straightforward proposals are circulated among Commissioners and adopted if there are no objections within a specified time (usually 1 week)
- e.g. when policy issues cut across Commission’s administrative divisions
procedures and mechanisms for liaison and coordination
- DGs: management practices/devices to solve problem horizontal coordination (e.g. ad hoc arrangements: inter-service groups/meetings, task forces, project groups)
- Secretariat-General of the Commission: charged with ensuring coordination and communication across the Commission
- President of the Commission: coordinating responsibility
(social skills necessary to create collective identity) - College-level coordinating mechanisms created by Juncker: Vice-Presidents
- College of Commissioners: weekly meetings represent/view all Commission interests
power resources
- power to initiate policies (for legislation it has exclusive initiative powers, for other measures other actors can also initiate, eg. European Council and the Council)
- unique nature EU and special position Commission = Commission as non-partisan + neutral -> more favorable reception of proposals
Commission no legitimacy through direct elections
judgments of Commission often trusted: access to information about operation of EU policies, more trusted than judgments by e.g. national gov. or political group in EP
responsibilities of the Commission in broad
- proposer and developer of policies and legislation
- executive functions
- the guardian of the legal framework
- external representative and negotiator
- mediator and conciliator
- promoter of the general interest
responsibilities Commission - proposer and developer of policies and legislation
= proposing measures/treaties that are likely to advance the dev. of the EU
policy initiation and dev.
- Commission no completely free hand: other actors produce policy papers, lobby, and issue exhortations and recommendations
-> policy preferences of others must be recognised and when necessary accomodated in order to find broad support and be effective - when European Council and/or the Council indicate they want to see a certain sort of proposal, the Commission is obliged to respond (but the structure of these initiates prevents them being bold and imaginative, more often reacts to Commission than make proposals)
legislative initiation and dev.
= EP and Council can only request the Commission to make proposals, can’t do so themselves
!!important role of advisory committees for preparing legislative proposals!!!
- some policy sectors more covered by advisory committees than others, bc: importance policy, reliance of Commission on outside expertise and technical knowledge
- influence by advisory committees varies enormously + often expert committees more influence (consultation is compulsory + more than technical advice: alert of probable gov. reactions + meet more regularlY)
advisory committees:
- expert committees: national officials, experts and specialists nominated by national gov., but not seen as gov. spokesmen, consultation is often compulsory for legislation
can be well-established or ad hoc + wide-ranging or specialised/technical - consultative committees: representatives of sectional interests, organized without reference to national govs., employment based on nominations by representative EU-level organisations
e.g. agriculture many consultative committees: 20 for products + 6 more general - hybrids: mixed forms of membership
responsibilities Commission - executive functions
= management, supervision and implementation EU policies
moslty: monitoring and coordinating, ground rules, investigations, rulings
rule making: treaties/legislation can’t cover everything, therefore they give the Commission rule-making powers
first: comitology committees: member states representatives that could control over the Commission, was overhauled by Lisbon Treaty distinction:
- legislative acts = political legislation = original law
- delegated acts = general application to supplement or amend non-essential elements of original law
Commission can make delegated act (amendment), Council and EP can post hoc reject the act - implementing acts = when specification is necessary for universal application of the original law
advisory procedure: Commission is obliged to take committee’s opinion into account
examination procedure: simple majority member state representative on a committee can reject a implementing act + Council or Parliament can pass non-binding resolutions if they feel the Commission exceeds its rule-making power)
management of EU finances
!Commissions ability to manage finance is weakened by Council and EP controlling upper limits of revenue base and framework spending decisions
!most front-line implementatino EU spending programs not done by Commission itself, it works through external agencies
- oversee correct rates are applied within certain categories of revenue = expenditure side
!Commission must work within approved annual budget + guidelines in multi-annual financial frameworks (MFFs)
- spending on agriculture and rural affairs ~40% budget (draws on two funds: European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) + European Agricultural Fund for Rural Dev. (EAFRD)
- cohesion policy spending ~35% EU expenditure (draws on European Regional DEv. Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund)(aims to reduce eco/social disparities in EU)(in this system: Council makes strategic decisions on basis Commission proposals, programming decisions by Commission and member states jointly + implementation monitored by Commission) - ensure proper payments are made to the EU by national authorities (act as EU’s collecting agents)
- coordinate/manage finances not drawn exclusieve from EY budgetary sources: e.g. management European Fund for Strategic Investments, environmental programs, scientific research programs, educational programs
supervision of ‘front-line’ policy implementation
policy implementation mostly done by national agencies, Commission attempts to supervise them
this supervision has difficulties:
- under resourced in most policy areas
- national agencies not always capable of implementing policies as the Commission wishes (some EU policies are difficult to administer + officials often poorly trained or overburdened)
e.g. Common Fisheries Policy: many complicated rules that require much supervision - agencies in member states don’t always want to see EU law applied (e.g. in Competition policy)
- EU law can be open to different interpretations
responsibilities Commission - the guardian of the legal framework
= together with EU courts responsible for ensuring EU legislation and treaties are respected
becoming aware of possible illegalities
- non- or incorrect transposition into national law = obvious as it often has a deadline
- self-notification: sometimes states are obliged to notify the Commission about national draft regulations (or do so bc they seek advise or exemption)
- representations made by individuals, organisations, firms and member states that believe their interests are damaged by alleged illegal actions of another party
- Commission efforts: investigations, information by outside agencies, keeping up with news
wrongdoing EU laws -> infringement proceedings. before formal action the state always needs to be informed + Commission does investigation
- article 258 TFEU: Commission gives opinion, State can comply within given timeframe, if it doesn’t Commission can bring matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Commission’s ability to exercise legal guardianship is blunted by:
- limited resources -> not all cases can be pursued (vigorously)
- relevant and detailed info can be difficult to get (can be hidden or hard to find)
e.g. true application of laws in member states of prosecuting/catching bird shooters and hunters - political considerations can inhibit acting as vigorously as it might in certain problem areas and in particular cases : commission doesn’t want to emberass or upset gov.
responsibilities Commission - External representative and negotiator
6 roles
- determining and conducting EU’s external trade relations (e.g. in WTO or with Japan)
- negotiating/management responsibilities external agreements EU
- High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy + Commission represent the EU IOs (UN, Council of Europe, Organisation for Security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), OECD)
- key point of contact between EU and non-member states
- responsibilities applications for membership (investigation + opinion)
- foreign and defense policies: supportive and secondary to Council , but:
High Representative is in Commission and Council
effectiveness of CFSP highly dependent on use of policy instruments managed by the Commission
responsibilities Commission - mediator and conciliator
= bringing/seeking agreements between competing interests + seeking for common ground / compromise
-> guarded/cautious proposals = grudging incrementalism
works well as mediating mechanism:
- seen as non-partisan
- best position to judge which proposals are likely to command support
responsibilities Commission - promoter of the general interest
Commission stands apart from sectional and national interests, is the ‘conscience’ of the Union
-> should avoid partisanship + seek good functioning/cohesion whole Union
neutral role hard to operationalise:
- what is the general interest? is there a general interest?
