Integrity Check of the New EU Commission: Arbitrary, Incomplete, Politicized
Before Ursula von der Leyen’s candidates for the next EU Commission are assessed by the European Parliament for their qualifications for top positions, they must undergo an integrity check. What does this mean in practice? The 26 candidates must declare their assets, employment history, and other financial interests to the Parliament, so we can assess if there are any potential conflicts of interest. For example, we want to avoid a situation where a future Energy Commissioner holds shares in a major gas company.
The review is conducted by the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, where the candidates’ disclosures are evaluated. This process is flawed and entirely inadequate to ensure the integrity of the EU Commission. There are three main reasons for this:
- – First, the way in which candidates fill out the questionnaires seems completely arbitrary. The level of detail varies enormously. Some provide their exact bank account balance, the square footage of each property, and details of their cars. Others provide almost no information. One candidate even went as far as to self-assess that there was no conflict of interest from his bank account—while refusing to provide any further details.
- – Second, the review process takes place behind closed doors without external expertise. The only basis for the Members of Parliament to make decisions is the filled-out questionnaires. There is no consultation of national experts or analysis of media reports. A comprehensive and thorough check for conflicts of interest is simply not possible under these circumstances.
- – Third, the process is politicized and far from independent. The majority dynamics in the Legal Affairs Committee mirror those of the Parliament. Approvals are based on majority votes. Can we be sure that MEPs always scrutinize candidates closely when they belong to their own political family? It’s unclear. After the difficult experience five years ago, the Legal Affairs Committee requested support from an independent EU ethics body. This was agreed upon shortly before the European elections but has not yet been set up, and the Commission opposes it being involved in screening Commissioner candidates.
Daniel Freund, Member of the European Parliament for the Greens, comments:
“The current process for screening Commission candidates is inadequate. It is not fit to identify and address conflicts of interest. The EU cannot afford such a careless approach when appointing its top officials. We need independent and comprehensive review processes to prevent conflicts of interest at the highest levels of the EU Commission. The EU should take inspiration from procedures in countries like France and the US, where candidates for high office undergo independent checks. It is essential for trust in EU institutions and European democracy that EU Commissioners are beyond reproach.”
—
Example USA: Donald Trump’s financial disclosures as a presidential candidate:
See detailed information on the value of each element.
* Candidates from new EU member states tend to be more detailed. During the accession process, the EU enforced detailed disclosure rules, which the candidates for top positions now often fail to follow themselves.
Example Bulgaria: The financial disclosure of Ekaterina Zaharieva at the national level before she became a Commissioner candidate:
https://register.caciaf.bg/2023/35724953-C693-433E-9A21-E737A841B744145683.xml
There, she provides the square footage and purchase price for each property:
– Apartment in Sofia, 94 square m, acquired 2009, price BGN 205,359
– Apartment in Sofia, 62 square m, acquired 2008, price BGN 23,050
– Villa with yard Kokalyane village – villa 27 square m, yard 591 square m, acquired 2016, price BGN: 46,800
– House with yard in Sofia acquired 2007, yard 599 square m, house 484 square m, price: BGN 21514 for yard, and price BGN 174,118 for construction contract for house
– House with studios, built for economic purposes on agricultural land acquired in 2008 in Greece. In 2019 Mr. and Mrs. Zaharieva acquired ½ of the property (house with studios); in 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Zaharieva acquired ½ of 7 acres of agricultural land in Greece for the price of BGN 105,114.
In addition in the same declaration the sums for bank deposits declared are:
Mrs. Zaharieva: BGN 90,169; Mr. Zahariev: BGN 10,000.
European Parliament resolution of 1 December 2016 on Commissioners’ declarations of interests
The European Parliament,
- Calls on the Commission to revise, as a matter of urgency, the 2011 Code of Conduct for Commissioners to take account of the recommendations made by Parliament in its recent resolutions and of the development of the general ethics and transparency standards that apply to all EU institutions; recommends that the Commission modify its Code of Conduct for Commissioners with a view to ensuring:
- a) that Commissioners declare all their financial interests, including assets and liabilities over EUR 10 000;
- b) that Commissioners declare all their interests (as shareholders, company board members, advisors and consultants, members of associated foundations, etc.) as regards all the companies in which they have been involved, including close family interests, as well as the changes that took place at the time their candidacy was made known;”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0477_EN.html
Opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs from February 25, 2021
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the
committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a
resolution:
- … recommends therefore that, while fully keeping its competence on the
matter, the Committee on Legal Affairs decide on the existence of a conflict of interest
of Commissioners-designate after having received non-binding, public, precise and
motivated recommendations by such an independent expert advisory body, which would have the effect of strengthening its action; considers that the Committee on Legal
Affairs should ultimately hold a debate on the recommendations issued by the
independent EU ethics body;
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-657482_EN.pdf
It is essential for trust in EU institutions and European democracy that EU Commissioners are beyond reproach.