Document


en | fr

Election of the Commission

Greens/EFA motion for resolution


Tabled by Rebecca Harms and Philippe Lamberts
on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group

 The European Parliament,

-  having regard to Article 17 of the Treaty,

- having regard to the statements made by the President-elect of the Commission to the European Parliament on 15 July 2014,

- having regard to the written answers and oral statements made by each of the Commissioner-designates in the context of their hearings and the assessment of these hearings as set out in letters from the committee chairmen to the President of Parliament,

- having regard to the President-elect's formal presentation of a proposal for a new Commission on 10 September 2014,

- having regard to Rule 118(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas, according to Article 17(3) of the Treaty, the members of the Commission shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and commitment to the European Union from persons whose independence is beyond doubt,

B. whereas the hearings of the Commissioners-designate ensure that the investiture of the new European Commission is open and transparent and that the Commissioners-designate fulfill the above mentioned criteria;

C. whereas president-elect Juncker had to deal with the candidates nominated by the member states;

D. whereas shaken by the cumulative effects of the crises many citizens are increasingly turning their back on Europe and no longer perceive the EU as the legitimate guardian of shared peace and prosperity, which is partly reflected in the declining participation to the European elections.

E. whereas the outcome of the last European elections is clearly that things cannot remain as they are.

1. Welcomes Jean-Claude Juncker’s efforts to build a more political Commission, organised and experienced in order to be able to counterbalance the Council and defend the European interest vis-à-vis the Member states.

2. Shares many of the president-elect’s concerns regarding the dire state of the Union today, and the need to seriously invest to break the current pattern of stagnation.

3. Considers nevertheless that this College has got the priorities wrong; considers that the overall composition, the allocation of key-portfolios and above all the policy direction, made evident in the Commissioners’ remits and some structure reshuffles, are not what Europeans need to face Europe’s deep social and environmental crisis and meet the challenges of this century.

4. Reiterates that sustainability must be the core of any sound, future-oriented and crisis solving economic policy; considers that any investment plan must respond to such priorities; and remains concerned that sustainable development, as well as climate and environment policies will remain a peripheral inconvenience, rather than a central priority of this Commission; wonders for instance who will eventually be leading the forthcoming COP21 climate negotiations in Paris, considering the overlapping portfolios.

5. Deplores certain choices in the portfolio allocation that constitute problematic cases for potential conflict of interest at the heart of EU institutions; fears that the questionable commitment to European values, or the political credibility of some Commissioner-designate may eventually undermine the integrity of the whole College.

6. Considers that rather than being chosen for competence, some candidates have gotten portfolios based on party affiliation, with MEPs from major political groups accepting problematic candidates as a quid pro quo.

7. Regrets that the vote of the Members of the European Parliament against one Commissioner-designate’s portfolio attribution was not respected and the portfolio maintained as such.

8. Regrets the failure to deliver on gender balance in the College, which results in a setback of female representation from the last Commission; reiterates that in future, member states should be obliged to propose two candidates, one woman and one man.

9. Refuses hence its support to this Commission, in spite of a positive assessment of many College members but remains committed to work with the new Commission in a constructive way.

10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Commission and to the Council.