Between 4th and 12th November, Members of the European Parliament put 26 Commission-designates handpicked by the European Commission President through their paces, vetting them to form the new College of Commissioners for the 2024-2029 mandate. For some, the process was smooth sailing while others faced fierce scrutiny and barely scraped through. Meanwhile, the choice for the EU’s top health, green transition and cohesion policy roles remains up in the air.
The European Parliament’s committees have held intense three-hour hearings to assess the qualifications of the EU’s 26 Commissioner nominees. The hearings are not simply a formality of reviewing CVs; they’re about figuring out if each candidate has what it takes to steer major areas of EU policy over the next five years. While the final nod of approval is often decided by political manoeuvring and coalition-building, Parliament has been clear to highlight that any nominee who failed to show a command of their assigned portfolio could be out before they’re in.
For those following the process, it’s been a fascinating blend of political theatre and a sneak peek into the EU’s potential future direction. These hearings have offered rare insight into how EU policy might shape up in the coming years, particularly as the new cohort of Commissioners bring their perspectives, competencies and biases to the table. The key focus was whether the candidates could engage deeply with the complex issues of their respective areas or whether gaps in their knowledge would be exposed by seasoned MEPs, many of whom have extensive experience in EU policymaking.
Read on for the key highlights…
The future of agriculture:
The Commission-designate for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, smoothly passed through his hearing during which he highlighted his practical background as a farmer’s son while growing up in Luxembourg and his commitment to guiding EU agriculture and food systems through challenges such as climate change, geopolitical tensions, as well as navigating regulations. He also praised the recent Strategic Dialogue on future of agriculture for fostering stakeholder collaboration and pledged to align with its consensus. Hansen also underscored the need for a cooperative approach with fellow Commissioners to ensure cohesive policy across interconnected areas such as food systems. He committed to crafting a Vision for Agriculture and Food within 100 days, as requested by President von der Leyen in his mission letter, as well as to prioritise innovation such as precision farming and bio-controls to boost EU food system competitiveness. He highlighted the need for both public and private investments, particularly through the European Investment Bank, to support sustainable agricultural transitions. Hansen was approved with broad support of the Greens, the centre-left S&D, centre-liberal Renew, his own centre-right EPP, as well as the soft-Eurosceptic ECR.
Plain sailing for net zero:
Wopke Hoekstra also navigated his hearing for a second term as head of the EU’s climate and net zero polices smoothly, gaining approval for his firm stance against climate-denying remarks from far-right MEPs. He assured lawmakers there would be no backsliding on climate commitments and reiterated support for a 90% emissions reduction target by 2040. While he sidestepped specifics on implementing a socially equitable green transition and left open questions on carbon markets and resilience planning, Hoekstra’s balanced approach satisfied MEPs. He reassured Greens with climate commitments while calming conservative concerns over industry impact and pledged to hold major polluters financially accountable.
Green transition goals face resistance – here’s where it gets complicated:
The European Parliament’s hearing for Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, who sits with the centre-left S&D, was amongst the most contentious as MEPs scrutinised her bid for the role of Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition. Ribera faced sharp questioning on her ability to balance environmental priorities with industry competitiveness which has proved to be a tension at the heart of her proposed portfolio.
The forefront of criticism came from the EPP who cast doubt on her capacity to handle the competition aspect of the role. German MEP Peter Liese was notably vocal, expressing disappointment in Ribera’s responses and questioning her credentials to wield such a broadly encompassing portfolio. Throughout, Ribera maintained her composure and was praised for her calm demeanour yet sidestepped key questions on issues such as nuclear subsidies. Her limited discussion of the anticipated Clean Industrial Deal left some MEPs unconvinced, and the session concluded without a decision – a delay that signals the complexity and stakes of the confirmation process. Crucially, Ribera is yet to win the support of the EPP, the largest political group, as well as the backing of further right-leaning blocs.
Additionally, Jessika Roswall, the candidate for the Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, too faced criticism for her responses to questions on sustainability and climate actions which have generally been regarded as vague on detail. That said, following an initial postponement, Roswall was approved with the support of the S&D, Renew and ECR.
Candidate for health portfolio hangs by a thread:
The candidate for the newly created portfolio for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, has faced intense scrutiny and his fate remains on a knife-edge.
Várhelyi is viewed by many as puppet of the right-wing populist and Eurosceptic Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, who has been a thorn in the side of pro-EU forces and is aligned with the recently formed Eurosceptic Patriots for Europe group. Várhelyi’s confirmation hearing for the role drew strong reactions from MEPs, who raised concerns about his previous criticism of the European Parliament.
Over the course of the three-and-a-half-hour session, Várhelyi presented his agenda, which includes revising the Medical Devices Regulation, introducing a Critical Medicines Act within his first 100 days, and pushing for a ban on cage farming. However, MEPs challenged him on a range of issues, including women’s rights, vaccine strategy and prior controversies, sparking a lively session punctuated by applause, gasps and even walk-outs. One of the most divisive moments came when Várhelyi reiterated that abortion, in his view, falls outside EU competence and is not a medical matter – a stance that left many MEPs visibly frustrated and in strong opposition to his appointment.
A decision on his future was initially planned, following some delays, for 13th November, but it has now been further delayed until next week, signalling strong opposition to his appointment.
What does this all mean?
The final assessment of approved Commission-designates is set to be conducted on 21st November by the Conference of Presidents, comprising the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the Chairs of each political group. Following this declaration, evaluation letters will be published, and thereafter, the full College of Commissioners are due to face a vote by MEPs in the next plenary session scheduled for 25-28th November in Strasbourg, with a majority vote required for approval.
That said, the delay in voting on Várhelyi, Ribera and Raffaele Fitto, who is the candidate for EU cohesion policy and is from Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing Eurosceptic Fratelli d’Italia party who sits with the ECR, has cast doubt on the timeline for the appointment of the next College.
Notably, the hold up in deciding the fate of these three candidates goes beyond objective criticism of their competence and ideas, as it is part of a broader triangulated political game of compromise between the political groups.
The delay in decisions on Várhelyi, Fitto, and Ribera has added uncertainty to the timeline, raising the possibility that the full College of Commissioners may be confirmed in January rather than December.
The Whitehouse team are expert political consultants providing public affairs advice and political analysis to a wide range of organisations, not only in the UK, but also across the EU Member States and beyond. Whether you’re working in the UK or the EU – get in touch with us to discuss how we can help.