More screen-time for Commissioners? Improving the quality and independence of EU ethics screening

The European Parliament’s (EP) attempt to scrutinise the conflicts of interest of commissioners-designate in early October raised eyebrows among MEPs, the media and civil society. They pointed to the numerous flaws in the process – the ludicrously tight timetable, the lack of transparency, and the political horse-trading. Despite numerous concerns raised, all commissioners-designate were given the green light to move to the next phase of parliamentary scrutiny: the individual hearings that took place in November.

For many, the solution seems obvious: ethical screening should be taken out of the hands of MEPs and managed by an independent body. It is questionable, however, whether a fully independent body is the silver bullet for handling potential conflicts of interest in the appointment process. Recent experience would suggest that such bodies are symptoms of political dysfunction, rather than its remedy. A more modest tweaking of the existing integrity framework at national and EU levels would have the effect of increasing the objectivity of conflict of interest assessments, while retaining the necessary political ownership of key decisions.

Assessments were carried out only by the members of the JURI committee, without – in theory – any input from their parliamentary colleagues, civil society organisations or media reports. Furthermore, both the declarations of interest and the deliberations at this stage are, by design, shrouded in secrecy.


Read the full paper here.