(20/10/04) Resolutie Europese Groenen over de Commissie Barroso (voorlopig alleen beschikbaar in het Engels)

• 2004-10-20

Resolution on the "Barroso Commission" tabled by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Monica Frassoni on behalf of the Green/EFA group

The European Parliament,
- having regard to Article 214 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rules 99 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its discussion on the nomination of Mr Barroso as President of the Commission for the 2004 - 2009 term and its resolution thereon approved by a large majority,

- having regard to the statement made by the President of the Commission 22 July before the Plenary where he promised "faithful adherence to the principles of transparency"

- having regard to the written and oral statements made by each of the nominee Commissioners in the context of their hearings and the assessments of these hearings laid down in letters from the committees' chairpersons to its president;

- having regard to the letter sent by Mr. Borell to Mr. Barroso 14 October 2004

- having regard to the appearance of Mr. Barroso before the Conference of presidents;

A. whereas the hearings of the Commissioners-designate have proven to be a useful exercise for improving the European Commission’s investiture procedure and making it more open, although the absence of any binding effect in the assessments of individual Commissioners considerably reduces their effectiveness,

B. whereas two Committees gave a straightforward negative evaluation after the hearing of the respective Commissioner-designate and several others raised serious questions as to the professional capability or the independence of the candidate

C. whereas the Commission decides on all issues as a collective body, reason for which individual Commissioners are not only be judged by political views on their specific dossier, but by their vision for Europe in general;

D. whereas, according to article 213 of the Treaty, the personal integrity of a Commissioner has not only to be high but "beyond doubt";

1. Wants a strong Commission with high political legitimisation able and ready to bring forward the European project and to promote sustainable development; regrets that the Commission as presented does not give guarantees in either of these regards;

2. Reiterates its criticism concerning the procedure of nomination and election of the Commissioners, which leaves it entirely to the discretion of every member state to propose "its" Commissioner; such proceeding leaves to the president of the Commission the only choice to distribute the different portfolios amongst the individuals proposed and restricts the role of the European parliament to say yes or no to the entire Commission;

3. Proposes for the future, to take up the proposal made by the Convention that every member state proposes three personalities composed of both sexes for "their" commissioner post, amongst which the president of the Commission chooses the most appropriate one;

4. Proposes, furthermore, confirmation of the Commission by the Parliament being done by individual vote on each Commissioner-designate;

5. Identifies three types of concerns as to the endorsement of certain candidates: political convictions contradicting basic values of the Union; lack of knowledge and commitment with regard to the portfolio proposed; unresolved problems or unanswered questions concerning conflict of interests or possible involvement in political and legal malpractice;

6. Insists that Commissioner-designate Mr. Buttiglione, whose personal beliefs make it unlikely that he will take up any positive initiative on gender equality, the fight against discrimination and the protection of refugees, will be unacceptable as a Commissioner, in particular in a position of a Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security or a vice-president of the Commission;

7. Insists on Mr. Kovacz, Commissioner-designate for Energy, be given a different portfolio, because his hearing revealed an astonishing lack of knowledge, political orientation and commitment in the field of energy policy; also notes that answers given by the nominee were often very general and of a more "diplomatic style, which raised doubts as to his capability to fight through concrete legislative proposals for a future-proof energy policy against strong lobbies advocating a return to the recipes of yesterday;

8. Considers imperative a change of portfolio for Mrs. Boel, nominee for the post of Commissioner for agriculture, who has shown a lack of consistency in her answers and could not convince the majority of members in the agricultural committee of her capacity to implement the necessary reform of the Common Agriculture Policy and the transformation into an integrated rural development policy and to defend it within the Commission, with the Council and in international organisations like the WTO; notes that her position is weakend by the fact that she revealed only at a very late stage important information concerning her personal interests closely linked to the portfolio she is expected to take on; criticises the lack of willingness she showed to enter into an open dialogue with the European parliament;

9. Does not agree with Mr. Dimas be given the portfolio of environment because lacking familiarity with fundamental and topical questions in the field of EU environmental policies; he did not give appropriate assurance of his motivation and capability to promote a sustainable Europe, in particular as concerns a strategy for future climate policy and preservation of biodiversity; reminds that assuring Europe's leadership role in global environment policy requires a Commission with vision and determination;

10. Insists on a change of portfolio for Mrs. Kroes, Commissioner designate for competition, who was chairwoman or sat in the board of more than 20 companies from different sectors; states that as a Commissioner for competition she might have to rule in cases where her "old" companies, some of which she left only very recently, are involved, which clearly constitutes a conflict of interest and may give rise to legal actions against the Commission from competitors of these companies at the Court of Justice;

11. Urges for a change of portfolio of Mrs. Udre, Commissioner designate for taxation, who did not convince from a professional point of view nor could she set out any political strategy for enhancing tax co-ordination in the Union and fighting harmful tax competition; expects Mr. Barroso to give a proper follow-up to the request made in the letter of the Economic Affairs Commitee concerning allegations of financial irregulatities in the funding of Mrs. Udre's political party and her eventual personal involvement;

12. Notes, furthermore some preoccupations stemming from the hearings of other Commissioners-designate, in particular the lack of will of Mrs. Reding, nominee for Information society and Media, to tackle the pressing question of safeguarding media pluralism in Europe;

13. Expects the Mr. Barroso as Commission President to take these considerations into account and wants him to come before the Parliament with a new proposal for a Commission;

14. Awaits that Mr. Barroso, before the vote of Parliament on the new Commission, fully endorses the proposal made by Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement;

15. Asks its president to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council;


Istanbul, 20.10.2004