From Parliamentarisation to Presidentialisation? The Politics of Commission Confirmation Hearings

The confirmation hearings of the European Commission have evolved from an ad hoc procedure into one of the most consequential arenas of institutional contestation between the European Parliament and the Commission. This paper examines how the progressive institutionalisation of these hearings since 1999 has reshaped the appointment process of Commissioners. Hearings have become a central accountability mechanism through which two parallel constitutional developments unfold: the parliamentarisation of executive selection and the presidentialisation of the Commission. Drawing on a comparative analysis of the hearings across six Commissions (1999–2024), the study develops a three-stage accountability model—pre-hearing information control, public scrutiny via oral questioning, and post-hearing evaluation—to trace how formal rules and informal practices interact in producing political accountability. The findings reveal a dual dynamic. On the one hand, the European Parliament has steadily expanded its influence over appointments through procedural innovation, strategic deployment of soft power, and increasingly assertive scrutiny of nominees. On the other hand, the internal reorganisation of the Commission—characterised by stronger presidential leadership, hierarchical vice-presidents, and cross-cutting portfolios—has consolidated executive authority and fundamentally reshaped the stakes of parliamentary oversight.