Is President Martin Schulz’ power abuse undermining the European Commission’s legitimacy?

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | September 29, 2014

 

Disrespect for procedural rules could undermine legitimacy of decisions adopted. But Martin Schulz doesn't seem to care.

Over at European Dignity Watch, there is an  interesting post relating to European Parliament President Martin Schulz’ lonesome decision to twist and bend the Parliament’s rules of procedures for the hearing of the incoming Commissioner designates.

The controversial decision is specifically tailor made for Frans Timmermans, a former Dutch foreign minister (who has some notoriety for pushing sodomy “rights” at UN level, as reported on an earlier post on this blog).

It is of course not new that Martin Schulz disrespects rules (see here). But in this specific case, the consequences might be far reaching. Could it be that the brazen disrespect for a clear and unambiguous procedural rule will undermine the legality of the European Parliament’s vote to confirm the new European Commission? And what would be the consequences for the legality of the Commission itself, and for all the legal acts it will adopt?

The question is far from being clear. But its potential implications mean that they have to be taken very seriously.

As I see it, the EU Treaties confer a right (in the sense of: privilege) to the European Parliament to conduct hearings of Commissioner designates, leaving it to the EP itself to decide whether and how that right is exercised. Therefore the matter can be handled by the EP quite autonomously.

On the other hand, however, it remains that the EP has adopted internal rules how such hearings should be conducted, and that Mr. Schulz (who is an executive organ, and not the supreme legislator, of the EP) has brazenly violated these rules. A decision of the EP that disrespects the Parliament’s own procedural rules is usually considered null and void – as if it had never happened. If the European Commission is confirmed through a plenary vote that disrespects the EP’s own rules of procedure, the consequences could be quite considerable.

No one knows what may have driven Mr. Schulz to make this strange decision. But my kind advice to him would be to drop it. The matter is just too important to needlessly play around with the procedures. Allowing for even the remotest possibility that a vote like this could afterwards be challenged on procedural grounds is simply irresponsible.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter