The European Parliament in the Nomination and Investiture of the Commission

  • Adrienne HéritierEmail author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
  • Catherine Moury
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)


In this chapter, we examine why and how the EP managed to expand its powers in the nomination and investiture of the European Commission from zero at the outset of European integration to a quasi-election of the Commission President using the Spitzenkandidaten procedure in 2014. This chapter provides evidence that the EP has been using a multitude of strategies to increase its rights in this area. Notably, the EP very successfully applied the strategies of unilateral action, an alliance with the Commission and national parliaments as well as an arena-linkage strategy to introduce informal institutional change in its favour. These were subsequently formalised in treaty changes, as the EP formed alliances with some member states.


European Commission European Parliament Investiture Moving first Spitzenkandidaten procedure 


  1. Agence Europe. (1999, March 10). PE/Traité d’Amsterdam: les principales modifications du Règlement du PE approuvées afin de l’adapter au niveau traité.Google Scholar
  2. Barroso, J. M. D. (2012). State of the Union 2012 Address. Accessed 12 Dec 2017.
  3. Beach, D. (2007). The European Parliament in the 2000 IGC and the Constitutional Treaty Negotiations: From Loser to Winner. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1271–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conference of Parliaments Final Declaration. (1990, November 30). Declaration Finale. Conference of Parliaments of the European Community.Google Scholar
  5. Corbett, R. (1993). The Treaty of Maastricht: From Conception to Ratification: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, R. (1998). The European Parliament’s Role in Closer EU Integration. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coreper Letter. (1997, January 29). Conférence des représentants des gouvernements des Etats Membres, copie – letter. Coreper.Google Scholar
  8. Dinan, D. (2010). Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(s1), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dinan, D. (2014). Governance and Institutions: The Unrelenting Rise of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(S1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EC Communication 2013 Re 2014 Elections. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Preparing for the 2014 European Elections: Further Enhancing Their Democratic and Efficient Conduct, COM/2013/0126 Final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. EP & European Commission Framework Agreement. (2010). Framework Agreement on Relations Between the European Parliament and the European Commission. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  12. EP Report 2013 Re 2014 Elections. (2013). Report PE 508.212v02-0, A7-0219/2013 on Improving the Practical Arrangements for the Holding of the European Election in 2014, 20132102(INI). Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  13. EP Resolution. (1992). European Parliament, 1992, Resolution B3-0931/RCI on the Appointment of the President of the Commission, 8 July 1992. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission Commentaries. (1991). Commentaires sur le projet de traité du 8 Novembre 1991 élaborés par la présidence néerlandaise. European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission Internal Note (1991a, January). Internal Note of Commission Service.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission Internal Note. (1991b, May). Internal Note of Commission Service.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission Internal Note. (1992, June). Internal Note of the Commission Services.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission Internal Note. (1994, June). Internal Note of Commission Service.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission Internal Note. (1997, January). Internal Note of Commission service.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission Position for the Convention. (2002, September 25). Thème de la future Communication institutionnelle de la Commission – principales prises de positions exprimées à la Convention.Google Scholar
  21. European Council Conclusions (2009). Presidency Conclusions. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  22. European Council Solemn Declaration. (1983). Solemn Declaration on European Union. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  23. European Parliament Minutes. (1985, December 11). Minutes, European Parliament. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  24. European Parliament Motion for a Resolution. (1981). Motion for a Resolution, on the Investiture and Programme of the Commission in 1981, DOCUMENT 1-888/80/rev. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  25. European Parliament Resolution. (1980). European Parliament Resolution on the Relations Between the European Parliament and the Commission of the Community with a View to the Forthcoming Appointment of a New Commission, OJ C 117, 12-05-1980. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  26. European Parliament Resolution (1990). Resolution Martin, doc PE 144/177/def. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  27. European Parliament Rules of Procedure (1993, October). Rules of Procedure. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  28. Hix, S. (2002). Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobolt, S. B. (2014). A Vote for the President? The Role of Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament Elections. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(10), 1528–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Interview 1. (2004). European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  31. Interview 2. (2004). Council. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobs, F. (1995). The European Parliaments Role in Nominating the Members of the Commission: First Steps Towards Parliamentary Government or US Senate-Type Confirmation Hearings. Accessed 6 Nov 2017.
  33. Judge, D., & Earnshaw, D. (2002). The European Parliament and the Commission Crisis: A New Assertiveness? Governance, 15(3), 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524.Google Scholar
  35. National Parliaments Etats de la reflexion sur la conference intergouvernementale. (1996, February 14). Etat de la reflexion des parlements nationaux sur la conference intergouvernementale de 1996. Brussels.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, P. (2003). From the Convention to the IGC (Institutions). Constitutional Online Papers, 28.Google Scholar
  37. Nugent, N. (2001). The European Commission. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  38. Peterson, J. (2017). Juncker’s Political European Commission and an EU in Crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(2), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pistone, S. (2014). A trent’anni dal Progetto Spinelli: un’iniziativa parlamentare a favore di una Costituzione federale europea. CITTADINANZA EUROPEA (LA), 1, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pop, V. (2014, May 30). Merkel Endorses Juncker After All. EUObserver. Accessed 6 Nov 2017.
  41. Westlake, M. (1998). The European Parliament’s Emerging Powers of Appointment. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(3), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne Héritier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
    • 2
  • Catherine Moury
    • 3
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social Sciences and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesEuropean University InstituteSan Domenico di Fiesole, FlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations