EditFractures in the von der Leyen coalition
During her Presidency the European Commission has grown increasingly less transparent and less accountable
The news that some MEPs are having second thoughts about continuing support for the von der Leyen Commission over the decision to withdraw the proposed Green Claims Directive’ is not entirely surprising.
What is perhaps more surprising is the fact that the fracture in support for the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has taken so long to emerge.
Leadership style
President von der Leyen’s leadership style has been much criticised. The collegial approach of previous Commissions has been systematically eroded under her Presidency. The President has been accused of controlling, sidelining Commissioners who did not align with her views and centralising decision making. When the current Commission was being assembled after last year’s elections President von der Leyen was accused of plotting to ensure that dissenting voices from her first term as President were not renominated.
Michel Barnier has been particularly critical of the President’s Commission leadership, accusing von der Leyen as “overseeing an authoritarian drift”, as trying to personally control all political decisions and of reducing the Commissioners to “super technocrats” rather than harnessing their range of experience.
While the debate about President von der Leyen’s leadership style will roll on, what is not in doubt is that during her Presidency the European Commission has grown increasingly less transparent and less accountable – markers of an authoritarian drift.
Promise made but not delivered
When President von der Leyen succeeded Jean-Claude Juncker in December 2019, a Presidency with transparency at its core was promised. That promise has been openly and repeatedly broken.
The Pfizergate affair – in addition to shining a light on President Van der Leyen’s unorthodox approach raised fundamental questions about transparency and accountability.
It is hard to see the political leader of any EU Member States surviving revelations that contracts worth € billions for the supply of Covid-19 vaccine was secretly concluded by text messages exchanged with CEO of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
The Commission’s response when Bourla revealed the way business had been conducted was to duck for cover. Rather than providing an explanation for what had happened the Commission did all in its power to draw a veil of secrecy around the affair. Access to the texts was refused.
When the EU Ombudsman intervened, she was told that the Commission “did not hold the text messages”. The Ombudsman’s recommendation that President Van der Leyen’s office make a search was not followed. The Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration had no impact.
In May the EU General Court took the matter a step further. Responding to an appeal taken by the New York Times the Court annulled the EU Commission decision to deny access to the text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO.
The Commission has undertaken to “closely study the General Court’s decision — decide on next steps” (and) “adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation”.
The Commission’s response is due to be announced days before the EU Parliament takes its summer recess. It will make for interesting reading.
Ignoring the Ombudsman
The Pfizergate affair is by no means the only example of the Commission failing to live up to its President’s promise on transparency.
As the Pfizergate drama was developing the Ombudsman conducted an own initiative enquiry into the manner in which the EU Commission dealt with public requests for access to documents.
The report found that while only 10% of requests were refused outright, the Commission’s overall response to requests to access to documents fell “far short” of public expectations.
The Commission was particularly tardy where it was asked to review decisions where access had been refused or where only partial access was granted. It failed to meet the deadlines set in the EU’s ‘Transparency Regulation’ for responding in such cases in a staggering 85% of all cases, delays which constituted “maladministration”.
In her report the Ombudsman requested the EU Parliament to support her efforts to “reduce systemic delays in dealing with requests for public access to documents”.
In response, the Parliament “urged” the Commission to correct the problems highlighted by the Ombudsman, called on it to implement Ombudsman’s recommendations, “to reform its management of public access to documents,” instructed it to respond to outstanding cases relating to Covid-19 vaccines and threatened that if the Commission failed address the issues highlighted by the Ombudsman “ by the time the new College of Commissioners is established, Parliament would consider using all available parliamentary instruments to address the matter”. The Parliament has still to follow up on that.
Keeping the Parliament in the dark
The EU Commission’s determination to shield itself from scrutiny is strikingly demonstrated by the manner in which it deals with the European Parliament.
The parliamentary question mechanism, widely regarded as a key ‘tool’ for the enforcement of parliamentary accountability in most parliaments, is treated with a disregard bordering on contempt by the European Commission.
The Commission is notoriously slow in answering questions. In the last European Parliament, an analysis conducted by an MEP concluded that over 90% of replies were answered late. Replies when delivered are frequently incomplete, misleading, dismissive, disrespectful, inaccurate and occasionally false.
While the PQ system has never been as well developed or respected in the EU Parliament as in national parliaments its decline has been spectacular during the lifetime of the Van der Leyen Commissions.
Pause for thought
The Commission announcement that it intends to withdraw the proposed Green Claims Directive during a press briefing on 20 June has caused fury in the European Parliament. Discussions between the Parliament, Council and Commission were about to open in trilogue on 23 June. The very legality of the Commission’s action has been questioned.
The Commission’s decision is unlikely to bring the Commission down as some commentators have suggested – the Commission knows all too well how to exploit differences between the Parliament’s political groups. Irrespective of their views on the proposed Directive itself, however, the manner in which the Commission has acted should give MEPs from all the political groups pause for thought on what it says about how the Commission views the Parliament and the mandate that its Members have received from the citizens who elected it.
Caption: Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President, attends a debate on ‘EU support for a just, sustainable and comprehensive peace in Ukraine’ at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, 07 May 2025. The current plenary session runs from 05 to 08 May 2025. EPA/RONALD WITTEK
Updated: June 24, 2025 - 13:10
