Question for Written Answer: Appointment of Mr Selmayr as Secretary-General of the Commission, and the procedure for it

Question for written answer to the Commission (Rule 130) by  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE), Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE) and Marietje Schaake (ALDE) regarding “Appointment of Mr Selmayr as Secretary-General of the Commission, and the procedure for it”.

Question for written answer P-001458/2018
to the Commission
Rule 130
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE), Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE) and Marietje Schaake (ALDE)

Subject: Appointment of Mr Selmayr as Secretary-General of the Commission, and the procedure for it

On 25 February, the French news website Libération reported that, in the procedure to appoint Martin Selmayr as Secretary-General of the Commission, internal rules had been circumvented or even breached. A week earlier, he had been appointed Deputy Secretary-General, and almost immediately after that he was appointed Secretary-General to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the previous Secretary-General, Alexander Italianer.
Can the Commission explain what the appointment procedure for a new Secretary-General is and indicate whether this procedure was followed, and if not, why it did not ensure compliance with the internal rules, and what procedure was in fact adopted in Mr Selmayr’s case?
The President of the Commission has long been aware that Mr Italianer was planning to take early retirement. That being so, why was the normal, diligent and open procedure not adhered to in the appointment of the new Secretary-General, and why were not all the Commissioners notified in advance?
Is it true that Mr Selmayr gave pledges to Commissioners in order to secure his appointment, and does the Commission consider the precipitate appointment of Mr Selmayr to be a model of the due diligence, openness and independence that can be expected when appointing the Commission’s most senior official? If so, does the Commission appreciate that this appointment suggests favouritism, lack of transparency and negligence?

Source: European Parliament

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. Cookies help you create your Policy Newsfeed for example. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close