Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Full text 
Monday, 12 March 2018 - Strasbourg Revised edition

14. Integrity policy of the Commission, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group . – Mr President, my Group has tabled a set of questions. Unfortunately, we haven’t received sufficient responses to them from the Commissioner and I hope that he will still go back to those four questions. You have argued that everything was in compliance with the rules: rules are one thing, the other is the impression.

Let me add a few more questions to what we originally tabled. I have no special information, everything I have comes from open sources, from the media.

Is it true that on 19 February, when Heads of Cabinet met to prepare a College meeting, no mention of the appointment was on the agenda or under any other business, while on 21 February it was there? And that the whole procedure for the appointment of the Secretary-General took just nine minutes, where Mr Selmayr was first appointed Deputy Secretary-General, then the Secretary-General of the European Commission resigned, and then Mr Selmayr was appointed as the Secretary-General?

My second question: was he the only candidate, or were there more candidates?

My third question, again from the media: is it true that the minutes of the 21 February Commission meeting were amended to include a discussion about the merits of non-existent multiple candidates?

Mr Commissioner, there is a lot of interest surrounding that appointment and I think that you should do your best to come out with something which is trustworthy, and you should avoid any feeling or any impression that it was a pre-prepared, politically motivated nomination. Unfortunately, I don’t think that in this case you did your job perfectly.

Last updated: 29 May 2018Legal notice