The European Commission extended. The limits of the exercise
(BRUSSELS2) The European Commission could be extended, the noise has been circulating in the cursives of Brussels for some time. It was approved at the December European Summit by the various conclusions. The time for the new Commission to be put in place.
There are several reasons for the extension.
• Political reasons. In the event of the Treaty of Nice, there are only two posts to be distributed: the President of the Commission and the High Representative (no President of the European Council). This thwarts the plans of current President José-Manuel Barroso.
• Political reasons. With the Treaty of Nice, the Commission must immediately be reduced by at least one commissioner. This poses problems for several Member States.
• Practical reasons. Strictly following the rules of the treaty, a Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of the last instrument of ratification. And the new Commission must be in place on 1 November. In other words, with an Irish referendum in October, it's mission impossible! It would be necessary to set up a Commission - versus Nice - therefore reduced. Then reappoint a Commission to 27 Member States in January for example. Which is a bit preposterous...
Can the Commission be extended?
Reading the treaty, it is clear: the Commission is appointed for a term of 5 years. And no provision is made to extend it even in the event that the Heads of State and Government are unable to reach an agreement. This is indeed the objective: not foreseeing anything encourages everyone (Heads of State and Parliament) to find an agreement. Providing a temporary solution would be to encourage the "temporary that lasts".
Does article 215 allow it? This is an often repeated argument. It is still necessary to read this article completely and to place it in its context. Thus article 215 clearly provides that "the members of the Commission remain in office until they are replaced or until the Council decides that there is no need to replace them". But this provision comes in the fourth § of an article intended to govern the cases of interruption of function during the term of office. "Excluding cases of regular renewals and deaths", that is to say essentially voluntary resignation. Which is logical. To see in this a possibility of prolonging the Commission is, in my opinion, an error of interpretation. Any other interpretation would be absurd, since by reasoning in parallel (the regular renewal of the Commission being placed on an equal footing with death), it would oblige the deceased Commissioner to "remain in office until the Council decides otherwise..."!
The danger of the extension beyond 5 years of the mandate. A Commission extended without a mandate from the European Council and in violation of the Treaty would risk seeing these decisions annulled by the Court of Justice. Without a doubt, no Member State would push the pawn so far as to go to the Court of Justice. But we can be sure that at the first individual decision (anti-dumping, competition fine, non-instruction of State aid, competition, appointment, etc.), a lawyer would do well to invoke before the Court the default composition of the Commission. And no one is really sure of the result in front of the judges. The sword of Damocles hanging over this Commission is far too dangerous to risk.
So if there is an extension, it can only be very limited in time (a few weeks) and the Commission is reduced to expediting day-to-day business.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)