The Selmayr affair, a disproportionate controversy

(B2) A controversy, as disproportionate as it is sterile, has developed around the methods of appointing the new Secretary General of the European Commission, Martin Selmayr. This is the opinion of our columnist Jean-Guy Giraud.

Some press organs - usually better inspired - have undertaken to transform into an 'affair of state' an administrative procedure which - for having been perhaps hasty and badly carried out because of the circumstances - nevertheless remains quite classic . The 'Selmayr affair' is said to be agitating certain European parliamentary circles - before being, no doubt, submitted to the examination of the Ombudsman...(read: The Selmayr affair becomes political. Socialists wave threat of no-confidence motion).

It may therefore be useful to offer a few remarks here aimed at reframing this question in a broader context:

On the one hand, the secretaries-general occupy a special place in the organization chart of the European institutions. They are, in fact, considered 'outside the box'. Due to the nature of their duties, their selection differs from the normal promotion/appointment procedures for “professional” officials. It is de facto left to the discretion of the President, subject to the agreement of the political body of the Institution. Situations and procedures of this kind are found in most Member States.

On the other hand, in this choice, the considerations of professional capacity, experience, authority, independence, motivation and European commitment must take precedence over all others relating, for example, to nationality, political or even gender inclination. In the case under consideration, it seems that the new general secretary has these qualities (1).

Finally, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to destabilize an Institution such as the Commission for an individual, administrative and internal matter of this type. In the current situation of the EU - "sick of its Member States" - the solidity and reputation of the executive should not be called into question for non-essential reasons. Its superior role as guardian of the Treaties, and permanence of the European project must not be altered by this type of "matter" which, in any case, must be settled internally (2).

Last point. It may be noted that, to a certain extent, this "affair" was the occasion - in particular for the trade unions of the European civil service - to raise a more general and legitimate grievance: that of the policy of promotion to higher grades (DG and D) Institutions (including the Commission and Parliament). This policy is sometimes accused of deviation due to the consideration of exogenous criteria such as nationality, political affiliation or proximity to members of governing bodies. This is a real question which indeed deserves to be dealt with - in its context, different from that of the Secretaries General.