Ombudsmanvragen! Wat vindt Juncker eigenlijk zelf van corrupte benoeming topambtenaar?
Juncker kan in Brussel gewoon zijn vriendje Selmayr via een volstrekt corrupte procedure tot hoogste ambtenaar benoemen zonder dat hij in de politieke problemen komt, maar een beetje in die vlek wrijven kan nooit kwaad.
Daarom zijn wij ook blij dat de Europese Ombudsman, na een verzoek van godbetertje D66, zich kwaad heeft gemaakt en Jean-Claude Juncker in het ambtenarenbrussels vraagt of hij wel helemaal goed in de bovenkamer is om zo zijn reet af te vegen met iedere vorm van bestuurlijk fatsoen, onafhankelijke ambtenarij en gouvernementele integriteit. Vooral vraag twee begint met een constatering die in ieder democratisch parlement onmogelijk zou moeten zijn. "The Commission did not answer several of Parliament’s questions on how this appointment may have damaged the trust in the EU as a whole." Geen antwoord geven op moeilijke vragen. Riep daar iemand 'nepparlement'? Alle vragen van de Ombudsman, die ook alle documenten over de benoeming heeft opgeëist, na de breek.
1. The Parliament resolution states that the appointment "could be viewed as a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law". How has the Commission reflected on this characterisation of the manner in which the appointment was made and what, if any, lessons has it learned from the affair overall?
2. The Commission did not answer several of Parliament’s questions on how this appointment may have damaged the trust in the EU as a whole. Would the Commission now, in hindsight, like to reflect on and set out its view on whether it has damaged trust in the EU? Does it consider that the widespread criticism of the manner in which the appointment was made was justified?
3. While it is important that senior Commission management positions are not the object of negotiations between Member States or political parties, but rather decisions for the College of Commissioners, how will the Commission in future ensure these decisions are based on the principles of transparency, equality, qualifications and merit?
4. Does the Commission agree with the statement in the Parliament resolution that "appointments to high-level posts such as that of Secretary-General should be made independently of other appointments, thereby avoiding any suspicion of non-transparent package deals or trade-offs based on privileged information"? Can the Commission comment on this statement?
5. The Juncker Commission is a political executive, deriving its legitimacy from the European parliament elections, and is supported by an independent civil service. While this is comparable to how many EU Member States governments are structured, can the Commission comment on how it manages the working relationship between the political (that is, the Commissioners and their cabinets) and civil service sides at senior levels?
6. Citizens would expect that the EU civil service gives independent advice, while being necessarily aware of the political environment in which it works. How does the Commission ensure that, when somebody switches from a senior political role to senior management of the independent civil service, that citizens can be reassured about the impartiality of the permanent civil service?
7. The Commission has acknowledged failures in communications in relation to this appointment. What actions does the Commission intend to take in the future in order to improve its handling of valid and legitimate questions from the media, mindful that such exchanges are frequently the only way that citizens get answers to their concerns.