Since 11 January, the European commissioners designate have been subjected to hearings before the European Parliament. In each of the three-hour sessions, individual candidates have to respond to a wide range of questions from MEPs on subjects as varied as their own skills, their vision for the future, and their opinions on social, economic and foreign policy issues. For the commissioners designate, it's an opportunity to prove that they are not simply rubber-stamp wielders with a brief to apply the Council's decisions and the line imposed by European Commissioner, José Manuel Barroso. For MEPs, it's a chance to exercise one of their most precious and least known powers: the option of rejecting the entire line-up for the new Commission if one or more candidates fail to live up to expectations.

The oral exam, which is probably beyond the ability of many of the current ministers in Europe's national governments and certainly unlike anything that most of them have experienced, is one of the rare instances of democratic control over European institutions, which are often criticized – and not without reason – for their lack of transparency.

Notwithstanding the non-aggression pact between the parliament's political groups, which is supposed to grant commissioners designate an easy ride, MEPs are not content to passively assist at a ceremony marked by declarations of good faith – a lesson which Italian candidate Rocco Buttiglione, who was singled out for his retrograde views on homosexuality, learned to his cost. This time round, Bulgarian Rumiania Jeleva will be in the firing line for allegedly concealing her financial interests. The MEPs, who are probably eager to test the new powers granted to them by the Lisbon Treaty, may demand a reshuffle, or even the replacement of some of the candidates. The question is: will they do it?

Gian Paolo Accardo