According to Article 17(7) of the TEU, the European Council ‘shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission’, taking into account the results of the European elections. This subparagraph gave life to the experiment of the Spitzenkandidaten system. A potential tool for the further democratization of the EU and a powerful political weapon in the hands of the European Socialist Party. The outcomes of the experiment differed in 2014 and 2019. The former was slower but successful, while the latter was a smooth launch that failed. Despite the skeptical evaluations of its functioning during the previous European elections, the European parties launched the system in 2024 again.

This paper seeks to analyze the 3rd round of the new electoral system for the Commission’s President. Through a comparative analysis of the party selection of the candidates, campaigns, and the selection and election process of the European executive’s recruitment, this work shed light on whether democratic institutions can be withdrawn or effectively adapted to maintain a balance within the integration.

Since 1995, confirmation hearings in the European Parliament (EP) have been integral to the appointment of the European Commission, offering a platform to scrutinize commissioner-designates' integrity, competencies, and policy agendas. This paper analyzes 160 hearings across five European Commissions over the past 25 years, revealing substantial progress in the three stages of confirmation hearings. The pre-hearing stage has seen an enhanced information provision, while the public questioning stage increasingly has emphasized candidates' policy priorities. In the evaluation stage, the EP has gained greater control over personnel and policy aspects. It illustrates the hearings' evolution beyond an instrument for parliamentary scrutiny to enhance influence and the political accountability of the EU Commission.

A long-lasting dream of many proponents of the European Parliament’s (EP) greater involvement in and influence on the election of the European Commission’s (EC) President became a reality ten years ago. Back then, for the very first time, European political parties nominated before the elections their lead candidates – Spitzenkandidaten – for the Commission’s Presidency. In the end, the lead candidate has been elected as the President of the EC. However, the ‘success’ of the Spitzenkandidaten procedure did not repeat itself in 2019 as the process of nominating the candidates for the European Union (EU) top positions ended up with, once again, the behind-the-closed-door agreement. A part of the explanation behind the failure of lead candidates can be found in not so-firm support of the EU political parties and the EP political groups. Moreover, instead of defending the main idea behind the Spitzenkandidaten system, some candidates have been criticized for their professional qualities and/or personal characteristics. This year's elections allow for the third reflection on the Spitzenkandidaten.

This contribution aims to identify what personal characteristics and qualities – according to the EP, political parties at the EU level, and individual EP political groups – should lead candidates have to make them suitable candidates for the EC Presidency. In other words, is there a prototype of a person that could be acceptable for most EU political parties despite their ideological and policy differences? In answering that question, the analysis builds primarily on parliamentary debates covering the electoral campaigns, the Spitzenkandidaten system as well as the process of electing the EC President and the Commission as a whole in all three instances when the EU parties nominated their Spitzenkandidaten (2014, 2019, 2024).