Five nominees with questions to resolve at Commission hearings Political alliances in the European Parliament will protect some nominees during confirmation hearings, and leave others at risk.

As the nominees for the next European Commission prepare for questioning by members of the European Parliament, some are under more pressure than others.

Going into the confirmation hearings, five nominees look in some ways vulnerable because of different concerns about their backgrounds, their political affiliation, or the portfolios they have been assigned (see below).

The Parliament has forced the withdrawal of Commission nominees before. In 2004, the civil rights committee voted against the nomination of Italy's Rocco Buttiglione as commissioner for justice, freedom and security because of his conservative views on women's rights and gay rights. José Manuel Barroso had to withdraw his proposed college line-up and replaced Buttiglione with Franco Frattini. Ingrida Udre, the Latvian nominee, was also replaced by Andris Piebalgs. In 2009, the Bulgarian nominee, Rumiana Jeleva, was forced to withdraw after MEPs questioned her suitability as a commissioner and her financial interests.

Some MEPs believe that the institution must claim another scalp this time around. But the political dynamics in this term make that unlikely.

The two largest groups in the Parliament, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and the centre-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D), have joined together in a 'grand coalition' that, with the additional participation of the liberal ALDE group, gives them a majority in the Parliament. The centre-left and centre-right are unlikely to vote against a nominee from the other side, for fear of upsetting the delicate balance. Philippe Lamberts, co-leader of the Green group in the Parliament, said last week that "the two major groups have decided not to attack each other".

"Neither of them are intent on eliminating the candidates from the other side because they know that retaliation would follow," he said. With the politician's obligatory twist of self-promotion, he added: "It’s only from groups like us that you might expect more direct questioning."

The delicate balance of political allegiances may protect EPP and S&D nominees if they run into trouble in the hearings. But nominees from outside the big two political groups could find themselves with fewer friends after a poor performance. The allegiance that the two largest groups have to ALDE, which is now the fourth-largest group in the Parliament, is untested. But ALDE was involved in discussions between Parliament and Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, over his political programme. ALDE was rewarded, after the votes on Juncker's confirmation and the vote on Martin Schulz's presidency of the Parliament, with extra positions in the Parliament – a vice-presidency of the Parliament and a committee chairmanship.

Even membership of one of the two largest groups may not be enough to save a nominee after a truly bad hearing. Jeleva was nominated by a party that belonged to the EPP, the largest group in the Parliament at the time, when her candidacy was rejected in 2009.

Here are some of the nominees who know that they have doubts to settle when it comes their hearings, which begin next Monday (29 September).

1) Alenka Bratušek

Wrong country, wrong political group, sensitive portfolio (energy union), wrong profile.

Hearing: Monday 6 October, 2.30pm

Slovenian nominee Alenka Bratušek has been identified by many as a weak link in Jean-Claude Juncker's line-up. It is Bratušek's misfortune that she comes from a small country and does not have the support of even that country's current government. She is vulnerable because of the way she was nominated.

To compound her difficulties, she has been nominated for a high profile position - one that because of Russia is currently very politically sensitive - for which she lacks convincing experience. Bratušek effectively put herself forward as commissioner in July, admittedly on a list with two others. Although her party had been soundly defeated in a general election, she was still leading a caretaker government at the time, which put the list to Juncker. Her actions are the subject of an ethics inquiry in Slovenia.

The new centre-left government in Slovenia, in office since last week, wants to withdraw her nomination. But at this stage that can only be done if the entire college is rejected by the European Parliament or European Council. The Socialists have indicated that they will go after Bratušek, who as a member of the ALDE group may be a more convenient target than any EPP nominee. “We have reservations about the process which led to this lady’s designation as commissioner,” said Gianni Pittella, leader of the S&D group, last week.

“Basically, she seems to have been nominated by herself. And now the political situation is different in Slovenia.” Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the ALDE group, has tried to dampen down speculation about nominees before the hearings. But he indicated last week that his group would defend Bratušek's nomination.

"To criticise [Bratušek] because she [pursued] being nominated seems to be a strange criticism," he said.

Socialist MEPs have asked if Bratušek has the appropriate experience to be given a vice-presidency post, particularly as such roles will be much more powerful in the next Commission. Juncker, the president-elect, has said that no legislative proposal will go to the college of commissioners for a vote unless it is put forward by one of the seven vice-presidents.

On the one hand, the vice-presidency magnifies the importance of her position, making her more vulnerable. But since the vice-presidencies are one of Juncker's most important innovations, he will be keen to defend her. That none of the vice-presidency posts is devoted to sustainability or the environment has alarmed MEPs on the left.

A group of about 50 MEPs, many from the S&D, has written to Juncker complaining about the situation and asking him to assign one vice-president to sustainable development. That is unlikely to happen. But some have suggested that if Bratušek's nomination runs into trouble, one way she can save herself is by giving assurances during her hearing that she will be the de-facto vice-president for climate and the environment. Although there are separate climate and energy commissioners in the current Commission, Juncker has merged these areas into one portfolio under Miguel Arias Cañete.

However, Bratušek will serve above him as vice-president for energy union. Bas Eickhout, a Green MEP who sits on the environment committee, said MEPs from the left side of the spectrum may be willing to defend Bratušek if she assures them that she will take on the role of climate champion. "She has to put it as a priority," he said. "It would be a good outcome if Bratušek becomes the de-facto climate commissioner." But it is hard to see Bratušek having the freedom of manoeuvre to make such concessions.

2) Jonathan Hill

Right country, wrong group, sensitive portfolio (financial services), wrong profile.

Hearing: Wednesday 1 October, 1.30pm

For the Parliament to reject a nominee from Germany, France or the UK would be an incendiary move. That alone ought to mean that Jonathan Hill is secure. On the other hand, he suffers from the disadvantage that he has been nominated by a party that is not affiliated to one of the two main political groups but to the third-biggest, the European Conservatives and Reformists, the centre-right group created by the British Conservatives after they broke away from the EPP in 2009.

Hill's nomination to be commissioner for financial services has alarmed MEPs on different sides of the political spectrum. The left is concerned by reports that Hill has previously lobbied for the financial services industry. Some on the right are concerned about the idea of a British commissioner being in charge of banking union, even if banking union is no longer an exclusively eurozone preserve. “You might notice that Hill is not from EPP or S&D, so he might make an easy target,” said Lamberts.

“Some people within the EPP might think ‘we don’t want to trust the banking union to this guy…who might see the banking union as a competitive threat for the City of London. And of course, they [EPP and S&D] won’t hurt each other if they attack him."

A source within the ECR group said that Hill is aware of the political risks, but he has been meeting MEPs in order to reassure them that he will not be biased toward the British government or the financial services industry.

Although little-known before his nomination, Hill worked in the private office of former British prime minister John Major and is seen as having adequate experience for the role, even if he does not come with a profile as a prominent former minister (as, for example France's Pierre Moscovici). Hill would have to perform quite badly in his hearing to be attacked by the centre-right, according to EPP sources.

The EPP would be unlikely to pick a fight with the ECR, the third-largest group in the Parliament, so early in the term as the EPP will need the ECR's support over the coming years. Hill can also count on the full support of his government in London, and British Prime Minister David Cameron would strongly resist any effort to have him withdrawn. Capitulation on this front would constitute a huge political blow for Cameron at home.

3) Miguel Arias Cañete

Right country, right group, sensitive portfolio (climate and energy), wrong profile.

Hearing: Wednesday 1 October, 6pm

Spain's nominee will come into the hearings handicapped from the start. His nomination in July surprised many because he had been the subject of recent controversy for making sexist comments. In the context of a new Commission criticised for not having enough women members, he must be considered at risk. The experience of Buttiglione shows that political groups will unite on the non-party issue of gender politics.

During Spain's election campaign for the European Parliament, Cañete, who had been agriculture minister since 2011 and was the lead candidate of the centre-right party, performed poorly in a television debate with Socialist rival Elena Valenciano. After the debate, he explained his poor performance by saying that in debates with women a man had to “control your superiority, intellectual or whatever” to avoid being seen like “a macho who is cornering a defenceless woman”. Asked about the comments after unveiling his team, Juncker said he expects Cañete to address the issue at the start of his hearing.

Cañete will also have to deal with questions about his suitability for the role of climate action and energy commissioner – a portfolio which in itself has been highly controversial. MEPs from the Greens, far-left GUE group, S&D and ALDE are upset about the loss of a dedicated portfolio for climate action and have raised objections to Cañete's ties to the oil industry. He sold his shares in two fuel-storage companies last week, but this has not alleviated the concerns. Many MEPs are worried that this new post will be dominated by energy interests.

Transparency campaigners such as Corporate Europe Observatory have also flagged up possible past conflicts of interest. While he was Spain's agriculture minister, and also while he was a member of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, Cañete's wife was receiving funds from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Although it is not unusual for MEPs on the agriculture committee to be receiving funds, since they are likely to be involved in the farming sector, CEO alleges that Cañete pushed for changes in funding rules that benefited his wife. Other questions about conflicts of interest involve his close family ties to the construction and real estate sectors.

That said, Cañete is a prominent figure from a country that is strong in the EPP, which is the largest group in the Parliament. Some Parliament sources suggest that S&D MEPs might leave aggressive questioning to Green MEPs during the hearing, so as to not upset their political alliance with the EPP. Manfred Weber, the EPP group leader, indicated last week that Cañete has the group's full support. “By selling his shares in the oil industry he will have cleared the matter up,” he said. The grand coalition is preparing to stand firm.

4) Tibor Navracsics

Wrong country, right group, inconsequential portfolio (education, culture, youth and citizenship), right profile.

Hearing: Wednesday 1 October, 6pm

There is one central problem with the nomination of Tibor Navracsics: he is from Hungary. It was to be expected that any nominee put forward by Viktor Orbán, Hungary's controversial prime minister, would face tough questioning from MEPs. Orbán's conflicts with the EU stemming from his increasingly autocratic style of leadership have left him with few friends in the Parliament, and although his Fidesz party is a member of the EPP, Orbán does not enjoy good relations with his centre-right counterparts. He was the only EU leader to join David Cameron's failed attempt to veto the nomination of Juncker, a member of the EPP, as European Commission president.

However, there is a sense among MEPs that Navracsics, and by extension Orbán, has been punished enough by being given what is one of the more inconsequential portfolios in the new Commission: education, culture, youth and citizenship.

There is some concern about the 'citizenship' part of this portfolio going to an ally of Orbán's, since the Hungarian leader has been accused of trampling on fundamental rights and the rule of law. However, it is understood that the commissioner in charge of defending these fundamental rights will in practice be Frans Timmermans, the centre-left Dutch foreign minister nominated to be first vice-president. If Hungary runs foul of the Commission again, it will be Timmermans delivering the message, not Navracsics.

Few people expect Navracsics, who has been a deputy prime minister and foreign minister in Hungary, to put a foot wrong in the hearings. Indeed, he would surely have been given a more important portfolio had the circumstances been different. MEPs know that if they were to force a Navracsics withdrawal he would simply be replaced by another Orbán ally. Such a rebuke might be temping for MEPs, who would then have claimed a scalp and demonstrated the Parliament's power. But given that Navracsics is still a member of the EPP, a rejection is unlikely.

5) Karmenu Vella

Wrong country, right group, sensitive portfolio (environment and fisheries), wrong profile.

Hearing: Monday 29 September, 2.30pm

Vella will face two concerns during his hearing: discontent over the portfolio he has been given and discomfort over his political history in Malta.

Juncker's decision to merge environment and fisheries has not gone over well and Vella will face demands from MEPs on both the environment and fisheries committees to guarantee that he will not give their policy area short shrift. MEPs on the environment committee are concerned about the mandate letter sent by Juncker to Vella, which they see as prioritising an agenda of deregulation.

Juncker's request that Vella "carry out an in-depth evaluation of the birds and habitats directives and assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation" is particularly sensitive because Malta has been in repeated and continued violation of these laws because of bird hunting. A group of the EU's biggest environmental campaign groups wrote to Juncker last week and warned: “The environment portfolio has been given to a commissioner whose government is under intense international criticism for failing to implement EU bird conservation legislation, which the commissioner will now be in a position to amend."

Vella may also face questions about his time as part of the Labour government of Dom Mintoff in the 1980s – a time of political turmoil in Malta. There have been allegations in the Maltese press against Vella over the years of political thuggery, tax evasion and corruption. None of these allegations has been proven but Vella will probably face a few questions. In part, these allegations are the product of Malta's brand of intensely tribal politics, but faith in Malta has been damaged by the loss from the last college of commissioners of John Dalli, the Maltese commissioner forced to resign during the last term over allegations of corruption.

On the other hand, it will count to Vella's advantage that his government belongs to the S&D group. Neither the S&D nor the EPP is expected to pursue an aggressive line of questioning. But colourful anecdotes from Vella's time in Maltese politics could be red meat for Eurosceptic MEPs, who could use the opportunity to attempt a resurrection of Dalligate. The European Conservatives and Reformists group would also have nothing to lose by going after a centre-left MEP. This would likely not translate to a majority voting against Vella's nomination, and the numbers are still in his favour. But if questions over his political past cause Vella's hearing to go off the rails, he may find support from the EPP and S&D groups is brittle.