05/11/2025
Recent incidents involving the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) under Chair Sven Simon (EPP, Germany) have raised serious questions about the instrumentalisation of parliamentary proceedings, lack of transparency in expert selection, and potential abuse of the Chair’s prerogatives.
Two Episodes
- Prof. Laurent Pech withdraws from rule of law conference
Professor Laurent Pech, a leading EU rule of law expert, withdrew from an upcoming AFCO symposium on the rule of law. After exchanges with the AFCO Chair, Pech concluded he was being used to legitimise “illegal judges” and “pseudo experts” in the name of “dialogue”, “political balance” or “diversity of views”.
Pech explained that the conference appeared designed to normalise individuals involved in violations of EU and national rule of law standards or their justification on account of allegedly different understandings of the rule of law. He noted that after he withdrew, AFCO approached yet another individual “directly complicit in repeated violations of Polish and European rule of law standards.” Prior to this, two “illegal judges” from Poland’s Supreme Court had also been invited, allegedly “by mistake.”
- Prof. Alberto Alemanno was disinvited from the electoral law public hearing
On March 19, 2025, AFCO Secretariat sent Professor Alberto Alemanno an official invitation to speak at a public hearing on “The reforms of European Electoral Law” scheduled for April 9, 2025. The invitation stated it was sent “on behalf of Mr. Sven Simon MEP, Chair” and that “your name was endorsed by the AFCO Coordinators of Political Groups.”
Professor Alemanno immediately accepted, noting he had “contributed several times in past legislatures” to this topic and has been following electoral law reform “since at least 1999.”
Hours later, the AFCO Secretariat walked back the invitation, claiming they were merely “checking availabilities” and that “a formal invitation will come in the next days, only if you are selected”, despite having already stated his name was endorsed by the political group coordinators.
Professor Alemanno has been a regular expert participant in AFCO electoral law hearings during the previous three parliamentary terms.
A Pattern of Instrumentalisation
While these two episodes involve different types of parliamentary proceedings – a conference in Pech’s case, a public hearing in Alemanno’s – they reveal the same pattern. In both instances, fundamental questions arise about expert selection:
– What criteria govern who gets invited? In one case, questionable participants are included under the banner of “balance.” In the other, an established expert with decades of experience is suddenly deemed to require “selection” despite coordinator endorsement.
– Who has final decision-making authority? The AFCO Chair appears to override political group coordinators’ collective decisions and reverse official invitations without explanation or due process.
– Where is the transparency? Neither case reveals clear, publicly available procedures. Experts are left guessing whether their selection depends on genuine expertise, political considerations, or the Chair’s personal discretion.
– What accountability mechanisms exist? When invitations can be issued and retracted arbitrarily, or when conference platforms provide individuals with compromised credentials, who can challenge these decisions?
Why This Matters
These incidents suggest a systematic instrumentalisation of AFCO’s parliamentary proceedings. Whether organising conferences or public hearings, the committee appears to operate without transparent, objective criteria for expert participation. Instead, the pattern reveals:
– Politicisation over expertise: Established experts are excluded or instrumentalised while questionable participants are included in the name of “political balance”
– Concentration of power: The Chair’s prerogatives are being exercised without meaningful checks from political group coordinators or clear procedural safeguards
– Erosion of parliamentary integrity: What should be independent, expert-driven consultations risk becoming curated political exercises that serve predetermined narratives
Parliamentary conferences and public hearings exist to inform legislators’ work through genuine expert input. When selection processes become opaque, political considerations trump expertise, and a Chair can unilaterally shape the expert landscape without accountability, these proceedings lose their legitimacy.
The pattern emerging from AFCO under its current leadership demands urgent scrutiny. Without transparent selection criteria, enforceable procedures, and meaningful oversight of the Chair’s prerogatives, the committee risks transforming parliamentary consultations from genuine fact-finding exercises into instruments of political manipulation—exactly what Professor Pech warned against when he spoke of “autocratic contamination” gaining ground “with the complicity of key EU officials.”
For more information, please contact Marco Giufrè ([email protected]) or Jacquelyn Veraldi ([email protected]).