A reversal of power

It might’ve gone unnoticed—quietly announced in early January when many were still nursing their holiday hangovers—but the European Commission has radically changed the way it operates.

While she was still recovering in hospital with pneumonia, Ursula von der Leyen signed off on restructuring the executive body into “project groups”.

What went under the radar as a bureaucratic word shuffle will have an authentic impact on how decisions are taken, however, and cracking the code of this new structure means understanding who really wields power in Brussels.

Those looking to navigate the EU power maze—whether policymakers, lobbyists, or curious citizens—should familiarise themselves with the new structure, or risk knocking in vain on the wrong doors for the next five year

The new project groups were described as a “flexible tool to ensure internal coordination” by a commission spokesperson—nodding at a constant bugbear at the EU executive, where commissioners and directorates-general (DGs) often clash over competencies.

Formal coordination mechanisms already exist, such as the inter-service reviewing process – during which relevant directorates within the Commission review and give formal opinions on proposals in the final stages of preparation. In addition, the powerful Secretary-General, known by the fear-inducing acronym SecGen internally, is charged with ensuring the overall coherence of the Commission’s work.

But results have been mixed. Some DGs, like DG SANTE responsible for health and food safety, were buried under responsibilities during the last mandate—tackling a pandemic while simultaneously attempting to reform pharma and tobacco laws, and the EU pesticides framework

Now, the Commission is taking a different approach—one that offers revealing clues about who actually holds the reins.d

A reversal of power

The philosophy behind the new structure flips the script on the previous approach. Instead of organising topics under big general headings, the new setup revolves around specific projects—key legislations and priority dossiers.

The official hierarchy remains intact, with Executive Vice Presidents (EVPs) at the top and their assigned Commissioners below, but their workflow has changed dramatically.

Take the Green Deal macro-area, previously overseen by EVP Frans Timmermans. He had sweeping authority over everything from climate policy to food regulation, essentially reducing the role of former agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski to a footnote

Under the new system, agriculture falls firmly under the dedicated Commissioner Christophe Hansen and not EVP Raffaele Fitto, even though the latter is theoretically Timmermans’ successor.

Hansen now leads the Vision for Agriculture and Food project group, which will shape new legislation which will aim to improve on the executive’s much-criticised so-called ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy—another Timmermans’ creature.

Another telling shift: Lithuanian Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, from von der Leyen’s own political family, is now in charge of shaping the European Defence Union, a task that previously fell under the EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell.

That means Kubilius rather than the EU’s current high representative Kaja Kallas—better placed in the Commission’s hierarchy—will spearhead NATO cooperation, European defence spending, and military capabilities

What von der Leyen wants

The 14 newly created Project Groups are von der Leyen’s answer to managing an increasingly complex and overlapping Commission portfolio structure.

They have a one-year renewable mandate, but new groups can be set up as needed.

For example, Maria Luís Albuquerque, the Commissioner for Financial Services, is tasked with the European Savings and Investment Union as well as further developing the Banking Union—both long-haul projects.

Contacted by Euronews, a Commission spokesperson emphasised the “flexible” nature of the groups, with no fixed meeting schedule; it’s up to the responsible Commissioner to decide when they convene.

However, von der Leyen herself can swoop in and chair any meeting, should she decide a matter requires her personal touch.

“Of course, the President can decide to be present and run the groups, but it is more the exception,” a Commission spokesperson specified.

Winners and losers

The new project groups create fresh power dynamics, elevating unexpected figures while sidelining former heavyweights.

Some Commissioners have clearly emerged as power players in this restructuring. French EVP Stéphane Séjourné is the most embedded in the new structure, sitting on ten of the 14 project groups. He’s also a co-chair of the Clean Industrial Deal group, where he’ll push for a “simple and fast regulatory framework” to support industry, investment, and energy access

By contrast, some heavyweights from the last Commission have been sidelined. Valdis Dombrovskis, once a dominant force, has been toned down—still leading the influential DG ECFIN but not chairing any project groups although joining several of them coordinating policies ranging from affordable housing to economic security.

Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, despite holding an EVP title, doesn’t lead any group at all, a subtle but unmistakable sign of irrelevance.

Meanwhile, Hungarian Commissioner Oliver Várhelyi is the outright loser of this reshuffle, immersed in only two project groups—agriculture and AI—while his main dossiers, like animal welfare and health, don’t even have dedicated groups.

Much more transparent? Maybe not

Beyond the internal power plays, another major change concerns transparency in lobbying.

As of 1 January, the Commission started publishing minutes of meetings between lobbyists and senior officials, expanding the disclosure requirement from 400 top officials to around 1,500.

Alberto Alemanno, founder of The Good Lobby and Professor of EU Law at HEC Paris, called it a “major policy shift in EU public integrity rules”.

He noted that for the first time, obligations extend beyond lobbyists to those being lobbied. “By requiring EU civil servants to disclose their meetings (including their minutes), the EU institutions acknowledge that transparency is a two-way street,” he told Euronews.

However, not everyone is convinced. Transparency watchdogs point out a major loophole: the Commission has up to two weeks to publish this information, and even when it does, the summaries are often vague and uninformative.

“If this trend is the result of an intentional new approach by the Commission – publishing minutes but radically reducing the level of detail in minutes – then this is actually a step backwards for transparency,” argued Olivier Hoedeman, campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).

While the new transparency rules sound great on paper, their real impact depends on how much information is actually disclosed.