­Who aced (and flunked) the commissioner hearings? Here’s what our insiders have to say.

It’s showtime, baby!
Over the next week, the EU’s 26 wannabe commissioners will each face a three-hour grilling from the European Parliament’s specialist committees that will probe (in theory, at least) their credentials for overseeing EU policymaking.
While their success will partly be determined by political machinations beyond their control, the Parliament will also be poised to reject anyone who delivers a poor performance — and Brussels policy wonks will be watching closely for any hints of what the next five years have in store.
In one sense, the recipe for success is simple: Show off your language skills, be respectful to the Parliament, and above all don’t make any spending promises.
But it’s also a trial by fire for the commissioners-in-waiting, who’ve had seven weeks to beef up their understandings of the portfolios bestowed on them by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Will they be able to talk eloquently about the nitty-gritty of the issues on their patch, or will the Parliament’s lawmakers — many of whom have spent years deep in Europe’s policy weeds — expose major gaps in the candidates’ knowledge?
Here’s POLITICO’s snap insider take on how well each commissioner hopeful fared, which will be updated after each hearing.
This was a solid performance before European lawmakers with no slip-ups or signs of misunderstanding.
It delivered exactly what you’d expect from an aspiring democracy chief: numerous mentions of EU treaties and fundamental rights; a firm “political will” to challenge member states weakening rule of law; a promise to avoid “double standards”; and a clear commitment to uphold the primacy of EU law.
McGrath’s priorities included enforcing the bloc’s new media freedom rulebook and the upcoming Digital Fairness Act to tackle social media’s addictive “business models” that can harm children online. And he pushed back on the idea that the General Data Protection Regulation harms innovation, saying that the EU can enjoy high standards and benefit from new tech.
While he didn’t go overboard on details around the new job, he did dodge loaded questions from far-right lawmakers, triggering rounds of applause from the other groups. And the seasoned politician very much played to his audience, citing his career as a parliamentarian and regularly praising and promoting the role of the European Parliament. A smart move.
— By Mathieu Pollet and Sam Clark
EP committee verdict: Yes
Zaharieva’s strategy to survive her hearing was clear: Pick a couple of priorities that would resonate well with lawmakers and double down on them. 
Within the first hour, Zaharieva managed to clearly convey two of her main talking points: to simplify and cut red tape in Horizon Europe, the EU’s main research funding program, and to push EU countries to finally reach their target of spending 3 percent of GDP on research and innovation. 
It made for a strong first 60 minutes. Lawmakers have long called for both of these things, so Zaharieva was telling them all they wanted to hear. The only dissent was Left lawmaker Per Clausen, who pressed Zaharieva on EU research funding for Israel — but she managed to avoid controversy. 
After that, it fell a bit flat. 
Zaharieva kept repeating the same lines, on simplification in particular, without ever really going into detail. But lawmakers also seemed to run out of steam, refraining from pushing her to give more details. Once she was called out for dodging a question. Some major policy files promised by Ursula von der Leyen and falling under Zaharieva’s remit, such as a strategy to boost the life science industry’s competitiveness, were largely omitted from the discussions.
“I don’t know what else to add,” Zaharieva said at one point, unintentionally summing up the hearing’s final hour. 
— By Pieter Haeck
EP committee verdict: Yes
Greek politician Apostolos Tzitzikostas maneuvered his commissioner hearing like a seasoned veteran, deftly reminding the transport chair of his speaking time, addressing potential conflicts of interest head on and even navigating multiple interruptions from protesting MEPs.
The 56-year-old economist appeared well informed, with eloquent responses and occasional quips, though his answers largely lacked detail — even after multiple questions probed him for specifics.
The crisis surrounding the automotive sector took up a large chunk of the session, but automakers hoping to find an ally to reverse legislation mandating 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035 left disappointed. Carmakers have had plenty of notice, he said, and the legislation creates certainty for the sector. The European People’s Party, however, received its desired commitment on an exception to the law for e-fuels.
TRAN Committee Chair Eliza Vozemberg, a fellow Greek, presided over the hearings, showing just how much control the Southern European country will have over the transport portfolio — and the potential conflicts of interest. On two separate occasions, lawmakers disrupted the proceedings to protest Tzitzikostas’ nomination.
The 2023 train crash in Greece that left 57 people dead loomed over the proceedings, but Tzitzikostas didn’t shy away from the controversy, instead preemptively bringing it up during his opening remarks. But his repeated insistence that safety will be his number one concern did little to quell questions of how he would handle a potential infringement case over the rail tragedy.
Luxembourg’s Christophe Hansen had a truly impressive hearing, at various moments brain-wrinklingly interesting, gut-wrenchingly funny, and heart-breakingly sad. The 42-year-old won a half dozen rounds of applause during the session as he deftly addressed tricky policy problems and personalities. 
After a polarizing year for EU agriculture, the MEP could’ve fallen foul of several issues. The Socialists were grumpy that their Spitzenkandidat, Nicolas Schmit, hadn’t got Luxembourg’s nomination. He chose to ignore the Patriots and ESN folk in his pre-hearing lobbying. And as its rapporteur in ENVI, he’s tied to the increasingly controversial (now-delayed) deforestation law. 
But it all went swimmingly. Hansen stuck to the center on most issues, promising fair pricing for farmers, environmental mirror clauses on agrifood imports, and generational renewal in farming. He veered conservative on some issues, refusing to legislate on Europeans’ meat consumption, downplaying the scale of livestock emissions, and criticizing the idea of an agri-emissions trading system, or ETS. 
He leaned progressive on others, defending his deforestation law, hinting that farmers’ fears over Ukraine’s accession were overblown, and even coming out in favor of the EU-Mercosur free trade deal (a near-taboo in agrifood circles).