The debate surrounding the Green Deal has sharpened scrutiny of how policy changes affect rural communities. Critics argue that new requirements place additional burdens on farmers while some salaries tied to agricultural policy raise eyebrows. On X, Michał Dworczyk, a member of PiS, framed the issue by highlighting these concerns and circulating a document that called for a formal written response from the European Commission.
Michał Dworczyk, a PiS member of the European Parliament, sent a formal letter to the European Commission questioning the level of remuneration and the selection procedure for the Special Advisor to the President of the European Commission, arguing that both elements raise questions about fairness, transparency, and compliance with European Union rules. The move was presented as an effort to illuminate how advisory roles are chosen and how compensation is justified within EU institutions.
The compensation of 149,963.66 euros for 154 days of work on the report Strategic dialogue on the future of EU agriculture is cited as a substantial figure. Ursula von der Leyen awarded the German expert a daily rate of 973.79 euros, which exceeds the usual maximum of 594.22 euros for EC special advisers. While regulations allow higher pay in justified exceptional cases, there are also unpaid accredited consultants, such as Mario Draghi, who contributed to the European Competitiveness Report. The amount allotted to Professor Strohschneider has drawn attention, because the selection of special advisers appears to hinge on the discretion of the commissioners and the chair, with limited, formal criteria available for public scrutiny. This sense of opacity regarding the committee chair’s role resonates with broader questions about governance. In July this year, the EU court criticized a lack of transparency in the handling of large vaccine contracts, illustrating a recurring concern about accountability in high-stakes EU decisions. (Source: wPolityce)
Observers note that these questions come amid a wider pattern of governance challenges within EU institutions, where calls for clear criteria and accountable procedures repeatedly surface as crucial for maintaining public trust.
A case that led to controversy
PiS MEP Michał Dworczyk outlined the core inquiries that framed the inquiry and the public discussion that followed:
How does the EC justify Professor Strohschneider’s exceptionally high remuneration in the context of other special advisers who carry out assignments free of charge and without clear caps or justification?
What were the specific reasons for having a history professor commissioned to prepare a report on the future of agriculture in the EU, rather than specialists from agronomy, economics, or policy analysis with more directly related expertise?
Does the EC acknowledge that the absence of transparent criteria and a clear selection process for special advisers could invite misuse and conflict with the standards regulating employment in EU institutions?
The episode underscores ongoing questions about governance and accountability in European policy circles, inviting closer scrutiny of how expertise is recruited and how compensation is structured in high-profile projects.
Such questions continue to spark discussion about governance and accountability within European institutions.
Notes from monitoring and coverage reflect similar concerns across EU policy discussions, reinforcing the sense that transparency, criteria, and accountability remain central issues in contemporary European governance.