The Spitzenkandidat (German for “lead candidate”) is the method of linking the choice of President of the European Commission to the outcome of the European Parliament elections. This process transforms what was once an opaque appointment by national leaders into a more democratic selection tied to voters’ choices at the ballot box. In this guide, I will explain exactly how the Spitzenkandidat system works, trace its history through three critical election cycles, and examine why it remains one of the most debated aspects of EU governance 2026.
When you vote in European Parliament elections, you might assume your ballot directly shapes who leads the EU’s executive branch. The reality is more complex, and the Spitzenkandidat process represents an attempt to bridge that gap between citizens and Brussels leadership. Understanding this mechanism matters because it determines how democratic the EU Commission really is.
Table of Contents
What Is a Spitzenkandidat?
A Spitzenkandidat is the lead candidate nominated by each European political party to become President of the European Commission. The term comes from German, where “Spitze” means peak or top, and “Kandidat” means candidate. I prefer to think of it as the party’s “front-runner” for the EU’s most powerful executive position.
The concept emerged from Article 17.7 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that the European Council must nominate a candidate for Commission President, “taking into account the elections to the European Parliament.” The Parliament then elects that nominee. For decades, this provision was vague. National leaders in the European Council simply picked whoever they wanted, often through backroom deals with minimal public accountability.
The Spitzenkandidat process formalizes what “taking into account the elections” actually means. It establishes that the candidate from the party winning the most seats in Parliament should receive the nomination. This creates a direct line from your vote to the Commission presidency, much like how parliamentary systems in member states function.
The Treaty Foundation: Article 17.7
Article 17.7 of the Treaty on European Union provides the legal scaffolding for this entire process. The article requires the European Council to nominate a candidate by qualified majority voting, not unanimity. This matters because it prevents any single country from vetoing the nomination.
Once nominated, the candidate must be “elected” by the European Parliament. This election requires an absolute majority of votes cast, meaning more than 50 percent support from MEPs. The Parliament’s approval power gives it real leverage over who ultimately leads the Commission.
While the Treaty never mentions “Spitzenkandidat” by name, the European Parliament and political parties developed this interpretation to give concrete meaning to the vague language about “taking into account” election results. The European Parliament formally endorsed this approach in earlier resolutions, setting the stage for its first implementation in 2014.
How the Spitzenkandidat Process Works
The Spitzenkandidat process follows a predictable sequence that connects European political party conventions to the final election of a Commission President. Let me walk you through each step clearly.
Step 1: Party Nominations
European political parties select their lead candidates through internal processes before European Parliament elections. The European People’s Party (EPP), Party of European Socialists (PES), Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), and other groups each nominate one person to be their standard-bearer.
These nominations happen months before the actual elections, giving candidates time to campaign across Europe. In 2014 and 2019, parties held conventions with delegates from national member parties to make these selections. The 2024 cycle saw similar processes, though with more public debates and media attention.
Step 2: European-Wide Campaigning
Once nominated, Spitzenkandidaten campaign across EU member states. They participate in televised debates, including the Eurovision Debate organized by the European Broadcasting Union. These debates bring candidates before a pan-European audience, something that rarely happened before the Spitzenkandidat process existed.
The campaigning aims to make the Commission presidency visible to voters. Previously, many citizens voted in European elections without knowing who might lead the EU executive. The Spitzenkandidat system tries to personalize these elections, giving voters a face and name to associate with their ballot choice.
Step 3: Election Results Determine the Winner
When European Parliament elections conclude, the party winning the most seats claims the right to have their Spitzenkandidat nominated for Commission President. This is not automatic in legal terms, but it has become the expected practice when the process functions properly.
The results also determine coalition dynamics. If no single party wins a majority, which is almost always the case, the largest party must build alliances to secure parliamentary support for their candidate. This coalition-building happens both before and after the nomination vote.
Step 4: European Council Nomination
Following the election results, the European Council meets to nominate a candidate. Under the Spitzenkandidat process, this should be the lead candidate from the winning party. The Council votes by qualified majority, meaning a weighted system where larger countries have more votes but no single country can block the decision.
The Council cannot simply ignore the election results and pick someone else without facing significant political consequences. However, as the 2019 election showed, the Council retains the formal power to deviate from the Spitzenkandidat system when political will exists to do so.
Step 5: Parliamentary Election
The final step requires the European Parliament to elect the nominated candidate by absolute majority. If the nominee fails to secure majority support, the European Council must propose a new candidate within one month. This back-and-forth continues until Parliament confirms a Commission President.
In practice, the Parliament has never rejected a Spitzenkandidat nominee when the process was followed correctly. The 2019 deviation, where Ursula von der Leyen was nominated instead of the EPP’s lead candidate, still resulted in her parliamentary approval, though by a narrower margin than previous presidents.
2014: The First Spitzenkandidat Election
The 2014 European Parliament election marked the first real test of the Spitzenkandidat process. The European People’s Party nominated Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and experienced EU insider. The Party of European Socialists put forward Martin Schulz, then President of the European Parliament.
Other candidates included Guy Verhofstadt for ALDE, representing liberal parties across Europe, and additional candidates from smaller groups. For the first time, voters could choose between clearly identified contenders for the Commission presidency, not just abstract party lists.
When results came in, the EPP emerged as the largest party despite losing seats compared to previous elections. Juncker, as their Spitzenkandidat, claimed the right to be nominated. This created immediate tension with the European Council, where several national leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, opposed his candidacy.
The Council’s Resistance and Parliament’s Victory
The European Council initially resisted nominating Juncker, with Cameron reportedly forcing an unprecedented vote against the nomination. Despite this opposition, qualified majority rules meant Juncker secured the nomination. Twenty-six member states supported him, with only Britain and Hungary voting against.
Parliament then elected Juncker by 422 votes to 250, with 47 abstentions. This victory established the Spitzenkandidat process as more than theoretical. It demonstrated that the Parliament could force the European Council to respect the lead candidate system through political pressure and institutional leverage.
The 2014 success emboldened the Parliament to treat the Spitzenkandidat process as established practice. Many observers, including myself, assumed this would become the permanent norm for Commission presidential selections. The 2019 election would challenge that assumption.
2019: When the Process Was Bypassed
The 2019 European Parliament election took place in May, with the Spitzenkandidat process seemingly well-established. The European People’s Party nominated Manfred Weber, a German MEP with extensive parliamentary experience. The Party of European Socialists selected Frans Timmermans, then serving as First Vice-President of the Commission. Liberal parties nominated Margrethe Vestager, the powerful Competition Commissioner.
These candidates campaigned vigorously, participating in multiple debates across Europe. Weber, in particular, invested enormous political capital in the process, touring member states and presenting himself as the natural choice for Commission leadership given the EPP’s traditional strength.
When votes were counted, the EPP remained the largest party despite significant losses. Under the Spitzenkandidat logic, Weber should have received the European Council nomination. Instead, something unprecedented happened that shook confidence in the entire system.
The European Council’s Rejection
Following the election, European Council President Donald Tusk conducted consultations with member state leaders. Instead of proceeding with Weber, the Council determined that none of the lead candidates could command sufficient support among national governments. Various reasons were cited: Weber lacked executive experience, Timmermans was too polarizing, and no consensus existed around Vestager.
In July 2019, the European Council nominated Ursula von der Leyen, then German Defense Minister, as a compromise candidate. Von der Leyen had not been a Spitzenkandidat. She had not participated in the debates or the campaigning. Her nomination represented a direct bypass of the lead candidate system.
The Parliament faced a dilemma. Rejecting von der Leyen might trigger a constitutional crisis, but approving her would undermine the Spitzenkandidat process they had fought to establish. After intense negotiations and promises of policy commitments, Parliament approved her nomination by 383 votes to 327, with 22 abstentions. This was the narrowest margin for any Commission President.
Consequences of the 2019 Deviation
The 2019 bypass damaged the Spitzenkandidat process significantly. Critics argued it proved the system was not legally binding and could be ignored whenever politically convenient. Some national leaders openly questioned whether the process should continue at all.
However, the backlash was also instructive. Parliament threatened to reject future Council nominees who were not lead candidates. Public criticism of the Council’s opaque selection process was widespread. Many citizens who had voted expecting their choice to matter felt betrayed by the backroom deal that produced von der Leyen.
The 2019 experience highlighted a fundamental tension in the Spitzenkandidat system. It relies on political commitment rather than strict legal obligation. When that commitment wavers, the process can collapse.
2024: Revival and Return to Form
The 2024 European Parliament election saw renewed commitment to the Spitzenkandidat process. Following the controversy of 2019, political parties and Parliament insisted on returning to the lead candidate system. The major European parties all nominated official candidates well before the election.
The European People’s Party selected Ursula von der Leyen for re-election, making her the first incumbent to run as a Spitzenkandidat. The Party of European Socialists nominated Nicolas Schmit, Luxembourg’s former Employment Minister. The Renew Europe group put forward Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a German liberal MEP known for her defense expertise.
Additional candidates represented the Greens, the European Conservatives and Reformists, and other groups. The field was more diverse than previous cycles, with gender balance improving and more candidates from Eastern European member states.
The Campaign and Eurovision Debate
The 2024 campaign featured the most extensive public engagement yet. Candidates participated in the Eurovision Debate, reaching audiences across all 27 member states simultaneously. National broadcasters also hosted debates, though coverage remained uneven, with some countries providing extensive airtime while others largely ignored the contest.
Von der Leyen campaigned on her record, emphasizing the Green Deal, pandemic response, and support for Ukraine. Schmit focused on social rights and economic justice. Strack-Zimmermann made defense policy central to her pitch, reflecting changed security priorities after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
When results arrived, the EPP increased its seat share, giving von der Leyen a stronger mandate than she had in 2019. Despite this success, coalition building proved complex, as no single party held a majority.
Successful Implementation
Unlike 2019, the European Council respected the Spitzenkandidat process in 2024. Von der Leyen received the nomination as the EPP’s lead candidate, and Parliament confirmed her for a second term. The qualified majority vote in the Council was less contentious than 2014, with broader acceptance that the lead candidate system should be honored.
This restoration demonstrated the resilience of the Spitzenkandidat process. Despite the 2019 setback, institutional pressure and political commitment brought the system back. The 2024 election validated the Parliament’s insistence that the process should not be abandoned lightly.
For observers of EU politics, the 2024 cycle proved that the Spitzenkandidat process had become embedded enough to survive challenges. It may not have legal binding force, but it has achieved political normativity.
The European Council’s Role and Power
Understanding the Spitzenkandidat process requires grasping the European Council’s position. Composed of the 27 EU national leaders, the Council holds the formal nomination power under the Treaties. No Commission President can take office without the Council’s initial nomination, regardless of parliamentary preferences.
The Council decides by qualified majority voting, a complex system weighing votes by population. A nominee needs at least 55 percent of member states representing at least 65 percent of the EU population. This prevents small countries from blocking decisions while ensuring large countries have appropriate influence.
Why the Council Can Bypass the System
The Treaty language stating the Council must “take into account” election results is intentionally vague. It does not mandate that the largest party’s candidate must be nominated. This ambiguity gives the Council wiggle room to select alternatives when political circumstances demand it.
In 2019, the Council interpreted this flexibility broadly, arguing that none of the lead candidates had sufficient support. Critics contended this interpretation was self-serving, allowing national leaders to retain control over an appointment they preferred to make themselves.
The Council’s power to deviate creates ongoing uncertainty. Even after successful 2014 and 2024 implementations, the possibility of future bypasses remains. This ambiguity weakens the Spitzenkandidat system’s legitimacy, as voters can never be certain their electoral choice will determine the outcome.
Parliamentary Counter-Power
The European Council’s nomination authority is balanced by Parliament’s election power. The Parliament must approve any nominee by absolute majority. This gives MEPs significant leverage, as they can reject candidates who lack democratic legitimacy.
Following the 2019 deviation, Parliament passed resolutions reaffirming that only lead candidates could expect confirmation. While not legally binding, these resolutions signal that future bypasses might face parliamentary rejection. The 2024 success suggests this pressure works.
The relationship between Council and Parliament remains the central tension in the Spitzenkandidat process. The system functions only when both institutions cooperate, making it inherently fragile.
Criticism and Democratic Debates
The Spitzenkandidat process attracts significant criticism from academics, politicians, and citizens. These critiques focus on democratic legitimacy, transparency, and the fundamental question of whether the EU Commission should be selected this way at all.
Democratic Legitimacy Concerns
Many observers question whether the Spitzenkandidat process genuinely increases democratic legitimacy. European elections remain second-order contests where voters often choose based on national rather than European concerns. The connection between voting for MEPs and selecting a Commission President remains indirect and poorly understood by many citizens.
Forum discussions reveal widespread confusion about how the system works. Some voters expect direct presidential elections, similar to national systems or the United States. Others assume their vote for a national party automatically supports that party’s lead candidate, which is not necessarily true given complex electoral systems.
The lack of genuine transnational lists also undermines legitimacy. Most citizens vote for national party lists, not European candidates. Until truly European elections exist where voters can choose lead candidates directly, the democratic connection remains weak.
Complexity and Accessibility
The Spitzenkandidat process is complex, involving multiple institutions, voting thresholds, and procedural stages. This complexity makes it inaccessible to ordinary citizens who lack time to study EU institutional mechanics. Critics argue that democratic legitimacy requires simplicity and transparency, qualities this process lacks.
I have encountered this complexity myself when explaining the system to friends and family. The multi-step process from party nomination through Council selection to parliamentary approval confuses even politically engaged people. This complexity serves institutional interests more than democratic accountability.
Alternative Reform Proposals
Various reform proposals aim to address these criticisms. Some advocate for direct election of the Commission President, separate from parliamentary elections. This would create a direct mandate similar to presidential systems in member states like France or Finland.
Others propose transnational lists, allowing citizens to vote for European-level candidates rather than just national parties. This would strengthen the connection between voters and lead candidates. The Parliament has debated this proposal repeatedly, though implementation remains stalled by member state resistance.
Primary elections represent another idea. Instead of party conventions selecting Spitzenkandidaten, EU citizens could vote directly in primaries to choose each party’s candidate. This would add another layer of democratic input before the main election cycle.
The Fundamental Question
At its core, the Spitzenkandidat debate raises a fundamental question about EU governance. Should the Commission President be selected through parliamentary politics, resembling national parliamentary systems? Or should the position have independent democratic legitimacy through direct election?
The current process attempts a hybrid approach that satisfies no one completely. Parliamentary democracy advocates find the Council’s role too dominant. Federalists want more direct European-level voting. Intergovernmentalists prefer returning to pure Council appointment without parliamentary involvement.
This unresolved tension will continue shaping debates about the Spitzenkandidat process in future election cycles.
The Future of the Spitzenkandidat Process
Looking ahead, the Spitzenkandidat process faces both opportunities and challenges. The 2024 revival suggests institutional commitment remains strong, but underlying tensions persist. Several factors will shape how this system evolves in coming years.
Proposals for transnational lists continue gaining traction. If implemented, citizens could vote directly for European candidates, including Spitzenkandidaten, rather than just national party lists. This would strengthen the democratic connection significantly, though member state governments have resisted ceding this control.
Direct election proposals also persist. Some federalist politicians advocate making the Commission President directly elected by citizens, separate from parliamentary elections. This would mirror presidential systems and provide clear democratic mandates. However, such changes would require Treaty revision, which remains politically difficult.
Primary elections offer a middle path. European political parties could open their Spitzenkandidat selections to citizen voting rather than closed conventions. This would add democratic input without requiring Treaty changes. Some parties have experimented with this approach, though implementation remains inconsistent.
The next test comes with the 2029 European Parliament election. If the 2024 pattern holds, parties will nominate lead candidates and the process will function as intended. However, political circumstances could always push the European Council toward another deviation. The system’s stability depends on continued political will rather than legal obligation.
For citizens interested in EU democracy, the Spitzenkandidat process deserves attention and engagement. Understanding how your vote connects to EU leadership is essential for holding institutions accountable. While imperfect, this system represents a step toward greater transparency in how the European Union is governed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Spitzenkandidaten process?
The Spitzenkandidaten process is the method of linking the selection of the European Commission President to the results of European Parliament elections. European political parties nominate lead candidates (Spitzenkandidaten) before elections, and the candidate from the party winning the most seats is expected to receive the nomination from the European Council and election by Parliament.
How does the Spitzenkandidat system work in EU elections?
The system works in five steps: 1) European political parties nominate lead candidates, 2) Candidates campaign across Europe including televised debates, 3) Election results determine which party wins the most seats, 4) The European Council nominates the winning party’s candidate by qualified majority, 5) The European Parliament elects the nominee by absolute majority vote.
Who was the first Spitzenkandidat?
Jean-Claude Juncker was the first successful Spitzenkandidat in 2014. The European People’s Party nominated him, and after the EPP won the most parliamentary seats, he received the European Council nomination and was elected by Parliament as Commission President, establishing the process as functional practice.
Why was Ursula von der Leyen selected without being a Spitzenkandidat?
In 2019, the European Council rejected all lead candidates, claiming none commanded sufficient support among national governments. They nominated Ursula von der Leyen as a compromise candidate instead of the EPP’s Spitzenkandidat Manfred Weber. This deviation from the process sparked significant criticism but Parliament ultimately approved her nomination.
What is Article 17.7 of the EU Treaty?
Article 17.7 of the Treaty on European Union governs the appointment of the Commission President. It requires the European Council to nominate a candidate by qualified majority, taking into account European Parliament elections, and the Parliament must then elect the nominee. This provision provides the legal basis for the Spitzenkandidat process.
Conclusion
The Spitzenkandidat process represents a significant evolution in how the European Union selects its executive leadership. By connecting the Commission presidency to European Parliament election results, it creates a more democratic link between citizens and Brussels than the old system of pure Council appointment. The 2014 success, 2019 setback, and 2024 revival demonstrate both the potential and fragility of this mechanism.
Understanding the Spitzenkandidat system matters for anyone interested in EU politics and democratic governance. Your vote in European elections now carries direct implications for who leads the Commission, even if the connection remains imperfect and contested. As the EU continues debating reforms like transnational lists and direct elections, the Spitzenkandidat process will likely remain central to conversations about European democracy 2026.
Whether this system ultimately succeeds depends on continued political commitment from both the European Council and Parliament. Citizens can strengthen this commitment by demanding transparency, participating in European elections, and holding institutions accountable to the principle that votes should determine leadership. The Spitzenkandidat process may be imperfect, but it offers a pathway toward more democratic EU governance worth defending and improving.