Seeking transparency on the often overlooked area of personal care expenses for European Commissioners, Anders Vistisen, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) affiliated with the European People's Party (PfE), fired a parliamentary question aimed at the European Commission. His inquiry targeted the coverage and reimbursement of grooming-related costs such as beauty treatments, hairstyling, massages, and physical training for Commissioners including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. This move notably puts the spotlight on the use of EU taxpayer money for seemingly personal expenses — a subject likely to stir reactions from EU taxpayers, transparency watchdogs, and civil society groups advocating public accountability.
This parliamentary question E-003348/2025 was formally submitted by Vistisen on 1 September 2025 under Rule 144, requesting detailed information on the extent of grooming-related spending and employment of service providers by the Commission.
The Commission, represented by Mr Serafin, responded on 27 November 2025, clearly stating that it does not cover any costs related to beauty treatments, hairstyling, massages, or personal training services for Commissioners. It also confirmed there are no in-house or contracted beauticians, hairstylists, masseuses, or trainers employed for Commissioners, nor are Commissioners reimbursed for such expenses.
Policy-wise, this exchange underscores a firm stance on limiting the scope of EU budget expenditures strictly to official duties and avoids expanding coverage into personal lifestyle costs for Commissioners. It reflects a priority to keep EU spending streamlined and restricts institutional support to strictly professional services, thereby reinforcing transparency and fiscal responsibility.
Stakeholders such as EU taxpayers likely welcome limits on unnecessary public spending, while Commissioners maintain autonomy over personal grooming without institutional support. Transparency advocates gain a clear precedent in scrutinizing public funds. The Commission itself avoids potential controversies and administrative burdens by not engaging in such reimbursements.
Following standard procedure, the Commission's reply within the expected timeframe signals its position on personal expense reimbursements, potentially deterring future proposals to include such coverage and offering clarity to concerned stakeholders.