Is there a parameter that links the areas of the fuselage and control surfaces?
I do not know a method that relates the fuselage area to empennage sizes, but there is rule that can be used to estimate the size of the vertical and horizontal tail. It is using the so called tail volume coefficient. For the horizontal tail given by:

$$ V_h = \frac{S_h \cdot l_h}{S c} $$

With $V_h$, the horizontal tail volume coefficient, $S_h$ the horizontal tail surface, $l_h$ the horizontal distance between the c.o.g. and the tail, $S$ the wing area and $c$ the average wing chord.
Basically, this coefficient says that the moment induced by the wing scales with $S$ and $c$, whereas the counteracting moment given by the tail scales with the area of the horizontal wing multiplied by the distance to the c.o.g., and that there should a certain ratio between the two. 

A well behaved aircraft typically has a $V_h$ which falls in the following range $^{[1]}$

$$V_h = 0.30 ... 0.60$$


  If $V_h$ is too small, the aircraft’s pitch behavior will be very
  sensitive to the CG location. It will also show poor tendency to
  resist gusts or other upsets, and generally “wander” in pitch
  attitude, making precise pitch control difficult. $^{[1]}$


We can check the values for some commercial aircraft here (I chose Airbus, but it should hold for others as well) :

$$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
 \text{Model} &amp; \text{$V_h$} \\ \hline
\text{A330-200} &amp; 0.957 \\ \hline
\text{A330-300} &amp; 0.791 \\ \hline
\text{A340-200} &amp; 0.733 \\ \hline
\text{A340-300} &amp; 0.791 \\ \hline
\text{A340-500} &amp; 0.729 \\ \hline
\text{A340-600} &amp; 0.729 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$

You can see that the values are already higher than given by the guideline, showing the issue of the generalization.
Another fact that causes the deviations, is the fact that the Airbus aircraft are designed in families. Thus, they design an aircraft, and then add some extra fuselage length to generate a larger family member. This will possibly drive the tail volume coefficient away from the ideal case.

For the vertical tail there is an equivalent form:

$$V_v = \frac{S_v l_v}{S b}$$

With $V_v$, the horizontal tail volume coefficient, $S_v$ the horizontal tail surface, $l_v$ the vertical distance between the c.o.g. and the tail, $S$ the wing area and $b$ the average wing span.

A well behaved aircraft typically has a $V_v$ which falls in the following range $^{[1]}$
$$V_v = 0.02 ... 0.05$$


  If $V_v$ is too small, the aircraft will tend to oscillate or “wallow” in yaw as the pilot gives rudder
  or aileron inputs. This oscillation, shown in Figure 5, is called Dutch Roll, and makes precise
  directional control difficult. A Vv which is too small will also give poor rudder roll authority in an
  aircraft which uses only the rudder to turn. $^{[1]}$


Again checking the values:

$$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline
 \text{Model} &amp; \text{$V_v$} \\ \hline
\text{A330-200} &amp; 0.057 \\ \hline
\text{A330-300} &amp; 0.059 \\ \hline
\text{A340-200} &amp; 0.055 \\ \hline
\text{A340-300} &amp; 0.059 \\ \hline
\text{A340-500} &amp; 0.049 \\ \hline
\text{A340-600} &amp; 0.049 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$

Here the values are quite close to the general guideline.

Another interesting plot is shown by This tail design page by Stanford

Here it shows that the tail volume correlates quite nicely to fuselage height and length.


Image showing correlation of aircraft vertical tail volume as a function of fuselage maximum height and length.

It should be noted that aircraft aren't really designed by these guidelines anymore, all the control surfaces are designed such that they provide the control authority necessary, not to match a general rule.

$^{[1]}$: Lab 8 Notes – Basic Aircraft Design Rules Link