9 Amendments of Biljana BORZAN related to 2015/2040(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that it would be desirable for each Member State to put forward at least two candidates – one male and one female – for consideration by the Commission President-elect; notes that more candidates would partly solve the "take-it-or-leave-it" problem when a single candidate is found to be inadequate for various reasons;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Considers that it would be useful, for practical and political reasons, to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward candidates.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes that the 2014 hearings generated more media and public interest than previous hearings, partly because of the evolution of social media; believes that the impact and influence of social media is likely to grow in the future; considers that provisions should be made to use social media and networks to include the citizens more effectively in the process of the hearings;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues; whilst there is merit in examining this problem,considers that the democratic function of the hearings would be better served by permitting members to ask targeted follow-up questions; underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate; suggests, however, that prior professional experience and conduct be considered as supplementary criteria of suitability; notes further that under paragraph 1a, the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests applies to a candidate in their capacity as Commissioner-designate and not as a Member of the European Parliament;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate; notes further that under paragraph 1a, the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests applies to a candidate in their capacity as Commissioner-designate and not as a Member of the European Parliament; considers that the scrutiny of the Declaration of Financial Interests of Commissioners designates should be broadened to include their wider family if possible.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; believes nevertheless that, where they are unable to do so, they should be able to act by a majority representing at largeeast a 2/3 majority of the committee, having regard to the respective strengths of the various groups; considers further that groups which dissent from the majority view should be able to request an appropriate reference in the evaluation letter; recalls that the Rules of Procedure in any event also allow for a political group to request that the Chair convene a full committee meeting;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that methods and practices of the post-hearing evaluation vary between committees; points out that coordinators should make their evaluation guided by a list of issues and specific criteria; considers it useful to establish a set of evaluation guidelines to be used by the coordinators;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, believes that the Rules of Procedure should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted as soon as possible, and made public within 24 hours after the hearings are declared closon the Parliament's website within 24 hours after the evaluation is completed.