6 Amendments of Martina DLABAJOVÁ related to 2015/2040(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while an acceptable degree of gender balance was only achieved at the last minute thanks to Parliament’s firm insistence that the new Commission must contain at least the same number of women as the outgoing Commission; considers that such a situation could be prevented in future by setting a deadline by which Member States have to nominate their candidates, and by encouraging Member States to propose at least two nominees – one male and one female – for consideration by the President-electcandidates for consideration by the Commission President-elect. The President-elect would thus have a choice and could accept the candidate which would meet his needs best, eventually also providing for a better gender balance;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Further suggests that - in case a candidate is rejected - a deadline should be set for the designation of a new candidate;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that when a vice-president of the Commission has responsibilities which are primarily horizontal, the hearing could exceptionally be carried out in a different format, such as a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided that such a meeting would be open to all Members, or a joint meeting of the relevant committees;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Believes that the designated Commissioner should be required to clearly set out the programme priorities for the considered portfolio in his or her opening statement;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that the questions during the hearing should - at least partly - be answered in a language different from the mother tongue of the Commissioner- designate;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that if the evaluation shows no clear majority, or if there is a majority but not a consensus against the candidate, the coordinators should - as a next step - request an additional 1.5 hour hearing;