Activities of Valentinas MAZURONIS related to 2015/2040(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on procedures and practices regarding Commissioner Hearings, lessons to be taken from the 2014 process
Amendments (5)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises that the installation of the Commission was unduly delayed because some Member States were slow to nominate their candidates; to avoid a repetition of such a situation in the future, calls for Member States to be subject to a deadline for putting forward at least two nominations;
Amendment 10 #
2. Recommends that section 1(b)(7) (Hearings) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure (Guidelines for the approval of the Commission) provides that questions ‘may’ rather than ‘shall, where possible’ be grouped together by theme; believes that such a change would be consistent with the need for political groups to set their own political priorities in questioning and would enable greater flexibility in the arrangements for the increasing number of joint committee hearings (involving two or more committees); maintains that questions should be of use in making a value judgement and intended to assess the competence and qualifications of the Commissioner-designate;
Amendment 13 #
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, underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings, and of apportioning time in accordance with the principle of equal treatment;
Amendment 32 #
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 a large majority of the committee, having regard to the respective strengths of the various groups; considers further that the opinion of groups which dissent from the majority view should be able to request an appropriate reference in the evaluation letterrecorded in the evaluation letter, together with the relevant related information; 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; considers that the evaluation of the Commissioner-designate should be put to the vote at a committee meeting;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Maintains that the opinion of the committee responsible should be legally binding; considers further that Parliament’s requests should be taken into account when it asks for a candidate to be replaced or given a different portfolio.