7 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2015/2319(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that transparency is of paramount importance in the composition of the expert groups; therefore welcomes the fact that the selection process is now taking place publicly; stresses in this connection that it needs to be clearly visible what practical experience and qualifications the experts possesand coordination of interinstitutional activities are of paramount importance, helping to strike a suitable balance from the point of view of the expertise and opinions represented in the composition of the expert groups, and helping to improve their operation; therefore welcomes the fact that the selection process is now taking place publicly; stresses in this connection that it needs to be clearly visible what practical experience and qualifications the experts possess; takes the view that the entire selection process should guarantee a high level of transparency and should be governed by clearer, more concise criteria with particular stress being placed on candidates’ practical experience alongside their academic qualifications;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the Commission has made progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups;, but regrets, however that, despite that progress, no working document drawn up by the Commission’s services and no Commission decision offers clear and firm solutions to all the questions raised by Parliament up to now; regrets, likewise, that as yet no express distinction is drawn between those representing economic and non-economic interests in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency and balance; stresses the need, in this connection, for the Commission to make it clear in the public call for applications how it defines a balanced composition and which interests it seeks to be represented – with the corresponding justification – , and to state the grounds for any possible deviation from the balanced composition as defined beforehand, when the expert groups are established;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that for financial and organisational reasons it is frequently not possible for under-represented groups, which are often representatives of civil society and of small and medium-sized undertakings or other organisations of general public interest, to participate; therefore calls on the Commission, in the interest of ensuring balanced composition and the smooth functioning of expert groups, to consider possibilities for financial support to enable themmake it possible for experts to participate;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all minutes of meetings are published in full; stresses in this connection that the content and the positions expressed by the experts at these meetings must be clearly shown; also calls for the possibility of publishing minority decisions, and expressed in a way that is accessible for European citizens; also calls for minority opinions to be published, bearing in mind that the experts sitting on these Commission groups are performing a public service;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that users need to be given access to a range of documents (agendas, reference documents, various reports), with a view to efficient monitoring by interested stakeholders; takes the view, further, that the website of the Register of expert groups – whether as such or through hyperlinks to other relevant websites – should be one of the instruments or mechanisms used to obtain constantly updated information on policy developments, thereby guaranteeing a high level of transparency;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets that even today the Commission persists in a system in which meetings are held behind closed doors, with deliberations being held in public only where a simple majority of the members of expert groups thus decides; calls on the Commission to take account of the recommendations made by the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman to the effect that the deliberations of expert groups should be held in public unless a qualified majority of the members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting should be held behind closed doors; takes the view that, given that the decisions adopted following the deliberations of Commission expert groups serve the public interest, the debates that led to the adoption of those decisions should be made public as a rule and not as an exception;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights furthermore that the Commission, in preparing and drafting delegated acts and in drawing up strategic guidelines, must ensure that all documents, including draft acts, must be communicated to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as to the Member States’ experts, as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 12 May 2016.