2015/2040(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)

- 1a. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate present an important opportunity for Parliament and EU citizens to assess the priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its ~~utmost~~ dissatisfaction regarding the procedure that could lead to the replacement of ~~Maroš Šefčovič in the transport portfolio~~a Commissioner- designate at very short notice and without prior consultation with the ~~Committee on Transport and Tourism, even though the President-elect had been promptly informed of th~~respective cCommittee~~’s firm wish to maintain Mr Šefčovič in this portfolio; deplores the fact that the TRAN Committee’s request was not fulfilled and~~; deplores consequently that the subsequent nominee~~, Violeta Bulc, di~~ could not enjoy equal and fair conditions in presenting herself to the committee, as she had very limited time at her disposal to prepare for the hearing, which was nevertheless successful; reiterates that transport is a key policy area which should not be the victim of last-minute changes to accommodate other political considerations/himself to the Committee;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
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)

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 13 #

Michael CRAMER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that the allocation of speaking time between groups and the number of questions allocated to associated/invited committees was finally decided by the Conference of Presidents and the political groups respectively, although in the past those arrangements had been made at committee level; notes that the procedure was confusing as the Conference of Committee Chairs had initially suggested to committees to arrange bilaterally the number of questions to be allocated to associated/invited committees;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the d'Hondt rule for allocating speaking time among the political groups should be thoroughly applied;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points out that the generally applicable rule of 45 questions of three minutes, as decided by the Conference of Presidents, did not give committees sufficient flexibility to vary their practices where necessary, for example by introducing a catch-the-eye procedure or allocating more time to the speakers in the first round, while three minutes was completely insufficient for a follow-up question; considers that in future arrangements should be made to provide committees with more flexibility, while also ensuring the inquisitorial nature of the hearings ~~through the effective application of the ‘ping-pong’ principle~~;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
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)

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;

Amendment 18 #

Michael CRAMER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reminds that, under Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, evaluation statements must be adopted and made public within 24 hours after the hearing; notes, however, that the procedure actually followed was not in conformity with that provision, as evaluation statements were made available only after the Conference of Presidents had declared the hearings closed; stresses the need to clarify that provision to allow publication of evaluation statements on a visible place on Parliament's website 24 hours after the evaluation;

Amendment 19 #

Michael CRAMER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Asks for clarification of the following provisions in Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure: − “Where possible, questions put during the course of the hearing shall be grouped together by theme.” This provision has been interpreted as bundling together questions from associated/invited committees, but the actual theme of a question is not supposed to be known in advance as questions should not be disclosed before the hearing. − “As a last resort, the Chair shall put the two decisions to the vote by secret ballot.” The ‘two decisions’ are meant to refer to whether ‘the Commissioners-designate are qualified both to be members of the College and to carry out the particular duties they have been assigned’. However, there is no evident link between these two sentences in Annex XVI, which could lead to misinterpretation.

Amendment 2 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Draft opinion
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-elect;

Amendment 3 #

Andor DELI

Draft opinion
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 femal~~with due regard for gender balance – for consideration by the President-elect, taking into account the fields of expertise of the candidates and the work that they have done to date;

Amendment 4 #

Isabella DE MONTE

Draft opinion
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 on~~at least one of whom would have to be female – for consideration by the President-elect;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
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 a~~n 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-electn acceptable number of women;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
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-elect~~candidates 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 7 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that a deadline should also be set for the President-elect and the Council to adopt, by common accord, the list of persons proposed for appointment as members of the Commission, so as to give Parliament sufficient time for the proper preparation and conduct of the hearings, including supplementary hearings where necessary; opposes a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach in an exceptional situation where the second nominee proposed by a Member State is also found to be unqualified to be a member of the College or to carry out the particular duties assigned to him or her; considers that in such a case Parliament’s request for candidate commissioners to be replaced or given different portfolios has to be taken into account; and that a limited extension of the outgoing Commission’s term of office can be acceptable, as a last resort, only in exceptional cases where the need for the proper preparation of supplementary hearings does not allow Parliament to approve the new Commission before 1 November;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
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 9 #

Rolandas PAKSAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its utmost dissatisfaction regarding the procedure that led to the replacement of Maroš Šefčovič in the transport portfolio at very short notice and without prior consultation with the Committee on Transport and Tourism, even though the President-elect had been promptly informed of the committee’s firm wish to maintain Mr Šefčovič in this portfolio; considers that a committee opinion should be legally binding; deplores the fact that the TRAN Committee’s request was not fulfilled and that the subsequent nominee, Violeta Bulc, did not enjoy equal and fair conditions in presenting herself to the committee, as she had very limited time at her disposal to prepare for the hearing, which was nevertheless successful; reiterates that transport is a key policy area which should not be the victim of last-minute changes to accommodate other political considerations;

source: 552.013

2015/03/31 ENVI 41 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate although not provided for by the Treaty, is a well- established practice developed over the last 20 years, which presents an important opportunity for the Parliament and EU citizens to assess the priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;

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 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process ~~arguably~~ enabled some candidates to avoid ~~confr~~respontding to more sensitive issues; ~~whilst there is merit in examin~~considers that all Members should be allowed to ask a very short follow-up question on the same topic as raised ing th~~is problem,~~e first question, respectively, to allow for a better evaluation of the candidates; underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 14 #

Giovanni LA VIA, Aldo PATRICIELLO

Draft opinion
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 15 #

Draft opinion
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; w~~hilst there is merit in examining this problem, underlines~~ishes, therefore, to see the structure of the hearings altered to enable Members to put supplementary questions to which a Commissioner- designate must reply on an ad hoc basis; underlines, furthermore, the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings;

Amendment 16 #

Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
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~~ and finding a suitable answer to it, for example by making it possible to give a rejoinder to a reply, underlines furthermore the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings; recommends introducing the catch-the-eye system at committee meetings at which hearings of Commissioners-designate are held;

Amendment 17 #

Julie GIRLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a.Considers that the second hearings organised during the 2014 process for certain Commissioners-designate provided a useful opportunity for political groups to reflect on the answers given during the first hearings, and to return to issues of key concern in order to better assess the candidates; believes, therefore, that the Rules of Procedure should allow for second hearings to be called as a matter of routine for all Commissioners- designate, and not only in cases where there is a lack of consensus on the evaluation;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that it should be possible to extend the hearing of Vice-Presidents given their enlarged competences as compared to ordinary Commissioners, not least to allow all committees involved to be able to properly assess the candidate;

Amendment 19 #

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recommends that the hearings be conducted in such a way as to allow more time for substantive discussions, which would make it possible to learn more about the candidate's views without leaving any questions unanswered; feels, moreover, that the hearings should take greater account of human limitations and should, therefore, provide for the possibility of a break;

Amendment 2 #

Frédérique RIES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate are an important element in European democracy and present an important opportunity for Parliament and EU citizens to assess the skills and priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;

Amendment 20 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the duration of the hearings of Vice-Presidents and Commissioners-designate with extensive powers ought to be extended beyond three hours to make it possible to assess their preparedness in relation to all the topics in their portfolio;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 22 #

Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ

Draft opinion
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; notes further that under paragraph 1a, Parliament is entitled to seek any information relevant to its reaching a decision on the aptitude of the Commissioners-designate ~~and not as a Member of the European Parliament~~, including in particular, where applicable, information concerning activities performed, or offices held, in any European institution and the declarations of interest submitted in that connection;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
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 an assessment by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the compliance of a declaration of financial interests can only be a formal check and cannot replace a political assessment of the independence of the candidate based inter alia on his/her declaration of interests;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
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

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 26 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that Members of Parliament should always be guaranteed the possibility of obtaining a full and exhaustive reply from Commissioners- designate;

Amendment 27 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Recommends that Commissioners- designate be given the option of submitting a written statement within 12 hours after the hearing is declared closed in cases in which they have not succeeded in giving a full and exhaustive reply to a question;

Amendment 28 #

Julie GIRLING

Draft opinion
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; stresses that, given the limited time available to reach a position, coordinators should limit their comments to those covering the criteria outlined in 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex; 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 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stress~~Believes that committee coordinators ~~should endeavour~~, where they are unable 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 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 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasises that as far as opening statements are concerned, it would be preferable, in line with section 1(b)(7) (Hearings) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, to give all candidates the same amount of time so as to ensure that all Commissioners-designate enjoy an equal and fair opportunity to present themselves and their opinions.

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; ~~believes nevertheles~~considers 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 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, including a vote on the evaluation of the candidate;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
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 l~~arge~~east 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 32 #

Draft opinion
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 letter~~recorded 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 33 #

Draft opinion
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 34 #

Giovanni LA VIA, Aldo PATRICIELLO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, in order to make the process clearer and avoid any sort of confusion which may come out from a wrong interpretation of the Section 1(c) (6) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, 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 closed.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

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 closed~~end of the individual hearings.

Amendment 36 #

Julie GIRLING

Draft opinion
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 and made public as soon as possible, a~~nd made public within 24 hours after the hearings are declared closed~~fter the evaluation meeting of the committee coordinators.

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, ~~believ~~stresses 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 closed~~are very clear insofar as they provide for the adoption and publication of the statement "within 24 hours of the hearing"; the singular form clearly indicates that the 24 hours start ticking after the end of each of the hearings, respectively, and not after the end of all hearings; calls for a strict and uniform application of those Rules across all committees.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, ~~believe~~recalls 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 closed.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
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 clos~~on the Parliament's website within 24 hours after the evaluation is completed.

Amendment 4 #

Frédérique RIES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers it legitimate to refrain from reaching prior political agreements, which partially distort the very aim of the hearing and reduce Parliament’s ability to assess objectively the knowledge that Commissioners-designate possess concerning the subjects with which they will have to deal if they are confirmed in post;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
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.

Amendment 41 #

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recommends that individual hearings be subject to clear time limits and that, in addition to the minimum duration for a hearing, a maximum duration be set; feels that, where necessary, it would be appropriate to hold a hearing over two days;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
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 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Requests the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to change Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure by amending Rule 118 and calling the Annex not "guidelines" but "provisions", thereby making it binding;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
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)

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)

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;

source: 552.132

2015/04/14 AFCO 49 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– its decision of 14 September 2011 to amendment Rules 106 and 192 of, and Annex XVII to, Parliament’s Rules of Procedure 2 a __________________ 2a P7_TA(2011)0379

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. the hearing process, while having demonstrated its effectiveness, can always be improved, in particular by means of more flexible and dynamic exchanges between the Commissioner and members of the committee responsible for the hearing;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the hearing of Commissioner designate for Vice-President Frans Timmermans highlighted the need to adapt Parliament’s procedures in the event future Commissions have a special status for one or more Vice-Presidents;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. the practice of holding hearings, which is unique at European parliamentary level, could also serve as a particularly useful model for quality control procedures at national political level and the briefing of members of the executive;

Amendment 13 #

Zoltán BALCZÓ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that public hearings of Commissioners-designate present an important opportunity for the European Parliament and EU citizens to assess the priorities of each candidate and their professional suitability for the role;

Amendment 14 #

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD, Pascal DURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Recalls that article 3.3 of the TEU states that "The Union shall promote equality between women and men" and that article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that "Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay";

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that it would be useful to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward a candidate, so as to leave adequate time for the Commission President-elect to allocate the portfolios taking into account the working experience and background of the candidate, and for Parliament to conduct its hearings and evaluations, and asks its President to enter into discussion with the other institutions with a view to achieving this objective;

Amendment 16 #

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that it would be useful to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward atheir candidates, one male and one female, so as to leave adequate time for the Commission President-elect to allocate portfolios and for Parliament to conduct its hearings and evaluations, and asks its President to enter into discussion with the other institutions with a view to achieving this objective;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Further 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; considers it important that the Union should also attain within its own institutions the gender equality objectives which it has set;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Further considers that it would be desirable for each Member State to put forward a list of at least two candidates – on~~e male and one female~~ a footing of equality – for consideration by the Commission President-elect;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Further 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; recommends that the Commission structure be made to reflect the outcome of vote cast by European citizens, in so far as negotiated political alliances make this possible, and that the outcome of the vote in each Member State be taken into account also;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– having regard to the code of conduct for European Commissioners, particularly Articles 1.3 to 1.6 thereof,

Amendment 20 #

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Further considers that ~~it would be desirable for~~the time has come to ask each Member State to put forward at least two candidates – one male and one female – for consideration by the Commission President-elect;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers that checks on declarations of the financial interests of Commissioners designated by the Committee on Legal Affairs should be improved; considers that, to this end, declarations of financial interests should include family interests as provided for by Article 1.6 of the code of conduct for Commissioners; confirmation by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the absence of any conflict of interests, based on a substantive analysis of the declarations of financial interests, constitutes an essential precondition for the holding of the hearing by the committee responsible;

Amendment 22 #

Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that it is the committees which are responsible for conducting the hearings; considers, ~~how~~that all hearings should follow a uniform, public format; believer,s that whopen ~~a vice-president of the Commission has responsibilities which are primarily horizontal, the~~conference of presidents meetings are not an appropriate format for Commissioner- designate hearings, in the case where a Commissioner-designate has responsibilities which impact a number of committees then joint hearing cs should ~~exceptionally be carried out in a different format such as a meeting of the Conference of Presidents or a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided~~be organised, if this is not possible then multiple hearings should be organised with the relevant committees; considers it of the utmost importance that sueach ~~a meeting is open to all Members and that there is adequate opportunity to address all relevant issues~~committee is able to audition the Commissioner-designate whose responsibilities are linked to their committee work;

Amendment 23 #

Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that it is the committees which are responsible for conducting the hearings; considers, however, 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 Presidents or a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided that such a meeting ~~is open to all Members and that there is adequate opportunity to address all relevant issues~~does not prevent a committee responsible to hear its Commissioner;

Amendment 24 #

Siôn SIMON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that it is the committees which are responsible for conducting the hearings; considers, however, 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 Presidents or a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided that such a meeting is open to all Members enabling dialogue and that there is adequate opportunity to address all relevant issues;

Amendment 25 #

Richard CORBETT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that the written questionnaire sent head of each hearing should allow for 7 questions instead of 5, but that there should not be several sub- questions under each question.

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that in the case of the hearings of commissioners-designate with responsibilities falling within the remit of two or more committees, and organized by multiple committees, all relevant issues should be addressed in an adequate manner by giving all committees involved the possibility to assess the performance of the commissioner-designate;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

~~4. Considers that it would be better to have around 25 questions, but with each questioner allowed immediate follow-up, so as to enhance the effectiveness and inquisitorial nature of the hearings;~~deleted

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that, in order to discourage evasive replies, it would be better to have around 25 questions, but with each questioner allowed immediate follow-up, so as to enhance the effectiveness and inquisitorial nature of the hearings;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that it would be better to have around 25 questions, but with each questioner allowed immediate follow-up, so as to enhance the effectiveness and inquisitorial nature of the hearings; consider that procedures for monitoring replies by Commissioners-designate during hearings could help improve control and increase the responsibility of the Commission as a whole; calls therefore for a periodic review of the priorities referred to by Commissioners- designate following the start of their term of office;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. hearings of Commissioners-designate, first used in 1994, are now a well- established practice which increases the democratic legitimacy of the European Union Institutions and brings those Institutions closer to European citizens;

Amendment 30 #

Zoltán BALCZÓ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Proposes that the European Parliament, adopting a more democratic and open stance, should, on the basis of a decision by the committee concerned, be able to give nongovernmental organisations, i.e. civil society organisations and professional organisations, which are of particular significance in their fields, the opportunity to participate in the Commissioner hearings and ask questions at them;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the following guidelines should apply for the coordinators’ evaluation meeting after the hearings: • if the coordinators unanimously approve the candidate – letter of approval; • if the coordinators unanimously reject the candidate – letter of rejection; • if coordinators representing a clear majority approve the candidate – letter stating that a large majority approve (minorities may request that it be mentioned that their group does not share the majority view); • if there is no clear majority, or there is a majority (but not a consensus) against the candidate: o first request additional information through further written questions; o if still dissatisfied – request for a further 1.5-hour hearing, with the approval of Parliament’s President; o if there is still no consensus or overwhelming majority among the coordinators – vote in committee;deleted

Amendment 32 #

Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that the ~~following~~ guidelines should apply for the coordinators’ evaluation meeting after the hearings: as laid down in Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure give very clear instructions for the approval process of the European Commission; regrets that these guidelines have neither been properly implemented nor followed; proposes to change the title of this Annex to reflect better its binding nature; reminds that the evaluation of the Commissioners designate must be guided by the qualification of the candidates to be part of the College and not by strictly political considerations

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 2

if the coordinators unanimously reject the candidate – letter of rejection giving the reasons for rejecting the candidate;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 3

if coordinators representing a ~~clear majority approve the candidate~~two-thirds majority of the members of the committee approve or reject the candidate, unless a political group asks for a meeting of the committee to be convened in order for a vote to be taken – letter stating that a large majority approve or reject the candidate (minorities may request that it be mentioned that their group does not share the majority view);

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 4 – introductory part

if the~~re is no clear majority, or there is a majority (but not a consensus) against the candidate~~ coordinators consider it necessary:

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 4 – point 2

if still dissatisfied – request for a further 1.5-hour hearing~~, with the approval of Parliament’s President~~;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 4 – point 2

if still dissatisfied – request for a further 1.5-hour hearing, with the approval of ~~Parliament’s~~the Conference of Presidents;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 4 – point 2

if still dissatisfied – request for a further ~~1.5-~~2- hour hearing, with the approval of Parliament’s President;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 4 – point 3

~~if there is still no consensus or overwhelming majority among the coordinators – vote in committee;~~deleted

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. the hearing process gives Parliament and EU citizens the opportunity to discover the candidates’ personalities and priorities, as well as their knowledge of their designated portfolio;

Amendment 40 #

Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent -1 (new)

– there must be a specific section of the Parliament’s website where the Commissioner-designates’ CVs and responses to written questions must be available, in advance of the public hearings, in all the official languages of the Union;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 1

– there should be a specific and visible place on Parliament’s website where the evaluations are placed within 24 hours after the hearing in accordance with the current version of the Annex XVI of the Rules of Procedure;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 2

~~– the rule should be changed to refer to 24 hours after the evaluation, given that some evaluations are completed only following further procedures;~~deleted

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 2

– the rule ~~should be changed to refer to 24 hours after the evaluation, given that some evaluations are completed only following further~~regarding the 24-hours period should be changed, given that some evaluations are completed only following further procedures; it should be thus clarified, in keeping in line with the European Parliament practice, that the 24-hours period within which the committee statements of evaluation have to be made public, begins with the decision of the Conference of Presidents to declare the hearings procedures; closed.

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that horizontal issues affecting the composition, structure and working methods of the Commission as a whole, which cannot be adequately addressed by an individual Commissioner- designate, are a matter for the Commission President-elect; considers that such issues should be addressed at meetings between the President-elect and the Conference of Presidents open to all Members (one before the hearing process has started and one after it has ended);

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers ~~that the scrutiny of Commissioners’ declarations of interests should remain the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs; considers, however,~~ that the current scope of Commissioners’ declarations of interests is too limited, and invites the Commission to revise its rules on this as soon as possible;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the scrutiny of Commissioners’ declarations of interests should remain the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs, while the European Ombudsman should have the right to deliver an opinion; considers, however, that the current scope of Commissioners’ declarations of interests is too limited, and invites the Commission to revise its rules on this as soon as possible;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the scrutiny of Commissioners’ declarations of interests should remain the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs; considers, however, that the current scope of Commissioners’ declarations of interests is too limited, and invites the Commission to revise its rules on this as soon as possible; considers it important, therefore, that the Committee on Legal Affairs should, in the coming months, issue guidelines in in the form of a recommendation or initiative report, with a view to facilitating reform of the procedures relating to Commissioners' declarations of interests;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Considers that the declarations of interests and financial interests of the Commissioners should also cover family members living with them in the same household;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Considers that the declarations of interests and financial interests of the Commissioners should be debated by the Committee on Legal Affairs with the full involvement of the public;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. the hearing process gives Parliament and EU citizens the opportunity to discover and evaluate the candidates’ personalities ~~and~~, priorities and qualifications;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. the hearing process gives Parliament and EU citizens the opportunity to discover the candidates’ personalities, preparedness and priorities;

Amendment 7 #

Vicky MAEIJER

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

~~D. the hearing process enhances the democratic legitimacy of the Commission as a whole;~~deleted (It is clear that the European Commission lacks any form of democratic legitimacy. However, this cannot be resolved through the approval of unelected Commissioners by MEPs endorsed by only 42% of the citizens at the last election.)

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. the hearing process increases transparency and enhances the democratic legitimacy of the Commission as a whole;

Amendment 9 #

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD, Pascal DURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment; whereas this requirement must be reflected in the composition of the European Commission; whereas despite repeated requests from Jean-Claude Juncker in 2014 the governments proposed a far greater number of male rather than female candidates; whereas the women who were proposed primarily come from Member States with smaller populations and the larger Member States largely ignored this requirement; whereas the only fair solution is to ask each Member State to propose two candidates, one male and one female, so that the President- designate is able to propose a high quality College with an equal number of men and women;

source: 554.817

2015/04/21 JURI 25 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Reiterates the importance of guaranteeing the independence of Commissioners-designate; takes the view that scrutinising declarations of interest, which is the responsibility of the Committee on Legal Affairs, is a key stage in assessing their independence, but that the limited scope of the declarations of interest means that this is not taken into account; considers, therefore, that in the coming months the Committee on Legal Affairs ought to produce guidelines, in the form of a recommendation or an own- initiative report, to facilitate the reform of the procedures concerning Commissioners’ declarations of interest;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that it would be easier to guarantee the independence of Commissioners-designate if the Commission were not composed of one national of each Member State, in accordance with the spirit of Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that the Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees should be linked; therefore calls on the European Council to review its decision on the number of Commissioners and to reduce it before the next Commission is appointedConsiders it desirable that there be a greater alignment between the Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees, without the privilege of each institution to determine its own internal structure and composition being infringed by the other;

Amendment 11 #

Jiří MAŠTÁLKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that it would be easier to guarantee the independence of Commissioners-designate if the Commission were not composed of one national of each Member State, in accordance with the spirit of Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that the Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees should be linked; therefore calls on the European Council to review its decision on the number of Commissioners and to reduce it before the next Commission is appointedthe Commissioners’ portfolios should be carefully divided so that they do not overlap and so that each Commissioner’s remit is clearly defined, and that this should be done in cooperation with Parliament, which has supervisory and control powers over the Commission;

Amendment 12 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that it would be easier to guarantee the independence of Commissioners-designate if the Commission were not composed of one national of each Member State, in accordance with the spirit of Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that the Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees should be linked; therefore calls on the European Council to review its decision on the number of Commissioners and to reduce it before the next Commission is appointthe Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees should be linked;

Amendment 13 #

Evelyn REGNER, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that it would be easier to guarantee the independence of Commissioners-designate if the Commission were not composed of one national of each Member State, in accordance with the spirit of Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that the Commissioners’ portfolios and the respective remits of the parliamentary committees should be linked; therefore calls on the European Council to review its decision on the number of Commissioners and to reduce it before the next Commission is appointed and with the understanding that the lead committee will make the final recommendation to the Conference of Presidents;

Amendment 14 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Proposes that an own-initiative report should be undertaken specifically into the issue of conflicts of interest in the financial declarations made by Commissioners-designate;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes the view that the hearings conducted by the committees responsible are important as a means not only of assessing nominees’ personalities and political priorities, but also of verifying their aptitude and ability to perform their intended duties; emphasises that nominees for posts as Commission Vice- Presidents should be treated in the same way as all other nominees;

Amendment 16 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Emphasises the need to achieve gender parity among the members of the College of Commissioners;

Amendment 17 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Evelyn REGNER, Julie WARD, Clare MOODY, Jytte GUTELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Further considers that, in this context, the gender balance of the proposed College should occupy a significant place in the process.

Amendment 18 #

Jiří MAŠTÁLKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph -4 a (new)

-4a. Stresses that the purpose of the hearings is to give the Commissioners- designate an equal and fair opportunity to present themselves and their opinions in accordance with Annex XVI of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, with particular emphasis on the impartiality and political neutrality of the procedure;

Amendment 19 #

Jiří MAŠTÁLKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Takes the view that there should be more flexibility, especially as regards the time allowed for supplementary questions and the candidates’ replies.

Amendment 2 #

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Reiterates the importance of guaranteeing the independence of Commissioners-designate; ~~takes the view that scrutinising~~considers that scrutiny of Commissioner's declarations of interest~~, which is the responsibility of the Committee on Legal Affairs, is a key stage in assessing their independence, but~~s should remain the exclusive competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs; considers however, that the ~~limited~~current scope of ~~the~~Commissioners' declarations of interest ~~means that th~~is too limited, and invites the Commission to revise its ~~not taken into account~~rules on this as soon as possible;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Takes the view that ~~there should be~~, in order to encourage more in-depth discussion, the structure of the hearing should allow for more flexibility, especially as regards the ~~time allowed for~~right of Members to ask supplementary questions. ;

Amendment 21 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Clare MOODY, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Takes the view that therearings should be ~~more flexibility, especially as regards the time allowed for~~organised in a more flexible way, in particular by doing away with the restrictions on their duration, which would allow time, for example, for spontaneous supplementary questions.;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that the Parliament in plenary should have the right to vote on individual commissioners-designate;

Amendment 23 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Takes the view that the number of questions to be put could be reduced in order to enable the authors of questions to put follow-up questions immediately (for example, 30 seconds could be allowed for the follow-up question and one minute for the answer);

Amendment 24 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Takes the view that rules, in particular concerning deadlines, should be laid down to govern hearings of replacement nominees, so that the latter are not placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Commissioners-designate originally heard; calls, therefore, for rules governing hearings of Commissioners- designate to be set out in an interinstitutional agreement;

Amendment 25 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Takes the view that in cases where the coordinators have not reached a consensus on the assessment of a Commissioner-designate, the final decision should be put to a roll-call vote in the committee;

Amendment 3 #

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that scrutinising the declarations of financial interests of the Commissioners-designate involves ~~not only~~ checking whether a declaration has been duly completed~~, but also~~ and establishing whether its contents reveal a conflict of interest; considers that the Committee on Legal Affairs should have genuine investigative powers, including, in particular, the option of demanding the disclosure of any further information needed in order to carry out an in-depth assessment of the declarations;

Amendment 4 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view, on the basis of a reading of the existing rules, that scrutinising the declarations of financial interests of the Commissioners-designate involves not only checking whether a declaration has been duly completed, but also establishing whether its contents reveal a conflict of interest; considers, further, that the Committee on Legal Affairs should have genuine investigative powers, including, in particular, the option of demanding the disclosure of any further information needed in order to carry out an in-depth assessment of the declarations;

Amendment 5 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that scrutinising the declarations of financial interests of the Commissioners-designate involves not only checking whether a declaration has been duly completed, but also establishing whether its contents reveal a conflict of interest; considers, in that case, that the Committee on Legal Affairs should have gen~~uine investigative powers~~hanced powers of scrutiny, including, in particular, the option of demanding the disclosure of any further information needed in order to carry out an in-depth assessment of the declarations, and the power to require the presence of the Commissioner-designate to answer further questions on the basis of the financial declarations without encroaching upon the privilege of the lead committee to conduct the hearing;

Amendment 7 #