Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-048"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000118.2.2-048"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, competition is at the heart of the European internal market policy and is also its driving force. A free and open market can only exist by the grace of competition, marked by clear, uniform rules. In his report, Karl von Wogau manages to capture this very well. But Europe is changing. The economies are growing, we are enlarging to 25-30 Member States. The European Commission will become overburdened if it pursues its current policy. It is therefore necessary to modernise competition policy. This is not in question. Having said this, I still have concerns about the proposed decentralisation. How will the Commission, as keeper of the Treaties, guarantee that decisions are taken uniformly in matters of competition in London, Palermo, Helsinki and, soon, Budapest and Ankara? This is necessary if legal inequality is to be prevented, and issues of competition will gravitate towards the court where the most lenient judgements are given. It is not enough to say that, in the Member States, there is already 40 years’ worth of experience. In the Netherlands, the competition authority is still in its infancy. This country has a very small market which, unfortunately, is often at the same time defined as the relevant market. This in contrast to Germany, where a very experienced is exercising its powers within a gigantic market. The European Commission’s belief that, in all quarters of the Union, legislation will, almost as a matter of course, be interpreted in the same way, is what, within catholic circles, we term “foolhardy,” and this is not allowed. Uniformity needs to be worked on. Think of specialist, national courts with the option of direct appeal to a special competition court at the European Court. This special court in Luxembourg is necessary in order to build up broad expertise. Moreover, due to the immense economic and social interests involved, we cannot afford to wait for a judgement to be pronounced two years after the event, as is now quite normal. What is the Commissioner’s opinion of this? I would like to finish off by making an important point for small and medium-sized businesses. In order to grant small and medium-sized companies greater security, the European Commission itself needs to draw up an exemption regulation for small and medium-sized businesses so that, alongside vertical exemptions, horizontal exemptions will also be possible. Through cooperation, small, independent firms must be able to stand up to the large chains. It cannot be the aim of European competition policy to make life impossible for small businesses. Moreover, regarding these small businesses, we will have to consider whether it would not be better to apply a system with a prior warning built in, the yellow card, instead of an immediate red card, which will be a large fine and will threaten the company’s very existence."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Kartellamt"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph