Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.2.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I heartily congratulate the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the entire European Parliament for the great deal of interest shown in competition-related subjects. In my opinion, Mr President, this joint debate fully bears this out.
We have heard some very thorough observations which both concern the philosophy of economic policy and are important for the institutional order.
Our common aim is to reform and strengthen competition policy, a pillar of the social market economy and of European construction. The guiding thread running through all the aspects of the reform of competition policy, which we shall have the opportunity to address together, aims to ensure more effective protection of competition, reduce the bureaucratic burden weighing down businesses and take decision-making processes closer to the European people.
I, personally, would sincerely like to thank Mr von Wogau for his commitment in examining the dossier on the White Paper and for the quality of his report.
I would like to divide the considerations raised during this debate on the von Wogau report into four groups. I do not consider these considerations to be criticisms of the Commission, but, on the contrary, fundamental contributions, since justified concerns have been expressed that we both want to overcome. The groups are: the efficiency of the rules, the risk of renationalisation, consistent application of the rules and legal certainty. I will take these very quickly one at a time.
Efficiency: I am convinced that this reform will strengthen the protection of competition within the single market rather than weaken it. The current notification instrument, ladies and gentlemen, no longer allows us to reach this objective because it does not guarantee that the Commission is properly informed about the most serious restrictions – I would remind you that, in 35 years, there have only been nine cases in which the Commission has decided on prohibition following notification in the absence of a complaint – nor does it guarantee transparency or provide real legal certainty for businesses which, in the majority of cases, receive a simple comfort letter. The proposed system will improve the protection of competition, primarily because it will allow the Commission to concentrate its action on the most serious restrictions, also because it will involve national and competition authorities to a greater degree in stamping out infringements, and lastly in that it will allow victims of infringements to have direct recourse to national judges, whose mission is to protect the rights of individuals.
The question of renationalisation: first of all, although it is not really necessary, I would like to point out and stress, several times if I may, that the White Paper does not affect mergers or State aid in the slightest – we are not looking for devolution in these areas – but that, as far as Regulation 17 is concerned, there is a risk of renationalisation. Of course we have pondered this issue, and we are still studying it extremely carefully, and this is also thanks to the concerns you have voiced. At the end of the day, I honestly do not believe that this fear is justified. The Commission proposal accords the Commission a central role in establishing guidelines on competition policy. The reform does not entail any reduction in the Commission’s activities, but requires them to focus on the most important dossiers. The reform will lead to a gradual development – I stress this because I was particularly taken with this term, used by Mrs Randzio-Plath, and, moreover, I fully agree with it – of European competition culture. So, the reform will lead to the various national competition cultures being transplanted and taking root in the European competition culture – where today various small plants thrive, and they are certainly not all the same. The fifteen sets of national provisions will gradually be abandoned, permitting greater use of Community law, which a higher number of protagonists will be able to apply. Allow me to emphasise that this is communitisation, not renationalisation, of competition law.
The question of consistent application: the risk of inconsistent application of competition rules must be borne in mind, but I do not believe that it should be exaggerated. As with many other provisions of the Treaty, Articles 81(1) and 82 have, after all, been applied for decades by national authorities and judges, and I do not feel that this has created serious problems. In a directly applicable exception system, consistency will depend firstly on the degree of clarity of the material
rules. The Commission will make every effort to define the legislative framework, both through general provisions and through its decision-making practice. Secondly, we will need to set efficient mechanisms in place to prevent disputes, and the White Paper sets out mechanisms for information and consultation. In this respect, I would like to say something about the excellent idea put forward by Mrs Riis-Jørgensen and Mr Huhne of monitoring implementation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples