Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.8.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy.
We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings.
The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation.
Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples