Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.8.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Evans on his wonderful report and point out once again the large extent to which we have agreed on analysing the reforms of Community competition law as a whole, as well as the social consequences of competition.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of the reform, the Commission will be able to focus on tackling the conduct of those who hold power in the market, because it is that conduct which is genuinely anti-competitive and damaging to the market. I repeat that in this sense we are in agreement. It seems that we will finally be able to say goodbye to an over-rigorous and over-formal approach and welcome economic analysis into European competition law.
It is true that the great beneficiaries of an appropriate competition policy are the consumers, the citizens as a whole. We should not see this regulation as something that exclusively concerns companies; it is of interest to all of us as citizens. We also agree on our positive assessment of the Commission’s attempts to modernise and reform Community competition law.
We must congratulate Mr Monti and the whole of the Commission on having the courage and bravery to complete a reform – which the Commission is determined to do – a reform that was started years ago. I have said in other interventions that, in my opinion, it is not only necessary but also takes us in the right direction. The Commission’s chosen path is the right one.
Having been in force for 40 years, Community competition law had begun to show signs of exhaustion. There is no doubt whatsoever that the competition rules included in the Treaty, and in the law derived from it, have contributed significantly to the growth of a culture of competition, and have been fundamental to the creation of the single market.
On the other hand, the Commission’s decisions and the judgments of the Court of Justice have enjoyed well-earned prestige in terms of achieving this aim. We must not forget, however, that those rules were initially alien to European law. The European legal tradition, especially the continental tradition, concentrated more on aspects relating to unfair competition; the free competition elements were imported from the United States. A Spanish business academic – Professor Garrigues – explained very graphically that the American soldiers who came to Europe to fight in the Second World War brought ‘antitrust’ legislation in their rucksacks. Now, those positive aspects could not disguise certain deficiencies which had traditionally been demonstrated by the experts. Perhaps the best-founded criticism referred to the rigidity of the rules. It is true that it was perhaps necessary at the beginning to apply the rules so rigidly, because new rules had to be applied, imported from the United States, in accordance with the continental legal tradition.
I must add here that it is no surprise that Mr Evans’ assessment and concern does not coincide exactly with that of his colleague in the Group of the European People’s Party, Mr Karas. Mr Evans is behaving more like an Anglo-Saxon lawyer, while Mr Karas has demonstrated the usual preoccupations of continental lawyers. I believe that this reform is more along the lines of Anglo-Saxon law and, despite being a continental lawyer, I agree with it. I am not so concerned about legal certainty as some people.
Nevertheless, it is true that what was acceptable twenty or thirty years ago is not necessarily acceptable today. Today, the single market is a reality and the culture of competition is sufficiently widespread. Change was therefore necessary. It is no longer possible to apply competition rules which do not take account of the economic analysis and a consideration of the market’s power.
In the field of vertical restrictions, the new regulations on exemption by category and the guidelines for their application have been approved. The time has now come to introduce reform in the field of horizontal restrictions. In this area, the Commission is now presenting us with two proposals for regulations, one on research and development agreements, and the other on the regulation of specialisation agreements, accompanied by guidelines. It should be noted, as the report does, that there is now an noticeable difference with regard to the treatment of vertical and horizontal restrictions since, in the case of vertical restrictions, there was a single regulation and guidelines which covered all the possibilities to which that regulation applied. With regard to horizontal restrictions, however, there are guidelines which are, to a large extent, broader than the two specific aspects regulated by the two proposals for regulations.
The Group of the Party of European Socialists has presented Parliament with five amendments which express some of our concerns. Of these, I would draw your attention to our concern at the fact that crisis cartels are not dealt with. They were included in the previous legislation and have disappeared here without sufficient justification. I would therefore ask you to vote in favour of these amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples