Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-392"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.12.3-392"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, of all the issues debated this week there is none that can have a greater impact on the economic wealth of Europe than the reform of competition policy. Fair and open competition is the bedrock on which the single European market is built and on which the growth of European economies depends. That is why we must maintain our determination to root out monopolists and those who engage in shady anti-competitive price fixing or market sharing deals. These actions not only undermine the interests of commercial competitors, they rip off consumers and undermine the dynamic competitive economy on which our future economic interests rely.
In the committee vote I indicated that this situation could possibly be resolved by a Commission declaration clarifying the treatment of such evidence in the application of Commission penalties. Mr Rovsing and I now understand that Commissioner Monti may have it in mind to make some such declaration, in which event our group will no longer consider it appropriate to retain Amendment No 10.
This debate has also highlighted other important but wider issues of competition policy reform. We welcome the dynamism which Commissioner Monti has brought to his brief. “Supermario”, as he has been labelled in the media, has taken the lead and not only in pressing for radical reform in Europe. He has been at the centre of moves towards the worldwide coordination of competition policy and enforcement.
We are sure that in an increasingly global economy such radical reform will be necessary. But we also believe in checks and balances and we want the Commission’s actions to be fully reviewable by the Court of Justice.
Our committee thanks Commissioner Monti for his commitment to real and meaningful dialogue. But we reiterate our objective of Parliament moving towards full codecision in respect of these matters.
The interest of my parliamentary colleagues in competition policy issues is not just some academic exercise for commercial lawyers. In an increasingly global world we recognise that effective competition is the essential motor for the growth of European economies and the welfare of the people we have been sent here to represent depends on fair and open competition in order to drive that growth forward.
But we must also recognise that Commissioner Monti’s weapons for tackling such abuses are sadly out of date. The Commission’s White Paper on competition policy reform highlighted the difficulties. The 40 year old procedure under Regulation 17 had become a bureaucratic paper-pushing exercise. The Commission wants radical change, devolving the application of EU competition law to national authorities in order to refocus its efforts in rooting out cartels and the abuse of market power.
Parliament agreed with these objectives. But we strongly spelt out our concern on important issues like the need for legal certainty. We also pointed to the possible danger of the reform leading to inconsistent application or even the renationalisation of competition policy, thereby destroying the single market.
These were real concerns voiced by many Members of the House as well as significant sectors of the business community throughout Europe. I recognised and shared those worries and some colleagues and representatives of European business still share them today. Nevertheless I believe that Commissioner Monti has genuinely taken account of our concerns and the Commission’s proposal reflects this.
Above all I want to draw attention to Article 3 of the regulation, which unambiguously states that in cases affecting trade between Member States it is European competition law that takes precedence. This is a core requirement of the single market and strongly supported by all sides in our committee debates.
For us, the preservation of Article 3 is an essential part of this reform. We recognise that there may well be some Member States that will try to dilute its impact. We consider that Article 3 is such a central element of the reform that we will wish to be consulted again if the Council obliges the Commission to make any significant change to this article.
We have proposed a number of amendments in order to improve the operation of this radical reform. We found, for instance, little support outside the Bundeskartellamt for the new registration scheme under Article 4, which we consider to be time-wasting and valueless. We want it scrapped.
We have proposed a range of amendments to improve legal certainty for business, including the widening of Article 10 – changes which have received widespread business support. We have urged proper safeguards on Commission powers in relation to the application of structural remedies. We have suggested that penalties imposed under EU law by national authorities should be those provided for in EU law. We have also proposed changes in the transitional arrangements and in undertaking a timely review.
We have also wrestled with the issue of the appropriate treatment of communications from in-house legal advisers. I am deeply indebted to my colleague, Mr Rovsing, for the attention that he has given to this issue. There are different rules in operation in different parts of the European Union. We have tried to ensure that the professional status of in-house lawyers is acknowledged, whilst not impeding the Commission in the thorough investigation of possible infringements."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples