Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-111"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010906.5.4-111"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-06-Speech-4-1132
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"The Evans report receives our support because the rapporteur has correctly indicated where the Commission proposal needs adjusting. It is a step in the right direction. For reasons of subsidiarity, I would certainly value a greater role for national competition authorities in the implementation of the competition rules. However, it should not undermine the standard application of these. That would not only lead to uncertainty for businesses, it would also lead to discrepancies in competitiveness between one Member State and another. The national authorities need clear guidelines in order to rule out different interpretations. It is too precarious at this stage to carve up responsibilities among different authorities. The most appropriate authority could be the authority on whose territory the most important effects make themselves felt, but also the authority that has been monitoring the situation for a good while. The rapporteur gets to the heart of the matter when he asks for the proposal to be further developed for the benefit of legal certainty. Despite the demarcation of powers, the Commission is responsible for safeguarding standard application in the event of effects being felt from one State to another. Set against the Commission’s authoritative powers, a strengthening of the rights of defence would be appropriate. In this connection, the question arises as to whether the Commission could indicate how the companies’ need for a prompt, EU-wide statement can be met. The call for legal certainty is not only a matter of further development by the Commission. The European Institute of Public Administration recently indicated that, in many cases, there is simply too little case law available to draw on. It is therefore inherent in the current state of European competition law itself that major legal risks cannot be ruled out. Before the proposed reform can take place, the Commission must lay a foundation in the form of guidelines, or legislation which safeguards legal certainty. In this perspective, the concept of core tasks for the Commission and implementing tasks for the national authorities is worth further consideration. Just and decentralised application will prove its worth, certainly following enlargement."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph