Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.11.3-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs van den Burg was right to stress that the Christian Democrat group has very often joined with other groups in taking the interests of workers into account when competition policy and models of economic policy are under consideration. We have done this because our group stands for the social market economy, because we back the Lisbon objectives, and because social cohesion is not incompatible with economic success; on the contrary, it is contingent upon it. We will not, however, be supporting the Social Democrats’ amendments, either in committee or in plenary, as these things have to be dealt with where they belong. Most of those who have spoken before me have pointed out that this refusal does not go against people’s interests, but that we must find a place for our concerns where the matter in hand requires it, and where the most good can result.
The control of mergers is meant to ensure that EU law applies to them, and it is because the Mergers Regulation works well as an instrument of European competition legislation that we are all appealing to the Commission. It would be a mistake if amendments, albeit necessary ones, to an essentially good and workable instrument were to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and more time-consuming than it at present is in a form that has stood the test of time.
We therefore endorse the Regulation’s objectives. It has to be said, for the benefit of those listening to this debate, that Parliament has no power of codecision on this issue, but is simply being consulted. We want greater clarity, greater legal certainty and the introduction of speedier procedures. That is why we also endorse the proposal for more flexible deadlines, which will bring great advantages to businesses. It is apparent from all the interventions that there are three points on which we have had criticisms to make, and we will continue to make them in the hope that the Commission will change tack. The first of them is that – as I see it – Parliament holds fast to the one-stop-shop principle. What this means is that, where a merger crosses more than two borders between Member States, this has to be reported directly to the Commission. This makes for clarity, legal certainty and is the simplest way of doing things in view of EU enlargement. I see the abandonment of the principle in the Green Book as regrettable, and urge you to return to it. You would thereby be helping to reduce costs and bureaucracy and increase legal certainty.
A second point is the definition of the market. We believe that your definition of the ‘economically dominant position’ is too broad and that the old definition is potentially clearer. The third point is one that must be faced head-on – the issue of the way in which the provisions on mergers are being brought closer to those in the Cartels Regulation. Here, you are confusing apples with pears. What needs to be made clear is that mergers are legal, whereas cartels are not. This distinction must be kept and the two must not be confused with one another."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples