Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.8.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Evans on the quality and weight of his report. I would also like to express the Commission’s appreciation of Parliament’s consistently constructive attitude to competition issues, which we consider to be an important tool in the framework of the social market economy to which Mr Karas referred, the ultimate aim of which, as Mr Berenguer Fuster stressed, is to protect the consumer. Mr Berenguer has also grasped perfectly the line which the Commission intends to take, which is to focus more on economic analysis in developing competition policy, but, at the same time, as Mr Karas, Mr Evans and others have requested, we are endeavouring to provide the greatest possible legal certainty for businesses.
Mr President, this debate has touched on a number of other important, interesting points. I do not have the time to comment on all of them, but I would just like to make a couple of observations. Mr Theonas, you raised the question of mergers. The care with which the Commission has exercised its powers in the area of merger control cannot have escaped you. As we are required to do by the regulation, we are adhering rigorously to the criterion of prohibiting mergers where they would lead to the creation or consolidation of a dominant position. Often, this is not the case – there is no danger of it happening – partly because the businesses are aware of this requirement and propose remedies which can, on occasions, be extremely effective.
Today’s debate concerns a major aspect of our attempts to modernise competition policy. On the one hand, the Commission has drawn up a revised version of the block exemption regulations on research and development and specialisation agreements, and, on the other hand, it has prepared draft guidelines on the applicability of article 81 to horizontal cooperation agreements. In this way, it is the Commission’s intention to codify the relevant case law and working practice as they have developed on the basis the evaluation of individual cases over all these years, without making any major changes to the criteria for evaluating horizontal cooperation agreements on the basis of Community law. These documents are therefore intended to clarify the criteria used to implement competition policy in this field, certainly not to alter them.
I would like to stress this aspect, because there has been some criticism of the Commission’s proposal that it is masking a thorough revision of the line taken regarding the horizontal cooperation agreements. These allegations are completely unfounded. It is generally understood that agreements signed between competitors are likely to restrict competition to a much greater degree than other types of agreement. This is certainly the case where agreements between competitors are intended to set prices, divide up the market or limit production. We are certainly not attempting to make anybody think that horizontal agreements, which have severely negative implications for competition, will in the future be regulated less rigorously. However, in the absence of basic restrictions, it is necessary for the agreements to be examined in their economic context, so that it can be ascertained whether they would have a negative effect on the market.
There is, however, clearly a need to update and clarify the regulations on horizontal agreements for two fundamental reasons: firstly, because these regulations represent a response to the present economic reality, for businesses have to react to increasing pressure from competition and adapt to a market which is in a constant state of flux. Cooperation can often be a way to share risks, save on expenditure, pool expertise and speed up the launching of innovations onto the market. It is an important tool, particularly for small- and medium-sized businesses. Consumers will benefit from these economic advantages, but only if effective competition is maintained on the market.
Our second reason for revising the legislation in this area is the fact that clarification of the norms is essential for the success of our undertaking to modernise competition policy, an undertaking whose scope the rapporteur, Mr Evans, has grasped fully, and for this I am grateful to him, as I am for his reference to state aid, which is another, no less important element of competition policy. The line taken is similar to that recently adopted on vertical agreements, and primarily responds to two objectives: preventing the Directorate-General for Competition having to examine cases which have no bearing on competition policy, and enabling the businesses themselves to establish whether or not an agreement would restrict competition and whether it would be eligible for an exemption.
The draft resolution shows that Parliament supports the aims of the reform. The questions raised by you and others contain extremely valuable suggestions. I am now, already, able to inform you that I intend to incorporate the majority of these suggestions. I shall, in particular, recommend to the Commission that it adheres to your opinion on three major points in respect of the block exemption regulations. Firstly, the maximum duration of the exemption for research and development agreements should be extended beyond the current limit of five years. However, a compromise does need to be reached between the businesses’ interests in exploiting the results of their own research and the public interest, in guaranteeing competition on the new markets. I shall therefore propose to limit the duration of the exemption not to ten but to seven years.
Secondly, the restrictions concerning the possibility of parties exploiting the results of research and development projects carried out jointly should be as few as possible, in order to encourage the movement of knowledge, which is instrumental in both technical and economic progress. I shall therefore propose, on the basis of your comments, that, as a rule, these restrictions be allowed to intervene only where they are to be applied to businesses which are not in direct competition.
Thirdly, the transitional period should be extended. In this we can take the block exemption regulations on vertical agreements as an example and set a period of 18 months. Then, with regard to the guidelines, we will certainly be able to comply with your request to operate a clearer distinction between the guidelines for horizontal agreements and those for vertical agreements, and to be clearer in our handling of industrial supply agreements.
The Commission intends to adopt the definitive version of the block exemption regulations and guidelines before the end of the year. This would avoid a legal gap forming after the current regulations expire, but it would also contribute considerably to keeping Community policy up to date."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples