Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001023.9.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I very much welcome the Commission’s report. It is a splendid piece of work that Commissioner Monti and his staff carried out last year. In my report on the twenty-ninth report on the Commission’s competition policy, I expended particular energy on the problems concerning mergers and the repayment of State aid. I did this for a number of reasons. Firstly because, in the course of last year, I was approached on a number of occasions by companies which have felt a certain degree of powerlessness in connection with rulings on mergers, especially in relation to those cases in which they have needed to appeal to the Court of First Instance against the Commission’s ruling. With regard to State aid, moreover, problems apparently still exist with ensuring that unlawfully paid State aid is paid back to the national exchequers.
Let us begin, however, with mergers. One consequence of EMU is, of course, that we see more and more mergers. I also think the time is ripe for re-assessing whether the procedures and sets of rules we have at present are as good as they could be. The world is not, of course, always so easy for those who have to follow the rules and procedures we are involved in devising. I think it is necessary for clear rules to be devised for what is called the relevant market. It is important to distinguish between what may be called the peripheral areas of Europe and what may be called the heart of Europe. It is especially important to put this distinction in place before enlargement, for it can be difficult for the smaller countries in the peripheral areas when companies wish to merge, because the latter quickly become large players in their own market. It is not especially appropriate that larger companies in small countries should be prevented from merging for, in that way, their opportunities to compete globally are reduced.
I should therefore like to remind you that we do, of course, have existing rules to take care of those circumstances in which companies exploit their important and possibly dominant market positions. We therefore need not perhaps be so afraid of mergers. After all, it is not a crime for companies to merge. Another thing I feel very strongly about is the need to arrange for mergers to go through more quickly. I am thinking here, in particular, of those circumstances in which a company wishes to appeal against the Commission’s ruling. Quite simply, a period of between 25 and 35 months is too long in our global village for getting a case through the courts, and what is very time consuming is having the documents of the case translated. That is not good enough. We owe it to our companies to offer them the best conditions so that they are able to plan their production and, especially, their future.
On the subject of mergers, I have two questions for you, Commissioner Monti. Would it be possible to consider different possible solutions for separating the Commission’s functions of judge and prosecutor? For example, could there be a panel of independent experts during the second hearing so that it is not exclusively people from the Commission who assess individual merger cases? I also have another idea, even if it is perhaps a touch outside your sphere of authority. Might not a committee of experts or an expert tribunal, specialising in companies, be set up in the department of first instance at the court in Luxembourg? In Denmark, for example, we have a special maritime and commercial court dealing exclusively with issues relating to companies. I would also take the opportunity of asking the Commissioner to explain why one of the most trusted merger specialists has left the Commission.
The other subject I raised in my report is that of State aid and the repayment of State aid which has been awarded unlawfully. I make no secret of the fact that I feel very strongly about tightening up on the repayment of State aid which has been awarded unlawfully, especially since this is another area it is important to sort out before enlargement. It is good that State aid to shipyards in Europe should be phased out as per 1 January 2001, even if it is extremely problematic that our shipyards should continue to have to compete with the South Korean treasury. In the light of the latest development, I can appreciate why the Commission has, with good reason, adopted a harder line on South Korea. I am wondering, therefore, if you could report on the very latest developments, Commissioner, even though I am well aware that you only have limited time available.
I also want to take the opportunity to ask Commissioner Monti if and when a public, efficient and properly functioning register of State aid may be expected to be put in place and, in the same vein, when the long-promised scoreboard is to become a reality. Finally, I want to emphasise that, for me as a liberal, it is crucially important that companies can be sure of being dealt with properly and efficiently in all areas, so that there are no hitches where companies’ future legal certainty is concerned. I should also like to thank my fellow MEPs in Committee for the splendid way in which they have cooperated in connection with my report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples