Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-401"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.12.3-401"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, there is a general agreement that we clearly need some reform in some competition rules, and especially in their practical implementation. Regulation 1017 has been applied with only little modification since the 1960s. It is therefore understandable that the continued application of this regulation in its current form is no longer consistent with effective supervision of competition. We have to serve our consumers and our companies better with up-to-date rules of application.
In my view, in a period of 30 years of implementation, EC competition law has reached a level where decentralising is not only possible, but almost necessary. We are all aware of the workload of the DG for competition and we understand that we have to do something to reduce it, or drastically increase the resources in Brussels. At the same time, we hear our voters reminding us how we should respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and that we should avoid centralising all decision making to Brussels bureaucrats. In that question, I totally disagree with Mr Titford.
With the reform at hand we are able to achieve many of our objectives. Ending the current system of prior notification should benefit business and make more resources available to the Commission to concentrate on more serious infringements. Ex ante notification should not be replaced with a burdensome registration system. However, the shift to the new regime will not be an easy task. It is of the utmost importance to ensure that competition issues within the EU are treated similarly in all Member States. There are many detailed situations where legal certainty might be a danger. Personally I, and many of my colleagues from smaller Member States, are worried about the definitions of dominant position in the market. Companies from Member States – especially from the smaller Member States – should have equal possibilities to grow in the single market and to achieve a strategic position to compete with the global rivals. The Commission decision to say no to the Volvo/Scania merger was an example of the situation where the relevant market definition was maybe too narrow. The Commission should not declare that the market is national or regional if there is clear evidence that is not the case."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples