Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.6.3-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and to thank him and all the other members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for being so cooperative. The committee responsible was able to include some of what we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposed in one form or another. We were able to confine ourselves in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to a very small number of proposed amendments, because we support the Commission's basic approach. You can never quantify it exactly, but I would say that we fully endorse 95% of the Commission's proposals. On numerous other questions, it was rather up to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to express an opinion.
We came to one main basic conclusion in committee. The current debate and all that has gone before have shown that this block exemption regulation, however esoteric it may sound, directly affects all our voters and will have far-reaching ramifications throughout Europe. And yet it is an act which the Commission can decide on autonomously, with the European Parliament only involved under a voluntary consultation procedure. With all due respect to the Commission and, more importantly, given the need for the Commission to remain impartial when it makes unilateral decisions and for the Commission to be shielded from unacceptable political pressure, I think that, when it comes to general competition law, these matters should come under the codecision procedure in future. As a member of the European convention, I took the liberty of submitting a proposal to the convention along these lines last Friday.
Naturally, the Committee on Legal Affairs also considered measures to maintain confidence and legal certainty, which is why we have proposed improvements to conditions of notice and compensation for dealers and focused on the location clause. My proposed transitional arrangement, which will be put to the vote tomorrow as the lead committee's Amendment No 28, is based on a number of considerations which give us cause to believe that it will improve competition. If nearly every other restriction on competition is removed from the new block exemption regulation – which, as we have said, is a good thing which we expressly support – then I think that we can keep the location clause in place for dealers for the time being, in order to ensure, among other things, that dealers in areas with less purchasing power – and I come from just such an outlying region – can survive and that the consumer supply line is not cut.
Location clauses on a non-growth market can help to protect us from the all too negative fallout from the concentration process. I think it is worth keeping an eye on this process for another two years. Then it will automatically be up to the Commission to introduce the final, decisive measures."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples