Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-316"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.10.3-316"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank the European Parliament for the support it has given to the Commission’s Green Paper on the review of the Merger Regulation. Parliament clearly seems to share the Commission’s objective, which is to strengthen the legislative arsenal for controlling concentrations. Only by using up-to-date methods and instruments is it possible to face challenges such as the forthcoming enlargement, the strengthening of relations with the other competition authorities and greater international awareness of the importance of concentration control issues.
I should like here to express my gratitude to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the rapporteur, Mr Berenguer Fuster, as well as all those who have contributed to this debate, particularly the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The public consultation process has provided and is still providing a number of interesting and well documented opinions on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive questions raised in the Green Paper. In my opinion, your report, Mr Berenguer Fuster, offers a very well-reasoned account of it and makes some particularly interesting observations. You all know the high esteem in which I hold Parliament’s contributions, and I can promise you that this report will be examined with the greatest attention. On the basis of all this input, the Commission will adopt a proposal for a new Merger Regulation by the end of this year, for subsequent debate by the Council.
I consider this regulation to be part – an important part, yes, but just a part – of a package of reforms which will also include interpretative guidelines on the application of the substantial competition test – we have heard various opinions on the current dominance test and the possible alternative of the substantial lessening of competition test – which clarify in particular the procedures for analysing market influence in cases of concentration and the importance that should be attributed to efficiency considerations, which have been mentioned several times. The draft regulation will naturally be made available for public consultation.
We also intend to come to an agreement with legal and enterprise circles on a new series of guidelines on best procedural practice, that is in the investigation of concentrations. We must therefore think about the structural or management changes that will be needed to accompany this reform package, particularly how to take further the matter of rights of defence and the matter of strengthening our economic capacity and the role of economic analysis in our decision-making procedure.
Finally, Mr President, I should like to touch briefly on a matter that a number of Members of the House have raised this evening, which is the matter of a possible link between social policies and competition policies.
This is an issue which raises questions about the tests for assessing concentrations. I want to be very clear on this point. The introduction of further tests, different from those concerned with competition, in the concentration assessment system would complicate, confuse and, ultimately, risk defeating the primary function of the Merger Regulation, which is to maintain effective competition. In no way does this mean not making employment policies a top priority. The European Union has employment policies, the Member States have employment policies and the Commission and I myself are all for the strengthening of employment policies. Maintaining healthy competition, as has been pointed out, also encourages a growing economy over the medium to long term, and with growth comes employment. I do think, however, that to mix up objectives and include an objective on maintaining employment in the Merger Regulation would make it less effective.
This does not mean that, when concentrations take place, the companies should not be reminded of their obligations to comply with social legislation, wherever this is required. For our part, we want to give workers and their representatives the opportunity to express their views to the Commission during the investigation. As I was saying, we examine the competition and, in this context, the viewpoint of dependent workers and their representatives may take on greater importance if it concerns the effects of the operation on competition.
To sum up, I believe that social legislation, which is important, and competition law, which is also important, pursue technically dissimilar goals by means of a variety of different but equally valid methods. I am quite certain that mixing up the instruments would not benefit either policy.
I thank Parliament once again for this latest contribution to our efforts to refine the competition instrument."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples