Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.2.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I wish to be very brief, as I must, Mr President, and begin by answering the most critical of all the interventions. I hope that Mr de Gaulle is still there to listen to what I have to say on three points.
Mr de Gaulle, you said that there is no reason for having a policy to control mergers, because there is already Article 82, on the abuse of a dominant position. You are well aware that there is also a regulation on mergers, to prevent dominant positions from being created or reinforced.
The second comment, on which I must entirely disagree with you: you accuse the Commission of at times analysing market shares on a national basis. You will perhaps recall that, even in the ruling that was very critical of the Commission in the Schneider/Legrand case, the Court did not contest that the relevant market was the national market.
The third comment, on a very important point, Mr de Gaulle: you say that the Commission hounds public companies. You should know that this is quite the opposite of the truth. I invite you to read, for example, even if it is only in the French press, what I said recently in an interview: our opportunities for intervention are limited by a principle, which I see as sacrosanct, which is the neutrality of the Union and its treaties with regard to the public or private property of companies. This is why I never allow it to be said in France, as you said today, Mr de Gaulle, that the capital of EDF or Gaz de France is being opened up because Brussels requires it. That is not true. Nevertheless, the Treaty requires public and private companies to comply with competition rules."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples