Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-03-Speech-4-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030703.9.4-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as you know, on 2 April 2003 the Commission adopted a decision confirming a violation of the competition rules by six federations in the beef sector. The appropriate fines were imposed to the tune of nearly EUR 17 million.
Finally, we should remember that, although the crisis in the beef sector affected the whole of Europe, the Commission is not aware of any parties in any other Member State deeming it necessary to create an illegal cartel. The decision, which explains the facts as established by the Commission and its illegal conclusions in detail, will be published shortly.
We are talking about an agreement made in France between four federations of farmers and two federations of abattoirs at the end of 2001. The agreement consisted of a minimum price commitment and a suspension-restriction of imports from other Member States. Initially it took the form of a public written agreement and then, once the Commission had sent letters of warning, of a secret oral agreement. These agreements were made within the context of low prices in the beef market as a result of the crisis in the sector.
On the basis of data communicated by the Directorate-General for Agriculture, the Directorate-General for Competition opened up an investigation and sent demands for information in the middle of November 2001. On this basis, the Commission – and I would like to stress this – initially did no more than send letters of warning at the end of November 2001. All the parties to the agreement then assured the Commission, in writing, that they were putting an end to the illegal agreement. But the Commission found evidence that the parties were maintaining the agreement secretly. The unannounced inspections carried out in the middle of December 2001 confirmed the Commission’s suspicions. The parties were given the opportunity to present written and oral comments. The decision adopted on 2 April 2003 concludes, on the basis of a repeated ruling of the Court of Justice, that, firstly, there is a price agreement which violates the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty and that, secondly, there is an agreement to suspend imports from other Member States, which also violates Community competition rules.
The documentation discovered by the Commission during the course of the investigation demonstrates that, furthermore, all the organisations in question knew that the agreement they were making was illegal and that they were liable for intervention by the competition authorities. The Commission imposed fines of EUR 12 million on the FNSA, the main French agricultural federation, and of up to EUR 480 000 on one of the federations of abattoirs.
Please allow me to remind you that, in the event of very serious violations of competition rules, the Commission imposes fines of the basic sum for each participant, in principle, of a minimum of EUR 20 million.
The three main criticisms levelled at the Commission's decision are: firstly, that this is an attack on trade union freedoms; secondly, that the fine is excessive, given the context of crisis; and thirdly, the Commission's lack of action over the second mad cow disease crisis. I will try to respond to these three arguments.
With regard to trade union freedom, the Commission believes that the scope of the decision has been exaggerated. Trade union freedom is a fundamental freedom, recognised by everybody. The Commission reiterates this in its decision. But this freedom does not give the right to do absolutely anything: a trade union cannot legitimately make an agreement on prices and import restrictions violating the principles of the common market. The decision says no more than that.
With regard to the size of the fine, it must be borne in mind that it is set in accordance with the seriousness of the violation and with the aggravating circumstances. Well, in this case the violation was serious but so were the aggravating circumstances. In this respect, we should remember that the farmers obliged the abattoirs to sign the illegal agreement through acts of violence. We must also remember that the parties, having provided assurances that the agreement would not be renewed, in actual fact continued to apply it in secret. Furthermore, the Commission did take into account the difficult economic context the agricultural sector was working within, the dual crisis of mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease, which Mr Bernié referred to in his speech in this House on 7 April, and, it was precisely as a result of this very unusual context that for the first time the fine has been reduced by 60%, a not inconsiderable percentage.
The third criticism is that it was the Commission itself that did not adopt adequate measures to deal with the mad cow disease crisis. In this regard, we should remember that the Commission multiplied its measures for market stabilisation. The intervention mechanisms were used extensively, and the application conditions were increased, specific crisis mechanisms were created to allow the Member States to withdraw from the market additional quantities of channels. In this way, in a few months, almost 10% of European consumption was withdrawn from the market. More than EUR 1 billion of the Community budget was used for this operation and, furthermore, the Commission authorised the Member States to grant national aid to the worst affected farmers. In the case of France, the Commission approved more than EUR 300 million in state aid."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples