Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.23.3-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I am grateful for the initiative of the Austrian Presidency in organising, together with the forthcoming Finnish Presidency, a very important day in June: Competition Day. With regard to other matters, I am impressed by the priority that has been given to the SMEs. The issue has been approached in a way that really represents a great step forward. The Presidency has not only fulfilled an agenda, but has also been very pragmatic in trying to find solutions. We are aware that it is not only Members of Parliament who are interested in the issue but others too, especially the SMEs themselves.
I thank you again for your support; I am grateful for it. We badly need to do our job as quickly as possible, for it is indeed quite hectic in merger country.
I am very grateful to all the Members who, in their remarks, gave quite clear backing to the policy of the Commission. I also take into account that not everybody agrees on the policy. However, I sincerely hope that we are all aware that open and competitive markets are key drivers for growth and jobs in Europe. It was rightly mentioned that this is what we promised to deliver in the Lisbon Agenda: more jobs, better jobs and economic growth.
As many of you have recognised, an internal market has enormous potential. We have to let our businesses and industries exploit it to the full. That is what was decided. It includes, by the way, the process of corporate restructuring. That is looking promising and it is not only a matter of looking at the internal market itself, but also of looking at the position of the internal market outside Europe. For we have to be aware that there is a global competitiveness and if we are serious in saying that we want to play that game then we need to be aware that we have to restructure in some circumstances.
While the effects of individual mergers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in accordance – there is no doubt about this – with the relevant competition rules, mergers between companies based in different Member States are likely to increase competition. This in turn leads to concrete benefits for European consumers in the form of lower prices and wider choice, and that is why the Commission would look with great concern at any unjustified interference in this process by national governments.
As regards the free movement of capital rightly mentioned by a number of Members, the Commission will uphold the single market rules, as you expect us to do. We will be tough against Member States which fail to implement correctly the provisions of the EC sectoral legislation introducing competition into markets such as energy, telecoms, financial services or banking. As regards individual mergers, we will enforce the Merger Regulation in a fair, objective and coherent way. You will recall that under the Merger Regulation the Commission has exclusive competence for controlling, on competition grounds, the effects of mergers with a Community dimension.
I take careful note of the concerns expressed here about specific cases in the energy sector. I have no information at this point so I cannot discuss them. I say once again that we control mergers on competition grounds only, and that is the basis on which the Court reviews our decisions. As you know, Article 21 of the Merger Regulation also gives us a tool for addressing any undue interference by national authorities in relation to corporate restructuring. I would add that I will not hesitate to use this tool wherever it is necessary.
Regarding the two-thirds rule for mergers touched upon by some Members, will that rule for mergers be amended? The split of competences due to the two-thirds rule may lead to inconsistency in the approach to substantially similar mergers. That is basic. I think this seems particularly inappropriate in the energy sector, where an EU-wide policy on liberalisation is currently being implemented – it is not ready yet but it is currently being implemented – and where different players should be treated in a similar way across Member States. So, no different treatment in one Member State than in another.
However, the Commission is at a very early stage of its thought process. The first step is a consultation with stakeholders in the Member States on the question of whether it is advisable to modify the two-thirds rule. I am aware that we need the backing of the Council and I am aware how difficult that will be. That is a possible instrument and I am in favour of tackling it, but that is not my goal. The goal is to ensure fair and equal treatment, rather than one being more equal than another. So, if there is a possibility of arriving at that policy, from whatever direction, then it will be D-day for this part of my policy.
The Commission has a duty to enforce the rules wherever appropriate. As guardian of the Treaties we will do our job fairly but firmly, as was rightly said by the Austrian Presidency."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples