Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.11.1-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Lipietz and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for this report. I am aware that there are a number of points on which I have to thank the rapporteur for giving the credit to the Commission and its services.
As you note, competition policy must help drive EU competition, competitiveness and growth and, as the rapporteur mentioned, in the end it should all work in favour of the consumers – what he called the ordinary people.
I am glad that Parliament follows competition policy developments closely and proactively. Our valuable debate in February on state aid reform is a very good example. I will continue to involve you fully in policy development, even if the Treaty does not give this House a legislative role in this area.
This Parliament has also been an ardent and consistent supporter of the Commission’s work to enforce the competition rules fairly, firmly and effectively, as rightly mentioned by the rapporteur – whom I thank for that. I agree with your comments on many issues: the anti-trust reforms implemented in 2004; the coordination of the European competition network; European Competition Days; international cooperation; and of course consumer information.
On private damage actions for breach of the EC anti-trust rules, I look forward to Parliament’s review of our Green Paper. We are continuing to work on the review of Article 82 of the Treaty, on areas of importance for the information society and on the sector inquiries, where I take your point about the areas in which our methodology could be improved.
Turning to a couple of specific points touched on by the rapporteur, we have discussed Altmark at length before, and the Commission will provide guidance when adopting decisions on individual cases. I have no indication in relation to questioning the behaviour of the national competition authorities as regards national incumbents, but would remind you that, if such a case arose, the Commission can intervene and deal with the case itself.
Finally, I have two comments in response to Mr Lipietz. First, the Commission’s handling of the Hoechst/Rhône-Poulenc merger in 1999 and 2004 has been discussed at length and in detail during the committee meetings when this report was being prepared. The Commission has provided detailed responses to all the points raised. I do not think that any new factors have been brought forward. So, as far as I am concerned, that is behind us.
Secondly, the Commission decided that some of the aid granted to Ryanair at Charleroi was compatible with the common market in the context of transport policy. This concerned aid which permitted development and improved use of secondary airport infrastructure that was underused and represented a cost to society as a whole. However, I should add that the remainder of the aid was found not to be compatible and must be recovered."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples