Public opinion is disorientated. How can the public be expected to follow? The Monti proposal on car distribution was presented to the press in such a contradictory way that non-specialists in competition and distribution cannot really be expected to understand what is happening. Just look at the headlines in the daily press. "A revolution in car sales"; "Very minor liberalisation"; "Brussels protects car dealers"; "European Commission liberalises car distribution". So is it a revolution or minor liberalisation? Will dealers be protected or subject to competition?
The difficulty of answering these questions stems from the fact that there is some truth to all the different interpretations. At the start, the range of possibilities was very wide, from maintenance of the existing arrangements to the abolition of all regulations specific to the sector. The consultations, studies and debates already conducted led the Commission to rule out both the continuation of the present system and application of the general arrangements. It reached the conclusion that the car sector has specific characteristics that prevent it being placed on the same footing as other consumer goods. We might mention three such characteristics: the impact of cars on the environment, the problem of road safety and accident victims, and the importance of after-sale service. These three reasons alone justify a specific system. The Commission thus opted for making substantial changes to the current arrangements. Those calling for the abolition of specific regulations for the sector (mainly BEUC, representing European consumers' organisations) claim that the Commission failed to go far enough and is protecting exclusive dealers. Which explains half the headlines. In the opposite direction, the association of car manufacturers is of the view that the present scheme should be kept basically intact, with only minor changes being made. Which explains the other half of the headlines, those referring to a revolution.
Adjustments are unavoidable. Extreme positions are unreasonable. By announcing an apocalypse, thousands of job cuts and a reduction in their competitiveness, car manufacturers obtained results: their shares tumbled on stock exchanges. So carmakers have to understand that adjustments to the current system are unavoidable for a simple reason: it has not given rise to the creation of a genuine single market for cars. In the EU, the single market exists on the whole. The currency is in place, and the Union is building its area of freedom, security and justice. Given these conditions, it is unacceptable for the car market to remain fragmented. The Commission is obliged to take action. Manufacturers reply that the main cause of the fragmented market is the difference in tax systems. Commissioner Mario Monti did not refute this claim and announced that he would fight for majority decisions on taxation issues that have direct implications for the working of the single market. But he added that tax differentials are not the only cause of the anomalies. The Commission also discovered unlawful practices by certain firms that represent a barrier to trade in the Community and Professor Monti intends to combat these hindrances not only by imposing ex post facto fines, but also by getting rid of the provisions that make them possible.
On the other hand, total abolition of the dealership system, as requested by BEUC, does not give account to the importance of after-sale service and certain safety aspects. The possibility of selling cars in a supermarket may lead to lower sale prices, but the consumer could end up "paying" in the form of uncertainty over after-sale service and spare parts. Of course, competition must be introduced, even in this area, but carefully and with solid guarantees, to protect consumers, along with the environment and road safety. The recent scandal over spare parts for aircraft compels redoubled precaution.
What can we conclude? That the review under way must continue, taking carefully into consideration all aspects of the issue. This is more than a conflict of interests. The Commission's proposal is currently being put to a wide consultation and the European Parliament will hold a public debate. The Commission will not be adopting a final decision until the end of July. The fact that four Commissioners (Liikanen, Lamy, Barnier and Verheugen) voted against the proposal does not mean the Commission will change its basic stance, but some fine-tuning is possible. We cannot but repeat that all aspects must be taken into account: the interests of consumers, the competitive situation of European carmakers, achievement of the single market, road safety and the environment.
(F.R.)