Brussels, 17/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - A panel of national experts speaking before the EP's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on 15 April, expressed various points of view on the future of merger control in the EU. They voiced their opinions in the context of a debate launched last December by Commissioner Mario Monti, with his Green Paper on updating European merger rules. EP rapporteur for this issue, Spanish Socialist Luis Berenguer Fuster, recalled that Regulation 4064/89 on mergers had, since its entry into force in 1990, been generally accepted by experts and companies. He did, however, welcome the Commission's initiative to take stock of the situation ten years after its entry into force. The five experts acknowledged that the Regulation has worked well to date and that no fundamental change is required, although they did recommend amendments to bring the provision up to date.
Ulf Boge, President of the Bundeskartellamt, the German competition authority, gave a warm welcome to the Commission's suggestion whereby Community competence would be automatic for merger operations notified in a minimum of three Member States. In his view, however, this could make the process complicated and entail administrative costs. The question of the time granted to companies is a "delicate" one, said Mr Boge, although he does support the Commission's proposal to extend the time limit in certain cases for companies which, in the second stage, are to take correcting measures. Alberto Heimler, Director at the Directorate for Research and Institutional Relationship of the Italian Competition Directory, would like greater flexibility with regards what he calls the over-rigid turnover thresholds. With regards referral procedure, he considers "there is a discouraging problem: Member States are not encouraged to refer the matter to the Commission. There should be an incentive for referring the matter". According to Professor Ricardo Alonso Soto, from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, the Commission's Green Paper is a good analysis of the situation, but "triggers debate rather than encouraging reform". Although he is in favour of referral to the Community body if there is an obligation to notify in several Member States, Professor Soto is nonetheless in favour of more intense intervention by the Member States in the Commission's decision-making process: "Member State competences should be extended to procedures and not just to intervention within the Consultative Committee", he thus stressed. As for the extension of time limits for notifying companies, he considers such delays must be respected ("deadlines are deadlines!"), except in exceptional cases that only happen once. Eva Persson, Vice-President of the AB Volvo group, responded from the enterprise point of view. Considering that there must be equal treatment in Europe and in the rest of the world, she stressed that the review procedure must not be too long as the climate of uncertainty during which the company awaits the decision makes it "vulnerable". Furthermore, she pointed out that the assessment procedure should also take into account other positive factors which would compensate for the fall in competition and give greater importance to consumers' opinions. Ms Persson also noted an anomaly in the procedure, namely, the fact that the Commission conducts the inquiry and also takes the final decision. "This double role poses a problem of legal security", she said. Finally, Bernard Armory made a more practical suggestion, born of his experience within the law firm Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. In his view, notification in two different countries should be enough to establish the cross-border nature of an operation, which should then be automatically submitted to a one-stop office. "Companies want simplification!", he pointed out. Evoking the question of the dominant position test, he considers it would be necessary to release additional resources to make procedures more equitable.