For some time now, and even more so following the ruling of the Court of First Instance that annulled the European Commission's ban on the merger between Airtours and First Choice (see our bulletin of 7 June, p.13), the Commission's competition policy has been the subject of a large number of stances, at times critical. In an interview with my colleague Jean Quatremer (published in "Liberation" of 13 June), Commissioner Mario Monti clarified his policy, responded to certain criticisms and in turn criticised national conduct. We here reproduce the most important aspects of his statements, taking them subject by subject to help the reader.
1. The ruling of the Court of First instance (CFI) annulling a negative Commission decision. "This ruling clearly demonstrates that Commission decisions are subject to legal control; the claim by which we are at the same time prosecutor and judge has no foundation. Furthermore, the ruling does not place back into question the possibility of our prohibiting "collective dominant positions", even though it severely criticises the way in which we assessed the risk to competition in that case. This means that we must be even more careful when examining mergers. Be sure, that's already the case: it would be mistaken to believe that the Commission considers a priori that a market dominated by a few actors prohibits any concentration. Since I've been in the job, I have had the occasion to examine several cases where there were fears concerning the reduction to three, or two even, actors, but these fears were assuaged following an in-depth investigation.
2. Creation of large European groups of world dimension. "The control of concentrations has only rarely prevented the formation of large groups. To stick to French examples alone, let's mention our go-ahead to TotalFinaElf, Carrefour-Promodes, Arcelor (stemming from the merger of Usinor with its Spanish and Luxembourg rivals), the nuclear group Framatome - Siemens, the world group Vivendi Canal + Univesale, and I could quote more. We have only prohibited 18 mergers in twelve years, or less than 1% of files put to us."
3. Globalisation and the conduct of States. "It seems to me that the balance between the power of business and public power has changed. States now demonstrate deference towards companies (…). We have moved from arrogance on the part of public authorities vis-à-vis economic operators to the extreme opposite. That's especially the case for the United States, notably due to the funding of candidates in electoral campaigns".
4. An ultra-liberal policy? "What is ultra-liberal in prohibiting a merger? Competition policy is an element of market governance and not laisser-faire. In the current historic phase, I am profoundly persuaded that public authorities must take markets in hand".
5. Governments, the Commission and public opinion. "Instead of being proud of the work accomplished within the EU, instead of returning to their capitals explaining that there will be short-tem sacrifices but that thereafter it will be for the good of all, governments complain that everything is imposed by Brussels. This refusal of political responsibility (..) is the bedrock of populism. The Commission, further away from the electoral process, has agreed to play the role of scapegoat as what foremost concerns it is not its popularity, but that the necessary measures and policies are adopted. But we must put an end to that habit".
6. Competition policy and cultural, environmental etc, issues. "Is competition policy indifferent to these issues? No, on the contrary! We always try to ensure we effectively reconcile competition policy and other policies. I would point out that so-called Commission "Ayatollahs" have been understanding of State aid for the cinema sector, the single price for a book, aid to renewable energy and in favour of venture-capital".
7. Respect of the public service, social and fiscal aspect, industrial policy. "Our European model is that of a social market economy (…). The EU is faced with a fundamental choice. Either it slows down the completion of the market economy and structural reforms. Or, and this is the path I prefer, it continues down that road with determination, but placing emphasis on the respect of the public service and paying more attention to the social and fiscal aspect (…). I'd have no qualms over Community financial aid for large European industrial projects. Should governments make the political choice of saying that Europe's role is not simply to create an environment favourable to business, but also to support it financially through large projects, I believe that that should be done using the Community budget so as not to perturb the smooth running of the single market. (F.R.)