Brussels, 06/11/2003 (Agence Europe) - During a conference in Paris on 4 November with the "Europartners Circle", Commissioner Mario Monti reiterated the need to apply competition rules in order to promote growth and bring the EU closer to its Lisbon objective (making Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world). Mr Monti, whose recent decisions regarding French companies attracted the criticism of the industrial world, stressed the fact that "the coincidence of the timing could mean that several important cases concern one Member State at any given time", but that the Commission should "insist that the competition rules be applied in all Member States with the same modalities and the same meticulousness". Mr Monti responded to his critics by pointing out that the competition policy does not aim to impose constraints on business, but "on the contrary, aims to allow their involvement on open markets which are not hampered by the anti-competitive behaviour of other companies". The Commission, he insisted, has no wish to prevent all mergers, which can justify normal market evolution, and does not ban, a fortiori, mergers between two companies from the same Member State. "I would like firmly to reject the idea that the EU's merger control policy does not allow the creation of national or European champions", but "we must ensure than they do not lead to dominant positions which would seriously penalise consumers". Mr Monti believes that the Commission has no right to block a merger just because a Community enterprise will pass under the control of a third-country enterprise (he was criticised for allowing the Canadian company Alcan to buy the French company Pechniney: Ed): "there is no reason to protect certain companies if this hinders normal market functioning. Also, how could we even consider banning third-country companies from taking over a Community company without exposing ourselves to the same policy on the part of the authorities of that third country?" he asked.
On controls of State aid, a touchy subject in France with the recent Bull and Alstom cases, Mr Monti repeated the Council's objective of reducing the volume of State aid, and only allowing sectorial and individual aid in exceptional cases, because they disadvantage well-managed companies, which "find it hard to understand why other companie,s which are not making the necessary effort or undertake risky strategies, are bailed out by the State". Lastly, he contested the view that the Commission should show greater flexibility towards rescue and company restructuring aid, due to the social consequences. "We need to be aware that rescue aid has serious negative effects on other companies which survive without State aid. They can save jobs in a company by endangering jobs in another, well-managed company", he underlined.