Strasbourg, 05/04/2006 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday, Parliament adopted an own initiative report backing the Commission's competition policy. In plenary session, MEPs did not take up the amendments of the rapporteur, French Green MEP Alain Lipietz, who wanted to return to a text closer to his original position after amendments brought to his initial version in the economic and monetary committee. Mr Lipietz dissociated himself, therefore, from his own report, “which has become totally insipid” and which “brings discredit on Parliamentary democracy,” he said in a press release. In adopting this text, which seeks to be a response to the European Commission's annual report on competition in 2004, Parliament had “abandoned any critical opinion, positive or negative, on the competition policy,” he went on. He reproached the “alliance of the parties of government, EPP-ALDE-PES” of having at one and the same time “refused to support the Commission in its efforts against Microsoft's abuses of its dominant position”, for example, and not wanting “to investigate the serious failings in Directorate General Competition which led to the Rhodia scandal”.
As adopted in plenary, the report says that the competition policy is an instrument fundamental to achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, but regrets that the Commission did not carry out an assessment of the main decisions taken on the various markets, particularly with regard to mergers and state aid. Similarly, MEPs deplored the loss of a chapter on services of general interest, and called on the Commission to “publish a communication on the clear interpretation of the fourth criterion on the Altmark ruling” on state aid in the public services sector. Parliament would also like the Commission to examine closely the issue of collective negotiation in sensitive economic sectors, such as agriculture, especially between small and medium-sized producers or their associations and large processing or marketing companies. Intent on supporting consumer interests, MEPs called on the Commission to clarify the sometimes obscure relations between national competition authorities and national champions. Worried by the persistent difficulties in fully liberalising the European gas and electricity markets, they welcomed the sectoral investigation opened by the Commission on the operation of the internal market in these sectors (see EUROPE 9167). Parliament itself should be more proactive in the development of the competition policy, by increasing its co-decision powers, MEPs stressed too.
The previous day, in debate, Mr Lipietz had argued for a more robust text, because, after the amendments in committee, the report was just like European Parliament reports, which practically no one can, or wants to, read, because they say absolutely nothing. Speaking on the Rhodia case, Neelie Kroes said that the Commission had responded in detail to all the points raised, and that the case was now closed as far as she was concerned. Ms Kroes pointed out to French Socialist MEP Pervenche Berès, who chairs the economic and monetary affairs committee, that the Mittal-Arcelor operation had not yet been officially notified to the Commission, and gave assurances that if it was, she would examine it carefully and impartially, and would hold a wide-ranging investigation to assess the possible impact on the steel-making industry in Europe. In response to Gunnar Hökmark (EPP-ED, Sweden) and Elisa Ferreira (PES, Portugal) and others, who were concerned about mergers in the internal market, Ms Kroes said that any attempt at protectionism should be resisted. She went on, “it is not allowed and it must not be tolerated”.
Speaking about Microsoft, Ms Kroes said that, of course, she accepted the comments of those who did not share her opinion, but it was untrue to say that the Commission was not transparent and was not listening to all the questions and comments. Following last week's oral hearing on Microsoft, Ms Kroes said simply that a decision would be taken “as soon as possible” (see EUROPE 9165).