Brussels, 08/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - The tone of the argument was raised several notches at a conference in Brussels on Thursday 8 November on the prospects for European competition law in the light of the Reform Treaty. Several past and present heavyweights on the European political stage made full and frank interventions in an often hard-hitting debate. The delegates tended to agree on most EU policies concerning competition and competitiveness, but sharp divisions emerged on the primacy of the principle of free competition over other considerations. The event, entitled 'The place of competition law in the future Community legal order' was organised by 'Concurrences', a French review of domestic and EU competition law.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet, French European Affairs Secretary of State, denied the many allegations of economic patriotism by France that are doing the rounds in the media, but did recognise a difference of opinion with another speaker on the podium, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. He welcomed the way the Reform Treaty separated off objectives from tools, classifying the guarantee of obstacle-free competition among the tools. He said that new consensus was required over principles, hinting that he did not fully agree with Neelie Kroes, who had made her support clear for the virtually universal application of the principle of a free market. Jouyet said that while market freedom was a tool at the disposal of the European Commission, it was a tool among many others. He said that strengthening energy and tax policy at EU level could help the Community pursue its objectives. It is not that the EU competition policy is too strong, he said, but that the other policies are too weak.
This was echoed by Elie Cohen, a lecturer at the Paris-based Institut d'Etudes Politiques in France, who wanted competition policy to not be the only EU policy. He pursued this further, challenging the effectiveness of an obstacle-free market as a panacea for all economic ills. Neelie Kroes explained the consumer advantages of the Commission's policy of economic unbundling (see EUROPE 9505), but Cohen argued that a fragmented market was not necessarily the most desirable outcome. He said it would be natural for a market to fragment but then reconsolidate. The reconsolidation should not necessarily be hindered the way the Commission is currently hindering it, he said, adding that the process could provide advantages to consumers in some sectors. Taking the example of telephony, Cohen described how the re-concentration of the American market in this sector had allowed a new fibre optic network to develop. This was not the only scenario where Cohen was against current European policy. He also argued that a genuinely free market was not the ideal environment for the creation, and especially the development, of new companies, essential for the economic growth sought by the Lisbon Agenda. A certain level of national protectionism was not only acceptable, it was desirable, he said. “Competitive advantage does not come from competition, it is built (by the State),” he said. “What China is doing is what France did a century ago,” he went on referring to the protectionism so severely criticised by the other speakers.
His comments ruffled Karel van Miert, who was a European Commissioner and Vice President of the Commission from 1993 to 1999. To tolerate protectionism in Europe would be out of the question, he said, “We mustn't talk about this issue as if a return to the past was the answer. … Remember FIAT!” He acknowledged that, yes, there were always difficult problems a in competition policy: there are still as many cartels today as there were 20 years ago, and Community decisions on state aid always cause political controversy. But, “there is no need to change competition policy,” he argued. The changes brought by the Commission over the last 20 years “show that it is possible to have a determined, but flexible, policy,” that was why “Europe is an example to the world”. There was, then, no question for van Miert of reviewing the principles which underpin European competition policy, even though there “remain lots of problems”. The solution lay rather in: - the continued application of current rules; - ensuring the autonomy of the Commission; - and the Commission continuing to listen to stakeholders.
While the liveliest exchanges came, naturally, from differences of opinion, “points of agreement always win the day,” noted Laurence Idot, a professor at Paris II Panthéon-Assas and President of the Scientific Committee of the review Concurrences. European anti-trust policy was unanimously approved by the delegates and several speakers stressed the importance of taking increasing account of the world market in assessments of concentrations. (C.D.)