Examination of Witnesses (Questions 51
- 55)
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER 2007
Mr Jean-Claude Thebault, Mr Michel Servoz, Mr Marcel
Haag, Ms Jacqueline Minor and Ms Elizabeth Golberg
Q51 Lord James of Blackheath:
We have noted that the Reform Treaty has omitted
the words "free and undistorted competition" and that
sends a shiver down our spines, I am afraid, because it would
seem to us that those very words ought to go to the core of what
a single market sets out to be. Why have they gone and how on
earth is it going to affect the consequences going forward?
Mr Thebault: I can give you a good answer on
this because I had the privilege to be at the European Council
when we discussed this. We continue to say that it does not change
anything. Why? Because this reference was in the Constitutional
Treaty but does not exist in the Nice Treaty. It has been introduced
there and so today it is not considered as an objective. Some
Member States have said that it is not an objective, it is just
an instrument, and it is true, a very important one, but the objective
is much more the single market and it is an instrument to enable
the single market to work. During the discussion we asked our
legal service and those of the Council to make sure that it does
not change anything and that, of course, competition policy will
not be affected by this, and their analyses were very clear. I
know that it has been sometimes misunderstood but our competition
policy is still there and we use it and where necessary we open
proceedings against Member States, so I can reassure you that
there is nothing new there. The novelty was in the Constitutional
Treaty.
Q52 Lord James of Blackheath:
You say that it does not alter anything but surely the absence
of the words removes a frame of reference within which you could
bring to discipline any national governments which allowed a breach
of the fairness of competition, or indeed some who might be encouraged
to the view that they could go and escape down the route of state
aid to assist a favourite business of theirs because it had some
national prestige issue attached to it. One thinks, obviously,
of airlines where the record of state aid has been seriously disruptive
to competition in Europe in the last 20 years, and I speak as
somebody who ran an airline for a large part of that time. I would
be very concerned about how it would be interpreted locally. You
might think it has not changed anything. Others might seek to
take the opportunity of making sure it does change something.
I am not quite sure what disciplines you are going to be able
to control for it.
Mr Thebault: No, I do not think that this is
the opinion of all Member States and we have some good examples.
We have opened a great deal of state aid cases. We are not against
national champions, you understand, but it must not be done in
a way which is a sort of protectionism. We do not accept this
and the competition rules are applied, I can assure you. I would
just like to mention also that the words are not there any more
and they were not in Article 3, but, of course the competition
policy is still in the treaty, so nothing has disappeared. It
was a question of presentation but it has not changed anything
for us, I can assure you. Maybe my colleague can give some examples.
Mr Servoz: I just want to say that indeed it
could be seen as a symbol that the words have been removed but
the reality is different because the reality is that competition
law is implemented every day and it is implemented in the same
way as it was before these words were present, so I think there
is no change. This is not only the opinion of the Commission;
this is also the opinion which was voiced by all Member States.
Mr Thebault: One other thing I would say on
this is that maybe we have not been as clear as possible in this
document. What we must do is explain to citizens but also enterprises
that our competition rules are there to protect them against those
who do not apply the same rules because in some Member States
in particular competition rules are seen as something which is
damaging for industry, for people and so on, so we must explain
that it is not true. There is no game if there are no rules and
so we have more to do and we intend to pursue it in this way.
Q53 Lord James of Blackheath:
I think I have to leave you with the sense that I am still concerned.
Mr Thebault: I am sorry.
Q54 Lord James of Blackheath:
I hear your words and I thank you for your words.
Mr Thebault: But ask, for instance, some Member
States what they think about it because there is no change in
our policy and in our behaviour, I can assure you.
Q55 Lord James of Blackheath:
I have suffered greatly from this sort of problem in my career.
For example, I never ever seem to be able to do business in the
heavy engineering end of plant and equipment supply without coming
up against a competitor somewhere who has got a soft loan package
from his government, which is not always very easy to detect.
It is often quite invisible at the point of sale when you are
making the final contract negotiations and this is particularly
prevalent in sales out of Europe into the Middle East and the
emerging countries. I wonder just how you are going to be able
to exercise that sort of overview and detailed control to make
sure that that sort of abuse of the system does not apply because
it almost gives a green light to say, "Yes, you can do it",
by removing those words.
Mr Servoz: If you look at the Single Market
Review, and this is something that Jean-Claude insisted on very
much, we made sure we made a very strong statement in favour of
competition rules. If you look at the text you will see a very
forceful statement from the Commission saying competition is useful,
including for citizens and small businesses, so we have tried
to make that very clear indeed.
| 
