Kroes geeft visie op bijdrage concurrentiebeleid aan economische groei en werkgelegenheid (en)

Speech before EP Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee

Brussels, 31st January 2006

Madame la Présidente, Honourable Members,

It is a pleasure for me to be here in your Committee again. And to those I did not see at the very pleasant reception your President kindly hosted last week, a happy new year!

I am looking forward to a lively discussion on the issues arising in European competition policy over the past three months, and the challenges ahead. Before that, please allow me to stress once again the fundamental objective which drives the work I am privileged to do as European Commissioner.

I am committed to ensuring that competition policy makes a full contribution to the European agenda for growth and jobs. 2005 was in many ways a year of ideas, about how competition policy reforms can contribute to this goal. Quite a number of new initiatives have been launched in all fields of competition policy. 2006 has to be a year of delivery, of implementing the changes announced, and of course, continuing the day to day work of firm but fair competition enforcement.

As you know, reform of the State aid rules is key for the Lisbon agenda and the main political priority of my mandate. I know that the Committee last week approved Mr Hökmark's report on the State Aid Action Plan, and I look forward to debating this with you in Plenary in February.

As you are aware, after a complex process of consultations, in December the Commission adopted the new Regional Aid Guidelines for the period 2007 to 2013. We took account of Parliament's opinion adopted at the December Plenary. The Guidelines strike a fair balance. They support cohesion objectives by targeting aid on the regions most in need, with maximum coherence with the structural fund regulations. The Guidelines also promote aid measures linked to the Lisbon objectives by giving Member States additional flexibility in their design. I am pleased we completed the review by the end of the year, which gives Member States time to prepare their regional development strategies.

We are also making substantial progress in other Lisbon-related state aid policy areas. We have received over a hundred, largely supportive, replies on the Communication on Innovation aid, which we discussed here in October. The debate continues: we hosted a conference on this subject with industry last November, and organised a multilateral meeting with Member States in December. And I do not have to say that I am very pleased that this Committee is working on an own-initiative report on the subject.

We are now starting to design rules on innovation to be included in the new, common Framework on state aid to research and development and innovation. We plan a first draft of this package later this spring, and we hope for adoption before the summer. We will of course take your views into account in this process.

We are also revising the Communication on state aid to risk capital, due to expire in August. Given its close links with the new research and development and innovation Framework, work in the two areas will proceed in parallel. And of course we will soon launch our first proposal to adapt the de minimis threshold, which dates from 1996, to the economic development of the Union.

Let me now turn to developments in other areas of competition policy.

In December we published a discussion paper on the application of Article 82 on the abuse of a dominant market position. The paper is designed to promote a debate as to how best to deal with dominant companies' exclusionary conduct. It builds on mainstream economic analysis so as to focus enforcement on those practices that are detrimental to consumers. Other forms of abuse, such as discriminatory and exploitative conduct, will be the subject of further work by the Commission in 2006.

At the end of the year the Commission also presented a Green Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. Damages actions should be encouraged both to compensate the victims of antitrust infringements for their losses and to increase respect for the anti-trust rules. The Green Paper sets out ideas - and they are only ideas at this stage - for how such actions could be facilitated. I look forward to a lively debate between now and mid-April. Only after the debate will the Commission consider any follow-up action which may be needed. The Green Paper was sent to the European Parliament and I hope that we will soon be able to have a thorough discussion on the issues raised.

Turning to the very latest developments, you will all be aware that in December the Commission warned Microsoft that if it continues to fail to comply with its obligations in relation to the interoperability remedy of our March 2004 Decision, it could face a daily fine of up to €2 million. Our Statement of Objections concerned Microsoft's continued failure to supply complete and accurate interoperability information. Last week Microsoft announced its intention to make certain source code available for review by competitors. We have not yet received full details from Microsoft. When we do, we will review the information carefully with the assistance of the Monitoring Trustee. Microsoft has a right to reply to the Statement of Objections and to be heard orally before the Commission takes any further steps.

Finally, we have launched a review of the so-called "two/thirds rule" under the Merger Regulation. Recent experience in the energy sector suggests that it is debatable whether the two thirds rule still represents the best proxy for ensuring that cases with a cross-border impact should be dealt with in Brussels. We must be sure that mergers with significant cross-border effects are assessed consistently. The time is therefore ripe to have another look at the impact of the two thirds rule, and to consider the various options available.

Madame la Présidente, Honourable Members, thank you for your attention.