Proposition 51K2180

Projet de loi sur la protection de la concurrence économique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 21, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

competition policy restriction on competition merger control dominant position monopoly

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 29, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I feel a little guilty to summarize a 338-page report in a few sentences. However, referring to the written report seems to me reasonable because it is circumstantial. Despite this matter being important and innovative, the bill was unanimously approved. Their

Mrs Creyf will intervene on behalf of CD&V. I will do that by the name of my group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Belgian competition regulation is today reflected in the Act on the Protection of Economic Competition, coordinated on 1 July 1999. This law establishes a system of prior control of concentrations, mergers, acquisitions, of prohibition of restrictive competition practices, namely arrangements relating to the distribution of markets or supply sources or arrangements aimed at determining prices, and also of prohibition of abuse of dominant positions.

The coordinated law of 1991, in the meantime also amended, and those of 1999 did not have the expected result. It has become clear where the limitations of the current competition law lie. A number of concrete situations and cases have shown that the competition authority that operates today is difficult to reach an informed solution or decision within a sufficiently prompt time.

Also in terms of functioning, the Belgian competition authority has often had difficult and busy times. Let us hope that the present draft law sets a definitive stake on this.

An amendment of the law was also urgent in view of the modernization of the European competition law. Everyone is convinced that a well-functioning competition authority provides significant economic added value. Their

Collega Pieters and myself also submitted a bill in 2001 to improve economic competition with the main changes being the increase of the notification thresholds and the shortening of the deadlines for the concentration investigation. Their

Meanwhile, concentration thresholds have already been raised. On the deadlines for the concentration investigation, we in the committee, after the debate and after the introduction of amendments, have finally been able to reach an agreement between all parties. For us, the deadline may be a little too long, but we can find ourselves in the compromise we have made. For us, these are two important points. Their

We see more positive points in the bill. The draft law is closely aligned with European legislation. It is almost a copy of but not exactly. There are also a number of things that are slightly different. In fact, it is important that the draft is closely aligned with European regulation, as the substantive emphasis of the competition policy is determined primarily at European level. Their

In the draft law, I will not go into it extensively, the procedures are simplified and improved where necessary. The draft law strengthens the council and the corps, which now becomes an audit of the council. The draft clarifies and clarifies the relationship between board, audit board and service better than what is currently stated in the law. It is also positive that this is clarified and clarified and that it is now legally regulated. But the design doesn’t say much about the service. There are no legal guarantees for strengthening the service. According to Professor Steenbergen, this is one of the weak points of the design. After all, the quality of the final product, namely the final decision of the board, will depend largely on the quality of the input, which is the research results of the service under the direction of the audit board.

With the new bill there are new structures, improved procedures. But the personal fulfillment of each one’s assignment will be crucial for making the system operational and ⁇ ining it. Without sufficient budgetary space, without the deployment of sufficiently skilled people, who have sufficient expertise and who are willing to carry out their tasks for a sufficient period of time so that the expertise can be retained, this law can also not be successful and we can expect changes again in a few years.

The Minister assured us that the budget of the competition authorities has been increased by 1.1 million euros as a result of this legal intervention and that there will also be an evaluation after one year to allow the possibility of checking whether the results are good and the resources spent sufficient.

We can only hope, together with the Minister, in the interests of our economy, that this will effectively be the case. The opportunity to finally create a well-functioning competition authority should not be overlooked.

Mr. Minister, we supported you for your bill. We have contributed positively to the design. But the work is not done and the next step you will have to take.

But after the praise, there are two points that we find difficult to deal with. These are issues that we discussed together in the committee.

The first point we have difficulty with is that the presence of lawyers and economists is not assured in the council and in the auditory. We conducted the discussion in the committee and the minister saw no problem in it, but we did, but well. We had submitted an amendment on this subject, but it did not succeed. Therefore, in the board and in the audit board, general master’s degrees are requested, but no lawyers and no economists. Before a Council for Economic Competition, we thought that there should be a minimum guarantee in the law in connection with the presence of lawyers or economists.

The second point relates to Article 14, which provides that the President and the Vice-President exchange positions after three years. Therefore, it is a six-year term of appointment with a half-term change from the President to the Vice-President. We must also recognize in this the honesty of the Minister, who has told us clearly and clearly that that legal intervention is the result of a political compromise, which he is not very happy with. At that point, our assumption that it was indeed a political compromise was quickly confirmed. Nevertheless, we consider it a dangerous matter. A crucial function for the functioning of our competition authority and one of the key links in ensuring competition in our country, namely the function of chairman of the competition council, has become the object of a kind of political cow trade. The exchange can lead to tense interpersonal relationships between the chairman and the vice chairman. The change of position can cause a change in the rate, which is not favourable to the continuity of policy, both nationally and internationally.

Subordinating the Chairman to the Vice-Chairman will occur as a degradation of the Chairman and one will not understand this. The President and the Vice-President do not have the same job description, therefore not necessarily the same profile. How can one attract the best candidate for a position if one changes these positions after three years?

Mr. Minister, we think this is absolutely a bad idea. By the way, we abstained from this article because we find this absolutely a bad idea with which we cannot agree. We have approved the whole. The most important thing is that through this new law there is a structure and improved procedures. However, these will stand or fall with the involvement of sufficient people and resources. If this is missed, then every possible positive effect of a legislative change is gone, no matter how well everything may be intended.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, economic competition is a constantly evolving subject. As colleague Creyf just said, this may never be over. The overall assessment of this design is obviously very positive, as evidenced by the fact that it was unanimously approved.

The Minister had the courage to opt for a new legislation that is complete and coherent. A total vision. In the past, the board faced excessive workload associated with limited resources and too low registration thresholds.

From now on, the Council will also focus on investigating restrictive competition practices. Therefore, there is more economic expertise in the board and there is a watch over the quality. Their

The reform is, of course, in line with a necessity, namely the renewal of this policy at European level. It also provides a legal basis for the cooperation between the European Commission and the national authorities, which has been acute in recent months. There is also a more rational allocation of powers, which should improve the functioning and implementation of the policy. The various organs are reformed and strengthened. This applies not only to the board, but also to the new audit board, which gets strong powers and thus can relieve the board in its work. Their

There are also some important simplifications. Thus, the procedural rule relating to the communication of objections and the first appeal by the undertaking concerned is abolished. In a society that is so vulnerable to leakage and flow of information, it is also important that the rules on document confidentiality be sensibly improved. The system of notification and exemption is now being abolished, which of course follows from the European vision. Their

The hearings were of quality, Mr. Minister and colleagues. We heard ten eminent speakers and interacted with them. Several members have asked questions. Of course, there are always pain points and different visions, but I had the impression that most speakers could still find themselves in the major strengths of this bill. Their

What is the essence of the story? There is clear progress here, ⁇ as a result of the amendments that have been introduced. These amendments came as a result of consultations in the committee with the minister, the speakers and the members of the committee, which was usually of a technical nature. I would like to congratulate the Minister on this bill. Of course, we will also support it, as we did in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you will allow me to briefly replicate on the interventions.

First, I would like to recall the government agreement which explicitly chose to establish a full-fledged competition authority that should be responsible for safeguarding economic competition, and that in all sectors. There was already an option for the establishment of a council with specialized rooms. The establishment of the council would naturally also not affect the sectoral regulators we already know. They regulate the market ex ante, while the Competition Council regulates the market operation ex post.

As quoted by the speakers today, the 1991 law has not been able to provide the necessary sunshine. It has failed to eliminate anti-competitive practices from economic life. This, of course, means that there has been a significant loss of productivity and that the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy has also been largely delayed.

Calculations were made by the Federal Planning Bureau, on the one hand, and in university studies, on the other. These calculations have shown that this costs our economy 250 million euros annually and means a loss of 6,000 jobs.

The four strength lines you find in the bill are easy to summarize. First, the creation of an independent independent Belgian competition authority, with a competition council responsible for making the decisions and a competition service primarily conducting the investigations.

Second, as already stated, this has been an excellent opportunity to bring Belgian competition law into line with European competition law. I have been able to see with my own eyes the interaction between the two, following one of the cases currently affecting the European competition law and which are situated in the energy sector.

Third, the concentration rules are adjusted. For this purpose a draft law had been submitted for which a royal decree had already been issued and of which we can now measure the beneficial effect.

A fourth strength line concerns the relationship with the sector regulators that has been sharpened.

The objectives are simple: increase the power of the competition authorities by increasing the notification thresholds. We need to really focus on what really matters – restrictive competition practices, pricing agreements, cartel formations, and so on – and also address the increased workload imposed by Europe, with more investigations and, of course, more efforts.

I voeg er meteen aan toe dat wij een van de doelstellingen hebben bereikt die of Organisatie voor Economische Cooperation in Development had vooropgesteld in her report Economic Survey Belgium, March 2005, met name dat wij een versterking van onze mededingingsautoriteiten dienden door te voeren. Adaptations are of an institutional or procedural nature. On the structure level, the body of rapporteurs, which was previously a deputy to the Federal Public Service Economy, now passes into an auditory that is part of the council, which guarantees in our view greater independence for both the auditory and the council. by

The general assembly of the council will double and even triple. There are currently four people working there. In the future, the team will be expanded to six full-time members, six part-time members, or twelve people who will take care of this task.

The body of rapporteurs has been transferred to the council, but it has additional competences: the notifications, the possibilities of classifying restrictive practices and the judge of the opportunity of provisional measures. The expansion of competences is also accompanied by a better remuneration. It has been said that this service is actually still treated stepmotherly. I don’t really agree with that criticism in the sense that there will be a doubling of the capacity. We are going to 40 agents of level A. Later it will have to be verified, in that I agree with Mrs. Creyf, whether this number meets the workload that must be tortured. That is one of the reasons why I urged to do an evaluation fairly quickly.

Procedural, there are a number of adjustments that I have already mentioned: adjustment of concentration thresholds and the shift from a dominant market to a visible violation of competitiveness. I think this is not an insignificant task. This means administrative simplification. Clementine programs are introduced. There was also a clear stance on the questions for a preliminary ruling. These are all important things.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the government’s commitment. First, the budgetary space was created to enable the extension of the board to the competition. I immediately add that the evaluation will have to serve to verify whether that budgetary space will indeed allow for the achievement of the intended objective. If this is not the case, there is a clear commitment of the government to enable the expansion of the budgetary space.

We also opted for multidisciplinarity. This is one of the things that are a bit more difficult. This is also one of the comments made by Ms. Creyf. It is very good that we held a hearing. We heard eight eminent professors and experts in the operation of the competition authority. They were either a member of the board, or of the service, or of the audit board. I think we need more than lawyers.

One is easily inclined to say that lawyers and economists are those who should be eligible for a competition council. However, that would be a little too restrictive. These will be the two directions that will be seen in overwhelming numbers present in the council. However, the reality also urges me to remind that some of those heard in the hearing, and not the least eminent, have told us that multidisciplinarity, which extends beyond these two policy areas, is nevertheless not to be neglected. That is why we have chosen masters without giving a fulfillment, though in the assumption that they will be primarily economists and lawyers, whether or not supplemented by persons from other sections.

The last thing I would like to say about is the following. Of course, one can have concerns about a change of Vice-President and the method and period in which this is arranged. I did not hide that this was part of a political agreement. We must also dare to see that the functioning of the Board after its first six years will also have to be assessed on the merits of that system. Did it work well, yes or no? The realities on the ground have always taught me that when people mean it with an institution and that desire to turn, they are perfectly able to live with such arrangements. I hope that will be the case for the new Competition Council. If this is not the case, then we must also draw conclusions at the moment of making an evaluation of the law. Be sure: it will not only be after one year that the law will be evaluated; it will be permanently evaluated. I am convinced that when one comes at the end of the first six-year period, one will surely and firmly stand still at that point again.