EK VICEPREZIDENTO JOAQUIN ALMUNIA KALBA, PASAKYTA Š.M. SPALIO 3 D. VILNIUJE SURENGTOJE EUROPOS KONKURENCIJOS DIENOJE

First, let me recall in a few words what was EU competition policy like two decades ago, in the years after the fall of the Berlin wall.

As I’ve just said, the basic rules were the same as today. But the enforcement system was totally different.

We had a strongly centralised system that encouraged companies to bring their cases to the European Commission.

With very few exceptions, the role of national authorities was very limited and only in the mid-80's a number of EU countries started to enforce national competition laws largely inspired by EU law.

Almost at the same time, Central and Eastern Europe started to move towards democracy and a market economy.

After decades of dictatorship and central planning, and in parallel with the transition towards a parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, reforms were launched to ensure the efficient functioning of markets and to put in place independent authorities to enforce the new regulatory frameworks.

In 1990, competition authorities were established in Poland and Slovakia. In 1991, they were set up in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Latvia. Lithuania’s first competition authority started in 1992 and Estonia followed the next year.

Let us now jump to 2004, which is a landmark year also for competition policy in Europe. On the same day as ten new countries joined the EU, a new enforcement system for EU antitrust law took effect.

The new system empowered national competition authorities to apply the competition rules that fall under articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty. And the European Competition Network was established to ensure proper coordination and consistency across Member States.

I want to stress this last point. It is important to note that the national authorities of all the members of the Union – old and new – began to work together under the modernised system and in the ECN as of day one of the enlargement from 15 to 25.

Thanks to the efforts made during the accession negotiations, in May 2004 the authorities of the new Member States were already weathered enforcers and came prepared.

The enlargement also meant extending EU State aid control to ten new Member States.  Again, this too was a sea change.

Madam President,

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I know first-hand that the road that takes a country into the Union is not an easy ride. I was part of Spain’s government when my country concluded the accession negotiations and joined the EU in 1986.

Almost thirty years have passed, but I still remember how difficult it was to convince the existing members of the club to take into account the reasons of the candidates and to change the legal and institutional framework to comply with the new rules.

This is why I have nothing but admiration for the negotiators and for the huge adaptation efforts required to integrate the whole acquis.

In the case of competition policy, one requirement was that competition-law enforcement had already started in earnest before accession day.

It must have been difficult, here in Vilnius and in the other capitals, but the steps towards a full integration into the Single Market always pay off – and the record of the national competition authorities since 2004 is there to prove it.

After ten years, the enforcement record of all the competition authorities in the European Competition Network is quite impressive.

Since 2004, the European Commission has taken more than a hundred antitrust decisions while the national competition authorities have adopted almost 700.

We have been able to combine this decentralised activity with a consistent outcome. Practically all national authorities give priority to the fight against cartels, which I think we all regard as the most harmful anti-competitive practice.

Another important area – both for the Commission and for the NCAs – has been keeping markets competitive in liberalised sectors such as energy, telecoms, transport, and the post – where we often deal with abuses by old monopolists.

National authorities across the EU are also active in the media, services and the food and retail sectors.

At this point, I would like to devote a few words to our hosts today, the Lithuanian Competition Council.

Since May 2004, the Council has consulted us on 15 envisaged decisions. This is a high number of actions in proportion to the size of the Lithuanian economy.

One action that grabbed my attention is last year’s travel-agency case; a cartel in which the companies had used an e-platform to coordinate their practices illegally.

I point out this case because it shows that all the members of our network – in Brussels and elsewhere – need to go after companies that try to find new ways to cheat on free and fair competition.

Indeed, we are working hard to modernise and update our investigation tools, to maintain and – whenever possible – increase our efficiency.

This example also shows how important it is that competition authorities are independent, well-funded, and well-staffed; because this is what they need to remain at least as innovative as some companies are in their shenanigans.

I would like to insist on this last point.

I urge all EU governments to give their competition authorities the resources, the legal powers, and the independence they need to go after anti-competitive practices and their perpetrators.

In the end, NCA's have been established to enforce laws that parliaments and governments discussed and supported. It would be paradoxical if they were not given the means to fulfil their statutory functions to the best of their ability.

In recent years, the Commission has closely monitored reforms to the competition regimes in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, UK, Spain, Romania and other EU countries.

In addition, some competition authorities have been hit by the measures that many EU governments have made to consolidate their budgets.

Challenges arise in different parts of Europe, regardless of when the respective countries joined the EU, and these are a source of concern.

The achievements I have illustrated earlier do not grow on trees. They are the result of our constant efforts to improve our practice. Competition policy and enforcement need to evolve at all times to stay ahead of the curve.

Precisely because creating the best conditions for competition and innovation is a necessary condition for Europe to emerge from the crisis, this is the time to give competition agencies what they need to be effective.

And this implies, among other things, giving competition authorities the means to recruit and retain qualified staff and the ability to work together with their peers within the European Competition Network.

Just as importantly, competition authorities need to be independent. They must be free from any external influence either from the companies they supervise or from the state.

I know that I’m calling on EU governments to spend taxpayers’ money in times of tight budget constraints; but we’re talking about relatively small investments that can generate huge returns for consumers and the economy.

Our work puts us in direct contact with market realities. We know first-hand what Europe needs to nurture the first signs of recovery. And this is – first of all – an integrated, efficient, and competitive Single Market.

We are ideally placed to tell governments not to fall into the trap of protectionism; not to look back at the wrong-headed ‘picking-winners’ industrial policies of the last century.

Keeping national competition authorities in top form is one of the crucial decisions they should take to boost the performance of our economy in the interest of consumers and of everyone living in the EU.