Activities of Eugen JURZYCA related to 2022/2060(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Competition policy - annual report 2022 (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on competition policy – annual report 2022
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the competition policy - annual report 2022
Amendments (51)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that competition is key to a well-functioning single market and economy and creates incentives for variety in products, lower prices, higher value, resilience and standards, innovation and better services for the consumer; agrees with an OECD recommendation1a that active enforcement of competition rules in the European market and openness to international trade and investment should remain policy priorities; _________________ 1a OECD (2021), Enhancing regional convergence in the European Union, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1696, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/253dd6ee-en
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas EU competition policy is designed to maintain an open market economy with free, fair and effective competition favouring an efficient allocation of resources;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Believes that competition is likely to assist rather than impede recovery from the crisis and improve resilience of the Single market, stresses that a recent study2a rejected the argument that relaxation of EU competition policy would promote economic recovery, meaning that policies strictly designed to promote national champions and greater self- sufficiency are not properly justified; _________________ 2a Massey, Patrick & McDowell, Moore. ‘EU Competition Law: An Unaffordable Luxury in Times of Crisis?’. World Competition 44, no. 4 (2021): 405–432
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the removal of State aid limits due to the COVID-19 crisis and now Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have led to Member States providing different amounts of support to the same sectors; underlines that this has led to a playing field that is not level for the same industries within the single market; calls on the Commission to seek ways to counterbalance this problemwarns that preventing fiscally responsible Member States from providing support in crisis may reduce their incentive to behave in a fiscally responsible manner in the future;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Regrets that according to the analysis from times before the crisis3a the State aid in the EU was ineffective in promoting economic growth and investments; urges the Commission to assess the contribution of State aid in the EU to economic and productivity growth based on measurable indicators and systematically review its results and impact; _________________ 3a “State Aid Policy in the European Union.” Journal of common market studies. 53.5 (2015): 1143–1162. Web.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses that the EU needs to deliver economic and productivity growth also for the sake of the resilience of the internal market; notes that a European Investment Bank paper4a concluded that productive firms have been in a better position to resist the economic shock from the Covid-19 crisis; recalls that exposing companies to strong competition will make them more resilient and innovative; calls on the Commission to deliver analysis and proposals enhancing economic and productivity growth rather than crisis-specific interventions; _________________ 4a European Investment Bank, Teruel, M., Amaral-Garcia, S., Bauer, P., et al., COVID-19 and the resilience of European firms : the influence of pre-crisis productivity, digitalisation and growth performance, European Investment Bank, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2867/388751
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas ensuring a level playing field for businesses in the single market is also crucial for the development of new technologies and the creation of new jobs;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Recalls that we should learn from previous crises if we want to achieve real measurable results and impact, recovery and level playing field; reminds the lesson from the financial crisis that actions based on immediate needs are a poor substitute for policy intervention based on sound economic analysis; regrets that several proposals were not accompanied by impact assessments due to the urgency based on the Commission’s explanation; calls on the Commission to refrain from using urgency as a vindication for not preparing impact assessment for legislative proposals; calls on the Commission to prepare an in-depth analysis of impacts on competition, productivity and efficient investments for each proposal;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Asks the Commission to ensure that the Digital Markets Act (DMA)1 and the Digital Services Act (DSA)2 are fully enforced and that sufficient Commission staff and resources are assigned for this task; asks the Member States, furthermore, to second additbased on data, transparent indicators, clear rules and in-depth analysis of their impact on consumer welfare; further asks the Commission to ensure that adequate Commissional staff and national experts to the Commissionresources are assigned for this task; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1). 2 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1).
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that consolidation within the telecommunications and internet service providers sector could have a significant negative effect on competition within the Union and thus hamper consumer welfare, as it could develop into a monopolistic market, and that the Commission should be vigilant about this; notes, moreover, that mergers between internet service providers, media content broadcasters and streaming providers could create incentives to abuse a dominant position, which would have a negative effect on consumers; underlines that competition policy must support net neutrality and prevent all attempts to undermine it;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to prepare an in-depth study of the industry considering all the potential negative but also positive consequences of market consolidation, such as cost-savings or faster uptake of 5G; stresses that each Commission merger ruling should be evidence-based proving the negative consequences on consumer welfare;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that sustainable economic growth requires efficient market and limited government intervention in the economy and the need for EU competition policy to promote free and fair competition, rather than protecting particular market structures or industries;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that competition is global by nature; encourages the Commission, therefore, to use all tools provided for in the Union’s trade agreements and the Union’s Customs Code4 to counter unfair commercial trading practices and unfair competition from non-EU companies which could affect the single market; stresses on the other hand that protective measures shielding EU companies from global competition might also severely affect the single market; asks the Commission to look into international agreements and State aid rules in order to seek suitable solutions; _________________ 4 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (recast) (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that competition policy cannot be pursued in isolation,is a tool for promoting efficient use of resources and protection of the freedom of economic action of various market participants, and not as an end in itself, without reference to the legal, economic, political and social context;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes that securing reciprocal market access for EU exports rather than protectionist measures would promote recovery and sustainable growth in the single market;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that excessive tax burdens may stifle innovation and jeopardise the contestability of markets;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that the uptake of electric vehicles will lead to higher electricity consumption in the future and new ways of consumers ‘fuelling’ their vehicles; asks the Commission and Member States to ensure competition and price transparency between energy providers for electric vehicle charging stations; notes that a lack of competition may lead to consumers paying higher rates than necessary to charge their vehicles; calls on the Commission to assess the need and added value of EU and national public spending on building the charging stations infrastructure;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the risks of anti-competitive behaviour in the roll-out of artificial intelligence (AI), which could impact the market; notes at the same time the benefits to consumers of AI solutions, should they reach their pro-competitive potential; calls on the Commission to consider these risks, the likelihood of them materialising and how they can be solved, and include any relevant conclusions in the Union’s analyses and, if indispensable, in the competition rules;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that services represent the largest economic sector in the European Union and have still not yet reached their competitive potential and the level of the single market for goods; believes that the work to remove remaining obstacles should be accelerated and a single market for services fully established; calls on the Commission and the Member States to effectively target the unnecessary restrictions and to diminish national protectionism in the services sector, as effective regulation is beneficial for both consumers and professionals and increases the positive impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the EU economy;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with satisfaction that an agreement has been reached on a regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure full implementation of this new EU instrument to ensure a level playing field5 ., while stressing the need to avoid using this framework as a protectionist tool that decreases competition in the internal market; notes missing the transparent criteria on how the Commission will assess the distortion of the internal market and thus impose remedies; calls on the Commission to publish these criteria, so that the EU does not become more protectionist; _________________ 5 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (COM/2021/223 final).
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Agrees with the statement of Commissioner Vestager, highlighting that strong businesses would not emerge by shielding them from competition, but by exposing them to it; stresses that protectionist measures should be phased out; reminds that the correct goal to improve the resilience of the internal market should not be considered as an excuse for incorrect new protectionism measures; calls on the Commission to provide analyses for each such measure in order to quantify its overall impact on the internal market and its openness;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11 b. Stresses that consumer welfare must remain the ultimate goal of the competition policy;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11 c. Stresses the role of competition policy also in enhancing regional convergence in the EU; believes that EU policies should be better geared towards improving regional productive specialisation while avoiding any counterproductive impacts, such as support to inefficient firms; acknowledges that competition policy is key to promote efficient resource allocation, therefore stresses that Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, the two largest EU budget instruments, need to become more effective and efficient at promoting productive upgrading based on the OECD11c conclusion asking to deliver more targeted and more conducive common agricultural policy to enhance productivity gains in rural areas, by reforming distortive payments to producers, investing more in innovation and through better coordination with cohesion policy; _________________ 11c OECD (2021), Enhancing regional convergence in the European Union, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1696, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/253dd6ee-en
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the quick adoption of the Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia, and the subsequent prolongations thereof; calls on the Commission to ensure that these temporary State aid measures are limited in scope, duration and amount, and do not create permanent distortions in the internal market;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 d (new)
Paragraph 11 d (new)
11 d. Stresses that industrial policy should not conflict with competition policy; agrees with OECD11d that providing support to new activities should be time-limited in order to avoid ending up supporting inefficient, rent-seeking activities; _________________ 11d OECD (2021), Enhancing regional convergence in the European Union, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1696, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/253dd6ee-en
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 e (new)
Paragraph 11 e (new)
11 e. Urges the Commission to carry out an ex post evaluation of the EU legislation and enforcement decisions, focused on their results and impact including effectiveness of the fines and sanctions imposed for anti-competitive conduct in the internal market.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to safeguard the integrity of the internal market and is deeply concerned about the risk of increasing fragmentation within the internal market due to excessive use of subsidies in response to the US Inflation Reduction Act; understands the need for additional public investments; considers the introduction of dedicated permanent, if necessary debt-financed, European investment funds to be a better policy responseraising the efficiency of public investments;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Commission to collaborate with the USA to ensure that the implementation of the US Inflation Reduction Act is aligned with European interests as much as possible, especially to ensure that the EU is covered by the exceptions provided under the Act for countries with a free-trade cooperation, and making sure that European products are eligible for tax credits on equal terms as US products;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Underlines that introduction of Next Generation EU effectively raised the EU budget by 70%; recognises that public resources are limited and mostly funded by the taxpayers;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Is concerned that the US Inflation Reduction Act might lead to reciprocal introduction of additional European investment funds without their proper impact assessment and efficiency evaluation, which could cause misallocation of economic resources and thus further hamper European competitiveness and economic growth; underlines that a reasonable policy response requires prioritising the existing public investments and programs according to their efficiency in order to achieve the highest possible value for money and to support economic growth;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the expansionary monetary policy, rising energy and food prices to be the main drivers of the current hike in inflation; deplornotes some undertakings’ freeriding in the context of rising energy and food prices and; reiterates that the Commission must make use of allmarket prices should not be viewed as a problem requiring regulation, because they available tools under competition law to tackle market distortions and unfair price manipulation in the energy and food marketsre indicative of the underlying economic conditions, and provide valuable information to market participants and public authorities alike; calls on the Commission in this regard to thoroughly consider possible unintended consequences of its actions conducted under competition law; calls for consumer vulnerability to be taken into consideration when assessing the abusiveness of a dominant undertaking’s conduct;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that increased product market competition reduces profit margins and price levels, and thus contributes to moderating inflation;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for a permanent market investigation mechanism, which should be triggered automatically upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, such as a specific rise in prices, in order to prevent any future freeriding effectson the Commission to make full use of the existing tools and mechanisms for investigating and enforcing competition law;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the quantitative jurisdictional thresholds in the EC Merger Regulation to be reviewed and lowered; calls for the introduction of a rebuttable presumption that effective competition is significantly impeded by any concentration leading to a dominant position in a relevant market or any concentration involving a very large market operator or a gatekeeper; calls for matters of public interest, such as climate protection, sustainability and the rule of law, to be taken into account when examining the impact of a concentration on the internal marketCommission to develop guidance on how it would consider efficiencies as they relate to matters of public interest, such as climate protection, sustainability and the rule of law; calls for the inclusion of review clauses in decisions approving a concentration with a view to introducing more stringentappropriate conditions;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Commission to take decisivensure that mergers and acquisitions are reviewed and approved in a fair, transparent, and efficient manner, and if appropriate, to take action, under Article 22 of the EC Merger Regulation, against ‘killer acquisitions’ that must be reported to the Commission under the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’);
Amendment 171 #
10. Calls for the Commission’s procedure for examining a concentration to be shortened by making full use of digitalisation, resulting, if appropriate, in eliminating regulatory barriers for new or smaller companies to access the market;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. WelcomRecognises the Commission’s willingness to take into account the effects on labour markets and wages when determining the anti-competitiveness of collusive behaviour under Article 101(1) TFEU, as demonstrated by its reference to ‘no-poach’ agreements14 ; calls on the Commission to use the effects on wages as a benchmark when establishing infringements of competition law; _________________ 14 Speech by Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, 22 October 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissi oners/2019- 2024/vestager/announcements/speech- evp-m-vestager-italian-antitrust- association-annual-conference-new-era- cartel-enforcement_en.; calls on the Commission to carefully balance the potential effects on wages with the need to ensure a competitive market;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Expresses concerns that the Commission's consideration of the effects on labour markets and wages may lead to unintended consequences and calls for a balanced approach that takes into account the benefits of voluntary agreements between companies, particularly in cases where they result in increased innovation and efficiency;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls foron the Commission to investigate potential costs and benefits of the introduction of an explicit legal base for the unbundling of undertakings as a structural remedy for antitrust violations; considers unbundling to also be a structural remedy in situations where abuse of a dominant position on a relevant market cannot be ascertained, but conditions for competition would improve significantly if unbundling measures were applied, taking into account potential unintended consequences, such as the fragmentation of efficient and integrated business models;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that addressing the existing regulatory barriers and cutting red-tape to ease the entry for new competitors can often be more effective way to address the market distortions1a; _________________ 1a For example: academic research suggests that privacy regulations, such as GDPR, can function as nonpecuniary barriers to trade, especially if enacted by a large economic area, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/regulatory -export-and-spillovers-how-gdpr-affects- global-markets-data
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines the importance of adopting interim measures in the enforcement of competition law, particularly in relation to dynamic and fast- developing markets such as digital markets; therefore supports the Commission in enhancsuring the use ofat interim measures undare used sparingly and only in cases where the existing Regulation (EC) No 1/2003re is clear evidence of irreparable harm to competition; calls for legislative action to lower the burden associated with the use of interim measures for the Commission and for national competition authorities;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Urges the Commission to take a more active role in promoting cross- border e-commerce and to address barriers to entry and restrictions on the free flow of data in the single market;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Is of the opinion that sustainability is not onmore effectively pursued not by derogations from competition law provisions, but also by the application of competition law provisions in order to promote sustainability; calls for the presentation of draft guidelines on abusive practices, in particular with regard to achieving sustainability goalsthrough targeted enforcement by competition authorities addressing anticompetitive practices that lead to unsustainable behaviour;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Highlights that a competition policy aimed at ensuring a level playing field in all sectors is crucial for guaranteeing the proper functioning of the single market;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that Parliament should be adequately involved in shaping competition policy; considers that more frequent use should be made of Parliament’s right to intervene in judicial proceedings concerning competition law; calls on the Commission to enter into negotiations for an interinstitutional agreement on competition policy;