Joaquín Almunia told competition lawyers that he was "aware of the concerns" of critics who say that cases alleging breaches of EU competition law should be heard in the courts, not investigated and ruled on by an administrative authority such as the Commission.
Speaking to competition specialists at a conference run by the International Bar Association (IBA), Almunia mounted a defence of the existing system.
"One advantage of our model over the judicial system is that it has helped us take forward the analytical part of our work," he said. "When you think how a pure judicial system could work in a Union composed by 27 member states, with different cultures, different systems, this advantage appears quite clearly."
"Over the years, we have established a system that incorporates the very best economic analysis into competition enforcement," said Almunia. "While the Court focused on types of conduct, we tried to look more at the effects of the conduct. I believe we have the responsibility to lead this sort of development; a responsibility which it would be very difficult for a court of justice to fulfil [...] we have the responsibility to look at the big picture; that is, at the implications of our work on the markets."
Almunia said that the Commission process works because it allows companies to see claims made about alleged breaches of the law and respond to them, leading to the early closure of many cases. He also said that all decisions were appealable through the courts.
"Between 2007 and 2009, 17 out of 21 cartel cases were amended after the parties exercised their rights of defence. Many of these changes were substantial and one case was dropped altogether," he said. "In the same period, 6 out of 7 abuses of dominance cases were amended, and one case was dropped. And these figures do not include cases that were dropped earlier in the process – as you know, many potential cases are dropped at the early investigation stages."
"So, as you can see, the system bears tangible fruits. As a consequence, I do not believe that we need to embark in major reforms of our institutional set-up," he said.
Almunia also emphasised the importance of an international competition authority in times of recession, when countries themselves are more likely to act in a protectionist way.
"In times of crisis governments find it difficult to resist nationalist moves," he said. "We know these temptations well: state aid to favour national champions; rules that veto mergers and prevent the takeover of national companies; a broad beggar-thy-neighbour attitude."
"The Commission, with its decision-making powers, helps to prevent that these moves harm consumers and distort competition, particularly in this difficult period," he said.
"I believe that a strong, fair and efficient competition policy can boost competitiveness, create jobs, and encourage innovation; and it can do so at very little cost," said Almunia. "In a context of strained fiscal positions throughout the EU, this is more important than ever."
