Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Campbell of Alloway (Conservative). It was answered on Tuesday, 9 October 2007.
EU: Competition Policy
- Question
- My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Was not the object of the omission of words which safeguarded the undistorted and free competition established by Article 85 to change EU competition law, as reported in Le Monde of 25 June, and enable Protocol 6 to foreclose on that fundamental principle to become but a matter for consideration, bereft of any legal efficacy, subservient to a series of obligations under Articles 1 to 3, which are wholly extraneous to competition law?
- Answer
-
My Lords, it is difficult for me to put before your Lordships' House what the French president had in mind when making his proposals. There could have been a number of reasons—political, economic and other. The noble Lord’s underlying question is whether we are certain and secure in our understanding of undistorted competition. We agree with the Commission’s lawyers that, as a result not only of the protocol but of other articles in the proposed reform treaty, that remains the case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Oral question
- Reference
- 695 c119-20
- Session
- 2006-07
- Oral question type
- 1st Supplementary
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Competition law EU reform Treaties
- Link
- View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2014-09-01 22:21:01 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1261414/-question
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1261414/-question
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1261414/-question