1-2 of 2 results for subject:"Competition law"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.206 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Competition law"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Competition law" OR subject_t:"Antitrust law" OR subject_t:"EC competition law" OR subject_t:"EU competition law" OR subject_ses:90652
Member
X
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Campbell of Alloway, Lord (2)
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
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?
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?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Alloway
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 October 2007
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.
Subjects
Competition law; EU reform; Treaties
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
695 c119-20
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, having declared my interest on 3 July.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, notwithstanding their assurances given on 25 June and 3 July, they will reassess the possibility that the omission from the protocol agreed at the June European Council of the reference in the Treaty of Rome to free and undistorted competition may be interpreted by the European Court of Justice as a change of policy.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, having declared my interest on 3 July.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, notwithstanding their assurances given on 25 June and 3 July, they will reassess the possibility that the omission from the protocol agreed at the June European Council of the reference in the Treaty of Rome to free and undistorted competition may be interpreted by the European Court of Justice as a change of policy.
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Alloway
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 October 2007
Answered on
9 October 2007
My Lords, there is no need to reassess the situation. It is clear that the words used in the proposed protocol are substantially the same as the words used in the existing EC treaty. Moreover, the protocol is legally binding. Therefore, there has been no change of policy.
Subjects
Competition law; EU reform; Treaties
Date
9 October 2007
Reference
695 c119
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords