[full article http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/THU/FIN/cartel.2.html ] Paris, Thursday, September 28, 2000 EU Proposes Broad Overhaul of Competition Oversight By Barry James International Herald Tribune BRUSSELS - That dawn knock on the door in the future may not be the local police but a man from the European Commission. In a move that is certain to anger those Europeans who think the Brussels bureaucracy already has enough power, the commission proposed Wednesday that its inspectors be given the right to search private homes for evidence of cartel and price-fixing activity. ''It is ever more difficult to find evidence of infringements,'' said Mario Monti, the commissioner in charge of antitrust policy, explaining why the measure was thought necessary. The commission, the executive agency of the European Union, already has the right to search business premises. But Mr. Monti said it had been noticed that companies ''have an increased tendency to ask their managers to take home certain incriminating documents, particularly when cartels are involved. The exercise of the power to search at home would naturally be subject to the control of a national judge.'' At the same time, the commission proposed what Mr. Monti called the most important reform of its competition policy since 1990, when new regulations on mergers were introduced. While some may complain about centralization, these broad changes head in the other direction, and would hand over to national and local courts and antitrust authorities the routine application of the EU's competition laws. The commission would concentrate on dealing with the hardest-core antitrust cases. This was a recognition of the fact that the commission, with limited resources, can no longer cope with a welter of routine competition investigations, let alone megadeals such as the proposed mergers of America Online Inc. and TimeWarner Inc. or EMI Group and Time Warner. It also fits in with the philosophy of the commission that it should concentrate on core activities, leaving to governments those jobs that can best be carried out at the national level. Mr. Monti said the problem of overload at the commission level clearly was going to get worse with the admission of new members in coming years. However, this does not mean the commission is giving up its legal responsibility for administering antitrust regulations. Mr. Monti said the commission's proposal, which is subject to approval by EU governments and the European Parliament, would entail ''decentralization without renationalization,'' giving national antitrust offices and courts co-responsibility in enforcing a common set of EU rules. Sharing the load with the national authorities would enable the commission ''to target the most serious restrictions and abuses,'' according to a statement. ''The intention is to strengthen the means that the commission has at its disposal to detect and punish cartels and other infringements of the rules.'' Mr. Monti said the change also would mean less red tape for businesses. At present, any restrictive agreement between companies in the EU are illegal unless the commission grants an exception. Under the proposal, companies would not in future be required to notify agreements to the commission, but would themselves be responsible for assessing whether deals complied with the laws. Unlike the U.S. antitrust authorities, neither the commission nor national courts will have the power to imprison people. The U.S. can and has imprisoned foreigners for price fixing even when they had not yet set foot in the United States. The EU also claims a global reach in competition cases, but at the most can impose a heavy fine.
