Consumer associations know and support us

At the time when China increases investment abroad, Europe does not naive with a competition policy which limits the emergence of national champions or European

The competition is not an end in itself, as often as noted. It is a tool designed to encourage businesses to give the best of themselves, for the benefit of consumers. And it is precisely because Europe ensures that its companies reinforce by competition, and not by cartels or abuse, it can apply without reciprocity China and its other trading partners. Do not believe the French that the competition rules preclude the emergence of global-sized companies. Since the great debates of the early 2000s, as the Schneider-Legrand case, can you cite a single case in which a merger initiated by French companies would have been blocked None! On the contrary, major operations such as GDF-Suez or BNP-Fortis are made with the endorsement of Brussels. The French authority is itself give conditional go-ahead to a new world leader, Veolia-Transdev.

What is with regard to state aid

They are, let us recall, French banks which have requested the European Commission not to be less rigorous, but to be more severe in imposing restructuring or transfers of assets to British, Irish and Dutch competitors... Let us be honest: the search for a critical size is legitimate at the time of globalization and competition rules shall not preclude the creation of champions when it's good for the economy and consumers. On the other hand, they ensure that mergers do not in conditions that result in term of high prices, because of market power that nothing would limit.

On a national level, do you think that in two years, the competition authority that you preside has already had a positive impact

Yes. In any case, this is what say me parliamentarians that I meet, regardless of their political colour. Take, first, the reform of the control of concentrations. By creating a single, it has helped companies gain in readability and timeliness. It has clarified the respective role of competitive expert, that we are, and the policy. The Commission European did there not err: while it was failed to return to Paris of the community since SEB-Moulinex records in 2002, she told the independent authority, since its creation in March 2009, not less than four important issues in the transport sector (Keolis-SNCF and Veolia-Transdev I have already mentioned) or of public works (Eurovia-Tarmac). Take also the question of the place of competition in the public debate. It is a very important achievement. Economic modernization Act (LME) gave us the ability to give our opinion on projects of texts or general questions of competition not only at the request of the Government, as previously, but also at the request of the parliamentary committees or on our own initiative. This is what we have for the large distribution, the crisis. Often perceived as weak and vacillating in France, the culture of competition is reinforced. In a recent survey, 80 of the French saw a positive value.

Has the crisis not changed the deal, with more emphasis on the preservation of the companies on the purchasing power

The LME was designed in 2008, in a context of rising prices, including raw materials and food products, with a large indictment. You are right: a year after, the perception has changed. The employee has become more important than the consumer, the sustainability of companies more priority than the defence of purchasing power. To the point sometimes of economic problems or employment on the back of the competition. In reality, the crisis cannot find its origin in an excess of competition, but a lack of regulation to conduct risk and it calls our share increased vigilance, precisely because it undermines the most vulnerable such as SMEs, which are often the first victims of cartels.

Watch the debate generated by the issue of sanctions in times of crisis. We hear that competition authorities are stricter in Europe than in the US. But it is totally biased. On the contrary, Americans are infinitely less tolerant to cartels, which are considered as of the flight, over the entire community! In the United States, repression through the imprisonment for leaders or managers guilty of antitrust laws, and this is debate in either the Democrats or the Republicans. Between 2000 and 2009, total 348 years of imprisonment have been imposed.

Do you want for the France rule

French law already allows to up to four years in prison, although in reality this device is very few applied. My position on this dossier has not varied: must be foremost penalize "better" and not "more". This means three things: refocus criminal device on the more serious offences, such as cartels and procurement arrangements; a mechanism of clemency for the individuals who denounce the agreements, as this already exists for businesses; and probably specialized criminal judges so that they have a mass critical files to treat and develop expertise.

The companies estimate that you put their business at risk by imposing too high fines...

We actually hear that our sanctions, which amounted to EUR 442 million in 2010, go up to the sky... It is easy to brandish numbers out of context. Look at the facts. Between 2007 and 2010, the average amount of the sanctions imposed by the authority, to the turnover of each of the sanctioned enterprises, is in sharp decline: it amounted to 1.75 in 2007, 1.48 in 2008, 1.2 in 2009 and 0.65 in 2010.

In fact, we are pragmatic and we continue, as we have always done, to take into account the financial difficulties caused by the crisis, by reducing the sanctions or even renouncing to impose. But it must also have the courage to punish manner deter serious infringements to the rules of the game. And this is bearing fruit, as shown in the decline of the agreements in the construction industry.

The judgment of the Court of appeal of Paris on the cartel of steel, which was divided by eight assent that you had imposed, Bercy did not intend to appeal in cassation but requested more predictability on the sanctions. Where are you

I said, as of 2007, was to advance in this direction, and proposed to publish the method we follow to determine sanctions, but spirits were not ready at the time. Today, this is consensus. The project is ready. It corresponds broadly to the proposals made by the mission had set up Ms. Lagarde. It will be a public consultation until March 11. I wish that everyone contributes to the reflection: large companies but also SMEs and consumers, we do not hear.

What are your proposals

We have three objectives. First, to increase transparency in explaining the method we follow in practice, which will help to structure the adversarial upstream of the decision of the College. Second, ensure consistency with the other authorities of competition in Europe, not only because required by the authorities but also because this will ensure equality of treatment to companies. Third, offer the sanctions, in each case, the seriousness of the offence, the injury caused to the economy and the individual situation of the company. To give a translation to our analysis, we will take as a point of reference the value of sales of products or services involved in the offence. We will naturally take into account the behaviour of the company (aggravating or mitigating circumstances), and its situation, to modulate the sanction downward or upward. This will allow the offer, for example, the fact that the offence is committed by an SME, by a monoproduit company or on the contrary by a conglomerate or a large group such as Microsoft.

The competition authority feel close to consumer associations

When we check if the interbank commissions are justified or not, or when we ask the great distribution of play the game of the competition, we respect the most basic right of consumers: to pay a fair price. Consumer associations know and support us. That said, standing for consumers does not mean acting against the business. I very often intersects business leaders who play the game of competition and who tell me that protects them the competition authority.

But companies are not more powerful than you

Yes, often. The disproportion of forces is a concern. Regulators are powerful on paper, but in some cases, companies can spend up to half of our annual budget (approximately 20 million euros, Editor's note).

What is your work programme for 2011

We will continue our review of the distribution sector. It is highly concentrated in France and its operation gives us areas of concern, for example the effect locking contracts imposed on traders affiliated, which can hardly change sign. But we have other priority projects, such as transportation, banking or Internet. We were the first in the world to look at Google and ask the search engine to change his behavior.