"We have to be careful in deciding when, but if things go well, the temporary support scheme [for banks] will end at the end of 2010," Almunia said yesterday (12 Janaury), answering questions from MEPs sitting on the Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee.
The commissioner-designate also confirmed the line adopted by his predecessor, Neelie Kroes, who said on many occasions that bailed-out banks should sell some of their assets to pay back public financial support received during the worst phase of the crisis (EurActiv 17/07/09).
"Banks which received aid have to disinvest," Almunia underlined during his hearing. Each institution receiving public help must present a viable business model indicating an ability to remain financially sound after the crisis.
Almunia said his first priority is "to avoid moral hazards". In other words, those who did wrong or are currently doing wrong should not receive support. Banks which were healthy should be rewarded for that, and should not find themselves affected by unfair competition from collapsing institutions boosted by public money.
As for retribution policies, he said "we will look very carefully at what kind of use is made of public money". "We will not accept that this money will help increase expenses towards bonuses," Almunia said in response to concerns raised regarding the rich bonuses awarded in recent months by banks under public support schemes.
Fines or other sanctions?
Regarding the growing debate over a review of sanctions within the EU's competition policy, involving the replacement of fines with administrative or criminal measures, Almunia made clear that "the level of fine adopted is appropriate and has proven to have a dissuasive effect".
The European Commission in recent years has imposed billions in fines on cartels and single companies found guilty of violating EU antitrust rules.
Britain's antitrust body suggested in a report that antitrust abuses might be better deterred if administrative or criminal sanctions are imposed against specific anti-competitive managers rather than levying a blanket fine on an entire company.
This possible shift has been widely supported by many lobbies in Brussels. However, Almunia did not show an interest in going in this direction. "Different penalties instead of fines are not on our radar at the moment," he said. "I am not averse to talking about that. But I don't think it fits well with our competition model," he added.
Almunia also recalled that in just three cases had the Commission applied the maximum level of fine allowed by the rules, which is 10% of the annual turnover of the company involved. In all other cases, the fine has remained below the threshold.
"Nothing that has been said suggests that the new commissioner will take his foot off the pedal in the fight against cartels or in the level of the fines that are imposed. Six digit fines are here to stay," remarked Paul McGeown of law firm Hunton & Williams.
Collective redress
Almunia was open to the idea of a system of 'collective redress' to compensate victims of anti-competitive behaviour.
But he also stressed that Europe has "to avoid big mistakes seen in the application of class actions" in other countries such as the United States, where a number of law firms are exploiting the system.
"We need to introduce a mechanism for non-legal, non-litigious solutions for cases which don't need collective redress," Almunia added.
If you would like to react to this article, please click here.
