Economics Minister Habeck Habeck wants to give the Cartel Office more options to intervene against the background of the tank discount going nowhere. In retail, the plans are not met with much enthusiasm, and there are fears that arbitrary decisions will be made.
The German Trade Association has sharply criticized Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck’s plans for stricter antitrust laws. “We consider the introduction of abuse-independent unbundling options and antitrust profit skimming claims without proof of fault to be a mistake,” said Managing Director Stefan Genth of the editorial network Germany. “Such a blank check for the Federal Cartel Office would favor arbitrary and politically motivated decisions.” He recommends “urgently” not to pursue the project any further.
According to Habeck’s plans, the Cartel Office should be given more options to intervene in order to be able to take tougher action against mineral oil companies. In addition to more powerful sector inquiries, competition watchdogs should also be able to skim off profits if companies abuse their market power. As a last resort, demergers should be possible.
The background is the tank discount that has come to nothing. On June 1st, the energy tax on petrol and diesel was reduced to relieve motorists. But this was hardly noticeable at the pumps. Genth said that retail was also affected by high petrol and energy costs and could understand the anger. However, the Economics Minister’s plans would have negative consequences for competition, consumers and Germany as a business location. “Companies’ activities in competition are geared precisely to gaining a strong market position. If market power that has been achieved through its own efforts and has not been abused is generally suspected by the legislator per se, this can dampen the commitment of companies on the market from the outset ” Genth said.
The introduction of an abuse-independent possibility for profit skimming also appears to be “extremely risky,” Genth continued. “Because it would also be possible to skim off legally generated income, the serious question then arises as to whether such a legal measure would be constitutional at all,” he warned.
