Updated: Sept. 25, 2012 (Initial publication: Dec. 7, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors


The Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) handed down a ruling (n°339154) on October 19, 2011 in the French Data Network, Apple, and iTunes case. In this ruling, it refused to annul the decree giving the "Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet" (HADOPI — France’s Internet Piracy Regulator) the power to issue injunctions to force the accessibility of essential information on the Internet in order to guarantee interoperability, using either penalties or fines.



Le Conseil d’Etat a rendu un arrêt (n ° 339154) le 19 Octobre 2011 French Data Network, Apple et iTunes. Dans cet arrêt, il a refusé d’annuler le décret donnant à la Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des Œuvres et la protection des Droits sur Internet (HADOPI) le pouvoir d’émettre des injonctions pour forcer l’accessibilité des ’informations essentielles sur Internet afin de garantir l’interopérabilité, en utilisant des injonctions ou des amendes.


Il “Conseil d’Etat” (il Consiglio di Stato francese) ha pronunciato una decisione (n° 339154) il 19 ottobre 2011 nel caso della rete di dati francese, Apple ed iTunes. In questa decisione, il Consiglio di stato ha rifiutato di annullare il decreto che conferisce alla “Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet” (HADOPI – l’autorità francese di regolazione contro la pirateria informatica) il potere di emettere delle sanzioni per assicurare l’accessibilità di informazioni essenziali su internet per garantire l’interoperabilità, usando così delle multe o delle ammende.


Other translations forthcoming.

Updated: July 9, 2012 (Initial publication: June 29, 2012)

Breaking news

In the field of the competition law, due to the lack of ex-ante regulation device, the European Commission sued Microsoft for abuse of dominant position, in that the company refused to disclose to its competitors certain information on interoperability and to allow the use for the development of competing products. The decision of sanction of the Commission of 24 March 2004 had established the abuse of dominant position by such behaviour and had chosen as a sanction the appointment of an independent trustee that can access the source code and ensure access to competitors. The Commission, by decision of 12 July 2006, accompanied the operative part of the decision by a penalty payment. The Court of first instance of the European Union, seized by Microsoft for annulment, confirms the operative part of the decision, especially in view of the innovation criterion, but decreases the amount of the penalty payment.

Updated: Dec. 21, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 7, 2011)