The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Judicial Court) made a decision on 19th of December 2019 about a case concerning a refusal to communicate his mobile phone's unlock code to the police while the police found him with a significant quantity of narcotic and a lot of cash and that there was a certain probability that this mobile phone get proofs of culpability of its owner. The individual was indicted not for narcotic trafficking but for not having communicate its unlock code which constitute an offense to article 434-15-2 of code pénal, from the loi du 3 juin 2018 renforçant la lutte contre la criminalité organisée, et le terrorisme et leur financement (law reinforcing organized crime, terrorisme and their financing).
The accused invokes before the court its right to not incriminate oneself. Indeed, the configuration face to policemen was such that if he refused to communicate its unlock code, he will be punished because of this obligation to communicate his code and that if he accepted, he will also be sanctioned because of the proofs contained into the mobile phone. Such a configuration therefore offered him no alternative to confessing, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and to European and national jurisprudence.
Face to such a case, the Cour de Cassation chose to segment the information and proposed the following solution: if the researched information cannot be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness, it is not possible to constraint this person to communicate this information without violating its procedural rights, but if the information can be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness then the individual is obliged to communicate his code. In the current case, as it was possible for policemen to obtain information contained in the phone by technical means, longer but existent, then the refuse of communication of the unlock code by the suspect constitute an obstruction that should be sanctioned.
Such a decision is an exemple of the conciliation by the judge of two fundamental but contradictory "monumental goals" of Compliance Law: transparency of information towards public authorities and very sensible personal data protection.
It quarrels on the best model of banking regulation, but the key is to determine the criteria against which we fight. However, two representatives of the Bank of England, during the global meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole in the US, have appointed what they believe to be the relevant criterion: simplicity. In a short intervention, they stressed that the North American banking regulation would make about 30,000 pages and 60,000 pages for the European Union. Entitling their speech "Dog and Frisbee", they said that it is equivalent to require that a dog learns Newton's laws before catching the Frisbee. Under these conditions, many would would like to return to Glass-Steagall Act, the mere fact that this law was simple.
Rapport thématique (Télécommunications, Internet) : La première Chambre Civile de la Cour de cassation française, par une décision du 19 novembre 2009, affirme que l'obligation du fournisseur d'accès d'offrir les services à l'abonné est une obligation de résultat.
Dans un contrat entre un usager et le fournisseur d’accès Free, une clause avait prévu l’accès au service audiovisuel, sous réserve de l’éligibilité de sa ligne téléphonique à un tel service. La Cour de cassation estime qu’en dehors d’un cas de force majeure, une telle clause ne peut dispenser le fournisseur d’offrir un tel accès car il s’agit pour lui d’une obligation de résultat. Cette solution, originale en droit traditionnel des contrats illustre le rôle central que la notion d’accès, et de droit d’accès, joue en matière de régulation
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Telekommunikation, Internet): Die erste Zivilkammer der Cour de Cassation (Französischer Kassationshof) hat in einer Entscheidung vom 19. Dezember 2009 behauptet, dass der Internetdienstanbieter dazu verpflichtet ist, seine Kunden Dienste zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dieses gilt als Pflicht.
Ein Vertrag zwischen Free (ein französischer Internetdienstanbieter) und einer seinen Kunden enthielte einer Klausel, die behauptete, dass der Zugang zum Fernsehdienst der Kundenslinie unterworfen war. Der Gerichtshof hat dieser Klausel als ungültig erklärt.
SPANISH
La Primera Cámara Civil de la “Cour de Cassation” (la corte francés de casación) afirma una decisión el 19 de diciembre del 2009 que dicta que la obligación de un proveedor de servicio de Internet de proveer servicios a sus clientes es una responsabilidad objetiva.
Un contrato entre Free (un proveedor francés de servicios de Internet) y uno de sus abonados contenía una clausula que estipulaba que el acceso a servicios audiovisuales dependía sobre la elegibilidad de la línea telefónica para estos servicios. La Corte de casación que excepto en casos de “force majeur” (fuerzas mayores) dicha clausula no excluye los proveedores de servicios de su responsabilidad objetiva de proveer dichos servicios.
PeruRail, the operator of Peru’s famous railway line, providing service between Cuzco and Machu Picchu, was sanctioned USD$800,000 on May 10, 2010 by the {‘Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual’} (INDECOPI- Peru’s national institute for the defense of competition and protection of intellectual property) for having restricted competitors’ market entry. An appeal is underway.
A series of decisions handed down by the European Court of Justice on March 9, 2010 reduces the burden of proof for environmental damages, in order to facilitate the application of the 'polluter pays' principle, and provides national regulatory authorities broad powers in enforcing environmental liability.
Competition is the principle element of markets, in the princely sense of the term.The relationships that regulation maintains with competition are ambiguous. It is important to eliminate this ambiguity in order to reveal the ab initio opposition between regulation and competition, to shed light upon the dialectics between both of them. Indeed, regulation may aim at building competition, and is thereby presented as a tool that will cease being used when the competitive market functions effectively.
Administration - Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et des Postes - Competition - Competition Authority - Conflict of intersts - Consumer - Contract - Equilibrium - European Commission - Ex ante / Ex post - Government - Hayek - Horyzontal regulation - Information asymmetry - Liberalisation - Market failure - Natural economic monopoly - Online gambling - Political mandate - Postal services - Power - Principle - Real economy - "Réglementation" - Regulator - Regulatory Authority - Self regulation - symmetrical regulation - Telecommunication - Tool - Watchdog *
* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.
PORTUGUESE
Artigo: Regulação versus Concorrência
Concorrência é o principal elemento dos mercados, no mais genuíno sentido da palavra. As relações que regulação mantém com a concorrência são ambíguas. É importante eliminar essa ambiguidade de modo a relativizar a oposição ab initio entre regulação e concorrência, para trazer luz para a dialética entre elas. Com efeito, regulação pode tender a construir a concorrência, e é então apresentada como uma ferramenta que deixará de ser usada quando o mercado competitivo passar a funcionar realmente.
Administração – Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et des Postes – Concorrência – Autoridade de concorrência – Conflito de interesse – Consumidor – Contrato – Equilíbrio – Comissão Europeia – Ex ante / Ex post – Governo – Hayek – Regulação horizontal – Informação assimétrica – Liberalização – Falha de mercado – Monopólio econômico natural – Jogo em linha – Mandato político – Serviços postais – Poder – Princípio – Economia real – Regulamentação – Regulador – Autoridade de regulação – Auto-regulação – Regulação simétrica – Telecomunicações – Ferramenta – Observador*
* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.
ITALIAN
Articolo: Regolazione vs. Concorrenza
La concorrenza è il principio fondamentale dei mercati, nel senso stretto del termine. Le relazioni tra regolazione e concorrenza sono ambigue. Per rivelare il contrasto tra regolazione e concorrenza è importante cancellare questa ambiguità e chiarire la dinamica di questi due concetti. In effetti, la regolazione punta a sviluppare la concorrenza ed è spesso considerata uno strumento che non avrà più ragion d’essere una volta che il mercato funzionerà in libera concorrenza.
Amministrazione - Asimmetria dell’informazione - Autoregolazione - Autorità di regolazione - Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et des Postes - Autorità garante della concorrenza - Commissione Europea - Concorrenza - Conflitto di interessi - Contratto - Consumatore - Economia reale - Equilibrio - Ex ante / Ex post - Governo - Hayek - Liberalizzazione - Mancato Funzionamento del mercato - Monopolio economico naturale - Mandato politico - Potere - Principio - "Regolamentazione" - Regolatore - Regolazione orizzontale - Regolazione simmetrica - Servizi postali - Scommesse online - Strumento - Telecomunicazioni - Vigilanza *
* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.
SPANISH
Artículo: Regulación versus la competencia
La competencia es el elemento principal de los mercados, en precisamente el sentido de este término. Es importante eliminar esta ambigüedad para poder revelar la posición ab initio entre la regulación y la competencia, para poder traer a luz las dialécticas entre las dos. Así tanto, la regulación puede intentar construir la competencia, y es, por consiguiente, un instrumento que cesará de ser utilizado cuando el mercado competitivo funcione de manera eficaz.
The European Commission, following the example of the Obama administration understands the regulation of financial markets through the protection of consumers of financial instruments. It is on this basis that should be analyzing the proposed "package" which the Commission presented the draft on July 3, 2012. The Commission manifests its particular concern for investment details and information of investors. Based on the observation that individuals do not to use the markets only in an intermediated way, the project aims the " organismes de placement collectif en valeurs mobilières " - OPVCM (undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities ). Finally, noting that for the consumers, the insurance product and the product purely financial, is similar the Commission proposes to revise the regulation of the sale of insurance products and insurance mediation.
The Tribunal des Conflits ruled in a May 2, 2011 decision that administrative courts have jurisdiction over examining the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF—French Financial Markets Authority)’s liability when the facts involved are unrelated to an individual decision against a corporate plaintiff, but rather pertain to the conditions under which applications for the approval of documents relating to public issuance of shares are examined: the AMF is a legal person incorporated according to public law, and this is not a case in where jurisdiction had specifically been transferred to civil courts of law.
* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.
FRENCH
Le Tribunal des conflits pose, dans un arrêt du 2 mai 2011, que le juge administratif est compétent pour connaître de la responsabilité de l’Autorité des marchés financiers, lorsque les faits reprochés ne tiennent pas à une décision individuelle visant la société demanderesse, mais aux conditions d’instructions de demande de visa de documents d’appel public à l’épargne : l’AMF est une personne morale de droit public et nous ne sommes plus dans un cas précis de transfert de compétence au bénéfice du juge judiciaire.
SPANISH
Informe Temático (Finanza): La responsabilidad del Regulador Financiero debe ser examinada por una jurisdicción administrativa cuando los hechos involucrados no conciernen estrictamente una decisión individual, el único hipótesis cuando una jurisdicción civil es legalmente competente.
El Tribunal des Conflits decidió el 2 de mayo del 2011 que las cortes administrativas tienen jurisdicción sobre la revisión de la responsabilidad de la Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF – la Autoridad francesa de los mercados financieros) cuando los hechos a mano son independientes de una decisión individual contra un demandante corporativo, sino pertenecen a las condiciones bajo las cuales la solicitud para la aprobación de documentos relacionados de acuerdo con derecho público, y esto no es un caso donde la jurisdicción haya sido específicamente transferido a cortes civiles de justicia.
Germany is characterized in that in Europe generally has refused liberalization of the gambling industry. For this, it will incur remonstrance’s from the European Commission. But this issue is the responsibility of the Länder. That is why, when the Land of Schleswig-Holsteing decided in April 2011 to open the sector to competition online games, Everyone saw a sign of liberalism and compliance with European lines.
But the government of this land has changed in May 2012 to make way for a coalition, it seems more favorable to a closure of that activity or, at lesse, should be left to public monopolies.
However, on September 2, 5 licenses are to be given by that Government to the major operators of online games, which shows that the line previously adopted market-opening games online is maintained, unlike the rest of the Germany.
The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").
The press release is entitled "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions").
____
Isn't this surprising?
One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country.
Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?
Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?
First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.
As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body.
Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever.
One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply?
How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge?
The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).
However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release:
It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things.
Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.
Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!
