It was a time where it was easy to distinguish the container(telecommunications) and the content (transported data, called "media"). Has responded to it, the institutional duality in France of two regulators, the « Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des Postes » - (ARCEP- the French telecommunications and postal regulator) and the « Conseil Supérieur de l’audiovisuel » (CSA -French audiovisual regulatory) for the regulation of the media. To the movement of technological convergence, we symmetrically consider to merge the two institutions, especially because the digital television makes it possible to give pictures from the phone and the the telephone operators have large media activities. This logic so mechanical, that articulates content and container, as in the United Kingdom, underestimates the dimension of public freedoms and culture, strength in the institution of the « Conseil Supérieur de l’audiovisuel » (CSA -French audiovisual regulatory) and further behind in the « Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des Postes » - (ARCEP- the French telecommunications and postal regulator) which presents itself as a economic regulator. This shows that the regulation is not only a technical matter.
Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.
These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.
Notably with :
Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris - Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)
Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University)
Regis Bismuth, professeur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris)
Marie-Emma Boursier, doyen de l'Université Paris - Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University)
Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris - Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante)
On April 27, 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee for Health voted to introduce an amendment to the European Commission’s ‘Pharmacovigilance and Prescription Medicine Package’, which would introduce a strict regime for online prescription medicine sellers.
Through a decree of 31st of August 2020, the government created a national service, the "Pôle d'expertise de la régulation numérique" (digital regulation expertise pole). It has to furnish to State services a technical expertise in computer science, data science and algorithm processes in order to assist them in their role of control, investigation and study. The aim is to favor information sharing between researchers and State services in charge of regulating digital space.
As its acronym indicates, this pole of expertise aims to represents constance in a changing world. Moreover, more than being a national service, this organism must adopt a transversal dimension, its creation decree being signed by the Prime Minister, Minister of Economy, Minister of Culture and Minister of Digital Transition. The creation of such a pole shows the awareness of the government of the importance of technical competency in the regulation of digital space and of the necessity to centralize these expertises in one organ.
However, as the decree indicates, this pole of expertise could be consulted only by "State services", that excludes regulators which are independent from the State and which could put the pole in conflict of interest, and courts even if they are supposed to play a central role in the regulation of digital space and even if they are allowed to ask the advice of the regulator about some cases. But if regulators cannot size the pole, to whom does it benefit except the legislator and a few officials?
It would therefore have been better for this pole of expertise to be placed under the direction of regulatory and supervisory bodies, which would have enabled it to be able to be consulted both by regulators and by judges, both of whom are key players in digital regulation.
I would suspect that most regulatory law practitioners—whether they represent government or private interests--feel as if the tidewaters of global regulation have slowly but surely risen within the past few years. Those involved in the fields of competition, environmental or financial law must feel as if the global regulatory waters have reached up to their knees.
FRANCAIS
Article: le G-20 et la régulation économique mondiale: un moyen d'alimenter le développement progressif du droit international?
Je soupçonnerai volontiers que la majorité des praticiens du droit de la régulation - qu'ils représentent les gouvernements ou des intérêts publics - ont le sentiment que les eaux de la régulation mondiale ont monté lentement mais sûrement au cours des dernières années. Ceux qui exercent dans les domaines légaux de la concurrence, de l'environnement ou de la finance doivent eux avoir l'impression qu'elles ont atteint leurs genoux.
GERMAN
Artikel; Die G-20 und die globale wirtschaftliche Regulierung: ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des internationalen Privatenrechtes?
Ich vermute, dass die meisten Praktiker des Regulierungsrechtes - entweder für öffentlichen- oder privaten Institutionnen arbeitend - das Gefühl haben, dass die Gewässer der globalen Regulierung letztlich langsam aber sicher angestiegen sind. Und diejenigen, die im Bereich Wettbewerb, Umwelt oder Finanz arbeiten, haben sicher das Gefühl, dass die Gewässer schon kniehoch sind.
ITALIAN
Il G20 e la regolazione economica globale: verso l’alimentazione di uno sviluppo progressivo del diritto internazionale?
Direi che la gran parte degli operatori in materia di regolazione normativa – portatori di interessi pubblici o privati – hanno la sensazione che la marea della regolazione economica globale sia, seppur lentamente, sicuramente salita negli ultimi anni. Coloro che operano in materia di diritto della concorrenza, diritto dell’ambiente o diritto finanziario devono aver la sensazione che le acque della regolazione siano arrivate fino alle ginocchia.
El G-20 y la regulación económica global: ¿alimentando el desarrollo progresivo del derecho internacional?
Yo sospecharía que la mayoría de aquellos que practican la ley – ya sea que representen los intereses públicos o privados – se sienten como si las aguas de la regulación global han aumentado lentamente durante los últimos años. Aquellos que están involucrados en el campo de la competición o las leyes ambientales o financieras ya deben de sentirse como si las aguas de la regulación global les han llegado hasta las rodillas.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on August 5, 2010, that it will cooperate more closely with the Department of Justice (DoJ) in merger reviews in the telecommunications sector. This measure is intended to foster reconciliation of potentially divergent goals for mergers set forth by both authorities.
GERMAN
Die Federal Communications Commission (FCC, die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde), wird im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) arbeiten.
Die FCC hat am 5. August 2010 bekannt gemacht, dass sie enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung in der Telekombranche. So wird die Annäherung von beide Behörde, die oft unterschiedliche Zielen bei Fusionen unterstützen, gefördert.
SPANISH
La American Federal Communications Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anuncia cooperación más cercana con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de justicia) en la revisión de fusiones.
La Federal Communicatins Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anunció el 5 de agosto 2010 que tomará pasos para aumentar su operatividad con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de Justicia) en la revisión de fusiones en el sector de telecomunicaciones. Esta medida sirve para fomentar la reconciliación entre objetivos potencialmente divergentes puesto en marcha por estas dos autoridades.
The laws are general and abstract. It is the mark of their modernity (Max Weber) and the mark of the rule of law. Thus, a State adopting or applying for adoption of a text against a designated person or a company that aims is literally backwards.
However, France and Germany have asked 27 November 2014 to the European Commission to take steps against those who hold the platforms on the Internet, including search engines. Everyone knows that this is the famous "GAFA" (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon).
It seems that the EU institutions fit, since the European Parliament voted on November 27 a text saying that it could ban these companies to monetize their platform activities themselves.
By their regulatory perspectives, Europe gets "retrograde" against the US dynamism?
At first glance, one might say. But it may be that these companies have become "critical", they take the heart of the digital economy, or even the knowledge economy and social cohesion. In such cases, the regulation of these objective phenomena justifies intervene directly in companies in which the social group comes to identify itself. If the company comes to stifle others, it is not that it stifles competition only, but innovation and free expression.
Then pass the mere vigilance competition law instruments of regulation, common in banking and financial law, such as transparency requirements.
This demonstrates Regulation and Supervision meet when companies become crucial.
On 4 July 2012, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) issued a rejection decision validating ARCEP’s dismissal to prosecute in an enforcement case initiated by an association of operators, AFORST. This case brings a broad look back on many years of ARCEP’s regulation of the electronic communications sector and more precisely on the pricing obligations imposed on the incumbent France Telecom within wholesale fixed markets. It provides interesting guidance on the enforcement procedure and on other recourses for competitors to ensure effectiveness of regulated prices.
French
Le 4Juillet2012,le Conseil d’Etata rendu un arrêt validantl'arrêt de la procédure, du fait de la renonciation par l’ARCEPd’engager des poursuitesdans une affaired’exécutionengagée par uneassociation d’opérateurs, l’AFORST.Cette affaireapporte un perspective sur de nombreuses annéesen de régulation de l’ARCEPdans lesecteur des communications électroniquesnet plus précisément surles obligationsimposées auxprix fixes de l’opérateur historique,France Télécom,dans lesmarchés de gros.Elle fournit des indicationsintéressantes surla procédure d’exécutionet surd’autres recourspour les concurrentsafin d’assurerl’effectivité de larégulation des prix.
In a letter to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Mr. Cox said that “soft-dollar arrangements create a conflict between a money manager and its clients, compromise a money manager’s fiduciary responsibility by inducing the manager to direct trades to broker-dealers that offer research the manager wants, instead of to the broker-dealer that could best execute the client’s transactions, and encourage overtrading of client portfolios in an effort to generate soft-dollar credits.”
FRANCAIS
Article: Commissions en nature: une pratique génératrice de conflits d'intérêts?
Dans une lettre adressée au Président de la Commission Bancaire du Sénat américain Christopher Dodd, M. Cox écrit que "les pratiques de commission en nature créent un conflit entre le gérant de portefeuille et ses clients ; compromettent la responsabilité fiduciaire du gérant de portefeuille en le conduisant à privilégier les courtiers en valeurs qui fournissent des recherches qui lui sont favorables, au lieu de préférer les courtiers en valeurs qui pourraient exécuter au mieux les transactions de ses clients ; et favorisent une démultiplication des transactions (overtrading) dans le portefeuille géré afin de générer des crédits provenant des accords de commission en nature."
GERMAN
Artikel: Soft-Dollar-Vereinbarungen: verursachen sie Interessenkonflikte?
In einer Brief am Vorsitzender der Bankenkommission des Senates der Vereinigten Staaten Christopher Dodd schreibt Herr Cox: "Soft-Dollar-Vereinbarungen verursache Konflikte zwischen dem Vermögensverwalter und seinen Kunden; Sie gefährden die Verantwortung des Vermögensverwalters, da sie stiften ihm dazu, Brokers zu günstigen, die für ihn vortheilhafte Ergebnisse haben können, anstatt diejenigen, die am besten die Transaktionen seinen Kunden erfüllen würden. Dazu noch fördern solche Vereinbarungen die Überspekulation in Kunden-Portfolios, da durch Soft-Dollar-Vereinbarungen der Vermögensverwalter Profit erzielen kann."
SPANISH
Arreglos de caja de ahorro común en dólares: ¿representan conflictos de intereses?
En una carta al presidente de la Comisión bancaria del Senado americano Christopher Dodd, M. Cox dijo que “los arreglos de caja de ahorro común en dólares crea conflictos entre el administrador del dinero y el cliente, comprometiendo la responsabilidad fiduciaria del administrador al inducir el administrador a privilegiar los agentes en valores que a cambio ofrecen servicios de investigación solicitados por el gerente, en vez de a aquel que está mejor dispuesto para ejecutar el trabajo y las transacciones de los clientes, lo cual motiva la multiplicación de las transacciones (overtrading) de los portafolios de los clientes en un esfuerzo de generar estos ahorros de común en dólares.”
Internet permits to access to expanded knowledge but also make easier the broadcasting of fake news and hate speeches. Unfortunately, public powers cannot know who broadcast these fake news and hate speeches and are so not able to fight efficiently against this. A solution would be to expect from digital firms that they find a way to contain these fake news and hate speeches that they structurally contribute to diffuse.
Digital firms already do that and especially Facebook which plans to sensibilize its American users to 2020 presidential elections. However, digital firms explain that if they fight against fake news and hate speeches, it is only because of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). But, even if it is a calculus to get a better reputation and avoid boycott actions, this remains a willingness of the firm which is therefore neither forced to succeed, nor even to act.
The solution proposed by Compliance Law is to make of this effort a legal obligation by internalizing in crucial operators (digital firms) the "monumental goal" to fight against fake news and hate speeches so that digital companies are required to act and that they are supervised by public authorities in this task. The forthcoming law about digital services will impose to digital firms Ex Ante obligations while the law of 22 of December 2018 related to the fight against information manipulation already forces platforms operators a legal obligation to "cooperate" in the fight against fake news.
forthcoming in the Serie Regulations & Compliance , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.
