On December 20, 2011, the European Commission adopted a decision based on the Almark ruling that expounds upon the four conditions necessary so that compensation paid by a State to any state-owned or private company entrusted with the operation of a public service not require prior notification of the European Commission, despite the general prohibition on State Aids. Each state has a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. A communication and de minimis regulation will complete this decision.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On July 28, 2011, the European Court of Justice rejected an appeal by an Italian digital terrestrial broadcaster against a ruling of the European General Court, which had also rejected an appeal against the European Commission’s condemnation of Italy for having subsidized the purchase or rental by consumers of equipment for the reception of digital terrestrial television broadcast signals, since this was an indirect provision of state aid to the broadcasters.
FRENCH
Le 28 juillet2011,la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne a rejetéun appel interjeté parun radiodiffuseuritaliennenumérique terrestrecontre une décisionde la Cour européennede première instance, qui avaitégalement rejetéun recours contrela condamnationprononcée par la Commission européennede l’Italiepour avoirsubventionné l’achatou la locationpar leconsommateurs d’équipementspour la réception detélévision numérique terrestredes signaux de télédiffusion, puisque cefutuneprestation indirecte, constitutived’aides d’Etat au bénéfice des radiodiffuseurs.
SPANISH
El 28 de juliode 2011, elTribunal Europeode Justiciarechazó una apelación deunemisor italianodigital terrestrecontra una resolucióndel Parlamento Europeo ydel Tribunal General,que había rechazadotambiénun recurso de apelacióncontra la condenade la Comisión Europeade Italia por habersubvencionado lacompra o el alquilerdelos consumidoresde los equipospara la recepción deseñales digitales terrestresde televisión, ya que estaera una disposiciónindirecta delas ayudas estatalesa las emisoras.
DEUTSCH
Am28. Juli 2011hatder Gerichtshofder EuropäischenUnioneine Beschwerdevon einem italienischendigitalen terrestrischenSenderzurückgewiesengegen eine Entscheidungdes EuropäischenGerichts Erster Instanz, die auchabgelehnthatteEinspruch gegen der Überzeugung,inder Europäischen KommissionItalien nachdemKauf oder Leasingvon derConsumer-Gerätenzum digitalen terrestrischenFernsehsignaleempfangensubventionierthaben, da es einindirekter Nutzenwar,um eine staatliche Beihilfefür Broadcaster.
ITALIAN
Il 28 luglio 2011, la Corte di Giustizia Europea ha respinto un appello di emittente italiana di digitale terrestre promosso contro una decisione della Corte generale europea. Anche tale Corte aveva respinto l’appello promosso contro la decisione della condanna dello Stato italiano per aver sovvenzionato l’acquisto o l’affitto da parte dei consumatori di un decoder, in quanto costituirebbe un aiuto statale indiretto alle emittenti.
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.
After two years of implementation of France, the 2004 Directive on markets in financial instruments is to be reviewed at the European level in 2010. The French report, elaborated by Pierre Fleuriot, examines whether or not the directive’s main objectives –the deregulation of markets and the lowering of trading costs- were achieved in an efficient way.
Regulator, Otoritas Jasa Keua - Indonesia Financial Services Authority (OJK) established in this form at the end of 2014, aims to make new arrangements for financial institutions to provide funds to companies in a more wider than previously, in particular for the sole purpose of allowing companies to invest or to have working capital.
Financial institutions are now deduce that this change in financial regulation will produce itself an increase in the economic development of Indonesia.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On December 20, 2011, the European Commission adopted a decision based on the Almark ruling that expounds upon the four conditions necessary so that compensation paid by a State to any state-owned or private company entrusted with the operation of a public service not require prior notification of the European Commission, despite the general prohibition on State Aids. Each state has a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. A communication and de minimis regulation will complete this decision.
FRENCH
Par une décision du 20 décembre 2011, la Commission Européenne, s’appuyant sur l’arrêt Almark , développe les 4 conditions pour que les compensations versées par un Etat à une entreprise, qu’elle soit publique ou privée, pour qu’elle assure un service public, ne donne pourtant pas lieu à notification à la Commission européenne, malgré la prohibition des aides d’Etat. Les Etats sont légitimes à définir les activités qui relèvent de l’intérêt économique général. Une communication et un règlement de minimis complèteront cette décision.
SPANISH
El 20 de diciembre del 2010, la Comisión Europea adoptó una decisión basada en la decisión Almark que trata de las cuatro condiciones necesarias para que una compensación pagada por el Estado a cualquier empresa pública o privada no requiera de una notificación previa a la Comisión Europea, a pesar de la prohibición general sobre Asistencias Estatales. Cada estado tiene un gran margen de discreción en la definición de servicios que podrían ser clasificados como servicios de interés económico general. Una comunicación y regulación de minimis completará la decisión.
ITALIAN
Il 20 dicembre 2011, la Commissione europea, sulla base della decisione Almark, ha identificato le quattro condizioni in presenza delle quali gli aiuti dati dallo Stato ad un’azienda, pubblica o privata, per far assicurare un servizio pubblico, non sarà necessario fare una notifica alla Commissione, nonostante il divieto di procedere con degli aiuti di Stato. Ogni Stato avrà un ampio margine di manovra nella definizione dei servizi che possono essere qualificati come servizi di interesse generale. Una comunicazione ed un regolamento de minimis completeranno questa decisione.
ARABIC
في قرار مؤرّخ يوم 20 ديسمبر2011’ اللّجنة الأوروبية* تعتمد على قرار الحكم ألمارك* لوضع أربع شروط للتّعويضات التّي تدفعها الدّولة للشركة سواء كانت عامة أو خاصة’ لأنّه يوفّر خدمة عمومية’ ومع ذلك’ لا يؤدّي في الإخطار إلى اللّجنة الأوروبية على الرّغم من حظر المعاونة الدّولية. الدّول غير المشروعة يحدّدون الأنشطة الّتي تندرج في إطار الاقتصادية العامة. اتصال و تنظيم سوف يستكملني الحد الأدنى للقرار.
The President's rationale is this: that environmental regulation is justified because it will prevent many diseases and even death from respiratory failure. However, social programs and Obamacare are the major challenges of his presidency.
Therefore, the discussion is about the relationship between "regulation" and "sector": if the Regulation is related simply to the environment, then the argument of additional financial regulation advanced by firms is relevant.
Indeed, the principle of proportionality being key in regulatory techniques, there is disproportionality between the means and the goal.
But if the charges have to end not only the preservation of the environment but also public health and human lives then more burdens on business are justified.
Thus, depending on whether one attaches one or more goals in a constraint, it justifies more or less charge. Companies have interest in claiming that the regulation serves only one purpose. The state has an interest in claiming that the regulation uses several if it wants additional burden on businesses.
This is the speech that President Barack Obama, whose political maneuvering margins are low, is being built.
The September 8th 2010 decision of the European Court of Justice rules that any national law on gambling restraining freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, if not consistent and systemic in its purpose, violates EU Law.
SPANISH
La Corte Europea de Justicia restringe a los Estados Miembros la habilidad de dificultar la libre provisión y establecimiento de servicios de juego en su territorio nacional.
El 8 de septiembre del 2010, una decisión de la Corte Europea de Justicio juzga que cualquier ley nacional sobre los juegos que restrinjan la libertad de establecimiento y la liberad de proveer servicios, a menos de que sea consistente y sistémica en su propósito, viola la Ley de la Unión Europea.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (scommesse): La Corte di giustizia europea riduce la possibilità per gli Stati membri di ostacolare la libera circolazione ed il libero stabilimento dei servizi di scommesse sul proprio territorio.
La Corte di giustizia, con una sentenza dell’8 settembre 2010, ha deciso che ogni legislazione nazionale in materia di scommesse che riduce il diritto di libero stabilimento e la libera prestazione di servizi viola il diritto europeo, qualora tale legislazione non contribuisca a limitare l’attività di scommesse in maniera coerente e sistematica.
The Regulator itself issued the amount of the award to a whistleblower for having providing it with information. Why is that? One would usually take a lower profile when awarding this much money ($17m) to an informer… Conversely, the Regulator immediately and publicly announced it in a press release, which pretty looked like a tender offer for further denunciations. It even included a link for everyone to access the whistleblower program—which is easily funded, since the awards are charged on the fines imposed on the convicted operators thanks to the information given.
The reason for this is that information from whistleblowers is not merely indicative, nor a second-best option; it is central to Regulation, since it leads the Regulator to get information people within the system (i.e., insiders) deliberately chooses to ‘blow’ (in fact, not only do informers blow the whistle—they often immediately provide the Regulator with substantial information).
The press release includes justifications for the Regulator’s behaviour, as the SEC openly considers that rewarding whistleblowers is the most efficient way for the Regulator to open or to resolve investigations. The Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated indeed that “company insiders are uniquely positioned to protect investors and blow the whistle on a company’s wrongdoing by providing key information to the SEC so we can investigate the full extent of the violations”.
This highlights the ambivalence of insiders. Accordingly, they need to be ‘inside’ the system to be ‘knowledgeable’ and, consequently, obtain privileged information. On the one hand, should they use this information for themselves, then they would face prosecution for market abuse; on the other hand, however, if they use it to stir up the Regulator and shift its attention towards the whistle they’re blowing, then they may earn just as much money, if not more, than if they had behaved in a way that would have led them to prison.
The stage is thus set for the "business of virtue" to thrive.