The repression is inseparable from how to repress. This is why the procedural difficulties are indicative of underlying fundamental problems. Currently, the basic issue updated by the battles around the procedures of financial sanctions is about the sanction bais.
For the regulator, the penalty is one tool among others to regulate financial markets. The penalty in a continuum with its legislative powers, are its teeth and claws through which financial markets are developing. The purpose of financial policy justifies an objective repression with a probationary system often based on presumptions leading to impute breaches players in some positions on or financial markets. The regulator must have this card in hand and use it according to this method.
Moreover, if it happens that people commit reprehensible misconducts, perceived as such by the social group, they should be punished, possibly up to the prison. Only the criminal justice is legitimate to do so legitimately weighed down by the burden of proving intentionality, etc.
We must distinguish these two types of criminality. It is from there that the two procedures and two probationary systems can take place at the same time but on different offenses.
For now this is not the case, as "financial misconduct" are only the carbon copy of "financial crimes" lightened loads of evidence that protected the defendant and who should answer for now twice.
Procedural problem? No, problem of criminalization, which won't be released by procedural solutions, the most hazardous being to create a new institution, the most calamitous being to weaken the system by removing one of the ways of prosecution. It is necessary to make distinctions in the offenses that are currently redundant.
Thus, repression as a regulatory tool used by the Regulator is in focus, but the real financial criminal law remains to be consolidated to achieve its own and classic goal: punish faults including through the prison.
What does Regulating to operators? How do they feel? Do they internalize? Does it means to them, simply a cost or an impact on their strategy on the markets?
The question is all the more important that you adhere to the theory of incentives, whereas the adequate regulatory techniques are those that produce the desired behavior by regulated operators.
The issue is not whether the Regulating is included in spending. This is acquired. For example, in two years the banks move internal forces of certain services, such as credit, to the compliance department and regulation. The regulation may represent a very high share of costs: it lies in the fact that through compliance the regulatory system has internalized the costs of regulation in the firms.
But does it make to change the strategic choice of the operator on the market, not only increase the number internal processes?
Mr. Blankfein Lloys who also sits on the board of the Harvard Law School, asked about the question of whether the bank doesn't suffer from the pressure of regulations and supervisors replied that must be considered especially in the very design of technical systems to meet compliance but that for him, Regulation isn't really an annoyance: it is a "background noise". He compares it to music: something that he listens a lot, but while he is doing its job. Something which remains outside.
This means that Regulation occupies its technical regulatory services but doesn't affect its own work of invest bank president.
We can rejoice, since it shows that Regulation doesn't impede free enterprise and the operator's choice. One might worry if Regulation should have an "educational" function wanting influence how the president himself decides. In this case, Regulation must cease to be a kind of expensive elevator music.
It is not sure that regulators and supervisors have the same understanding
As soon as Regulation assumes independence of the operator who manages the essential infrastructure, ex ante conditions of such independence must be met.
Europe doesn't require legal autonomy of the essential infrastructure manager, probably because such autonomy, it would be both too ask the Policy, which may want more integrated organizations as soon as public transportation is a mix of public policies and that to public funds are used. But it would also be too little to ask the Policy because no matter the legal autonomy, the key is the real independence of the manager, that is under the control of the Regulator.
The Loi portant réforme ferroviaire (Railway Reform Act) of August 4, 2014 has made the integration of the company that manages the rail network, which the new name is SNCF Réseau (SNCF Network) in a public group, which also includes the SNCF, public transportation operator, in competition with new entrants in a newly opened sector to competition.
The Competition Authority in its opinion of 4 October 2013 had expressed reluctance towards the bill, to the influence that such corporate organization offers to the public operator, to the detriment of its competitors and the opening of the railway sector to competition.
The Competition Authority issues its opinion as a real essay on what should be the Regulation of the railway sector through the "governance" of the network manager. Indeed, the first part of the opinion relates to "the independent management of railway infrastructure" while the second focuses on the integration of railway network in the public group built par the law. The third part of this Opinion draws conclusions to measure whether we can consider that the Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires (French Regulatory Authority of Railways Activities) shall have the capacity to ensure this independence by governance or not.
This review, in its construction itself, demonstrates the dialectic between Regulation and Governance (I), which is an observation and stresses the role of the regulator in the effectiveness of governance (II), which is more a question .
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.
Complete reference : Barban, P., Les entreprises de marché. Contribution à l'étude d'un modèle d'infrastructure de marché, préface de France Drummond, Avant-propos de Jean-Jacques Daigre, LGDJ, nov. 2015.
Complete reference : Ossege, Ch. (dir.), European Regulatory Agencies in EU Decision-Making.Between Expertise and Influence , Palgrave MacMillan, 2016, 216 p.
The Journal of Regulation (JoR) was created in 2009 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche to study Regulation as a developing phenomenon.
Regulation can be defined as a set of mechanisms, rules, institutions, decisions and principles that allow certain sectors of the economy to grow and maintain equilibriums that they could not establish solely via their own economic strength.
Over the past years, 'common rules' to all the sectors impacted by Regulation (e.g., transports, energy, telecommunications, banking, finance, insurance, etc.) have appeared beyond the sectorial regulations that have been issued for the past decades, whose specificity were once justified by the great variety of sectorial technicalities that used to impregnate in return the sets of rules designed to regulate those sectors.
Neither economics nor political science - namely throughout the declining figure of the State - are sufficient to capture this common organisation and projection into the future that Regulation is, which we must understand to anticipate its evolution and act in accordingly.
The newly developed "Regulation Law" restores what is common to all of those sectors using a triangulated approach between Law, Economics and Politics. This is all the more important since Regulation already tends to dissociate itself from its founding notion of "sector", not only to be increasingly associated with the more inclusive one of "branch", but also to get more and more autonomous- that is, for instance, the case of the digital issues that cannot be reduced to a "sector" anymore, but that still needs to be regulated.
In order to follow, process, analyze and think about these issues, the Journal of Regulation (JoR),a mainly online-based bilingual publication (English-French), issues news reports, articles and thematic files.
The Journal of Regulation (JoR) issues a weekly newsletter to more than 10.000 people interested in Regulation throughout the world.
The Journal of Regulationregularly organizes public events. The last one, which is upcoming, is entitled 'Regulation, Supervision, Compliance'.
The Journal of Regulationissues its work in the RégulationsSeries, which are directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and published by the Éditions Dalloz.
The Journal of Regulationoperates basing on different committees, particularly a Partners Committee including the main organisations, companies and law firms acting within the field of regulated sectors, and a Global Committee composed of the main Regulatory Authorities.
In Senegal, the Autorité de régulation des télécommunications et des postes (ARTP ; English translation: Telecommunications and Posts Regulatory Authority) has, just like all regulators, inherent powers to impose sanctions. In general, the important thing is not only to exercise this sanctioning power but to exercise it in a way that reinforces the authority of the Regulator. In this perspective, the new Sonatel sanction decision is important.
As a sanctions always carry a heavier weight when people are made aware of it, the Director General of the Artp issued a press release, that has been flagged as particularly important, and held a press conference (in French) on a particularly serious sanction imposed following what the Regulator considers as the non-fulfilment of obligations stemming from formal notices (which, by the way, the telecom operator challenges on the merits).
On 21 November 2014 indeed, the Sonatel was given a formal notice from the Artp to respect consumer rights. As the code of telecommunications provides since its modification in 2014, operators shall "prendre les mesures appropriées de dimensionnement de leurs réseaux de nature à garantir à leurs clients un accès ininterrompu à leur service client commercial ou technique en respectant un taux d’efficacité minimal" (translation: "take appropriate measures to size their networks in a way that provides their consumers with an uninterrupted access to their customer service (sales service and technical support) which would respect a minimum efficiency rate") set by the Regulator itself- as to, namely, ensure that the right of consumers to be informed is satisfied (as regards billing mechanisms) and that their calls to consumer services remain free of charge. As the Regulator estimated that the Sonatel was not complying with such regulations, it conducted a formal investigation and notified a statement of objections to the operator, before sending on 28 January 2015 a second formal notice for the same reasons.
On 14 July 2016, the Regulator imposed a sanction on Sonatel since the it still estimated that the operator's behavior still was not leading to a compliant situation as regards the consumer right to be informed. The sanction, as stated in the Sonatel decision, is 13 billion 959 million FCfa (c. €20m), i.e., 15% of Sonatel's 2015 turnover. The sanction decision also provides that if the operator does not enforce it, an additional penalty of 10m FCfa (c. €15,000) per day will be charged.
The operator, however, challenges this sanction insofar as it estimates that its behavior is not to be blamed. To support its claim, Sonatel avails itself from the fact that upon reception of the first formal notice, it undertook a 'progressive compliance' with the requirements process as regards its network, then let the Regulator know about it, etc. It is henceforth to lodge an appeal.
The issue at stake, therefore, is to know whether the obligations on operators are obligations regarding the means used (that is to say, means obligations), or, conversely, if they are obligations to produce results (performance obligations). If they are means obligations, then the operator is right. However, considering the efficiency and effectivity principes that are closely linked with the teleological nature of Regulation, it is more likely that such obligations are performance obligations.
For instance, in France, the Commission Informatiques et Libertés (French Data Protection Authority- CNIL) considered on 1 March 2016!footnote-42 that the obligations on operators to have accurate and complete data are performance obligations and not mere means obligations.
Thus, there is probably more to follow with this Sonatel decision. The day the press release was issued, the operator stated it intended to lodge a hierarchical appeal before the Minister.
The next day, the Director General of the Artp stated in the press (in French) that under the Senegal law, the appeal could only be lodged before a jurisdiction, or before... the Regulatory Authority itself (request for reconsideration - in French : "recours gracieux").
This situation is thus a great reminder that new illustrations of the interplays between Regulation and Politics can always be found.
