Search results (620 cards)

Advanced search

Main information

After the publication of the 21 January 2010 Ordinance implementing the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel (ACP - Prudential Control Authority), two decrees published on 3 March 2010 complete this legislation and define the institutional and budgetary workings of the new Authority.

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.

Lucien Rapp is a lawyer, a Doctor of Law, a Tenured Professor of Administrative Law (...)

On May 28, 2010, the {Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes} (ARCEP — French postal and telecommunications regulatory authority) published a report it ordered from WIK Consult, which details the tangible and intangible benefits accruing to {La Poste} (The French postal service) as a result of its universal service obligation, which are to be included in calculating compensation provided to the universal service provider for its universal service obligations, in application of the European Union’s Third Postal Directive liberalizing the postal market in the European Union. This report is critical in tone, but {La Poste} takes issue with its methodology and conclusions.

The optic fiber is a very difficult issue for regulators: they want its deployment, for the good of consumers, but they are not willing to pay much more for this and the operators are not prepared to invest without profitability. Incentives are insufficient and uncertainties, major flaw of the regulation, are very large. This is why the European Commissioner in charge of digital, Mrs. Neelie Kroes, announced that on the one hand that the system would now stable for regulation of the optic fiber and that on the other hand there is no more tendency of the regulator to lower the price of access to cost method which discourage operators to invest.

Rating agencies are in the eye of the cyclone, due to the ambiguity of the situation: by their status, they are simple operators but by their role are almost regulators. Governing the markets, the banks can not for the moment dispense with them. However, the rating market is oligopolistic. On August 1, 2012, the association of German public banks complained that the prices practiced by rating agencies are monopoly pricing. What is remarkable is that this a complaint is made not to the European Competition Authority, the Commission, but to the European Banking Authority (EBA). Thus, regulation is a tool and a wider tool more than is the competition.

Ofcom Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA United Kingdom Phone call : +44(0)300 123 3333 or +44(0)20 7981 3040 Open Monday to Friday from 9.00am to 5.00pm.

The financial crisis and the banking technology shows that the "trading" is specific. This is why the Basel Committee estimates that it appropriate to regulate banks trading activity in a specific way. But it is difficult to characterize the activity of "trading" and actual banking activity itself. Trading is limited to negotiation; it justifies less equity as security, since it does not present credit risk. But this characterization even is questionable. This is why a consultation opened on May, 3 by the Basel Committee, and the qualification, and the classification of operations, and the measures of prevention of risks to be taken by specific prudential measures. Responses can be made until September 7, 2012.

David Sevy, is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique a Doctor of Economics, and a Professor of Economics at the Ecole Polytechnique, where he teaches industrial economics. (...)