Tutorial lecturer in Regulatory Law at the CESL (China-EU School of Law – Beijing, China).
English Teacher for Chinese grade school students, Xian, China.
Professor Salomão Filho served as a visiting fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Law in Hamburg (1993) and at Yale Law School through the John M. Olin Fellowship for Studies in Capitalism (1994-1995). He is Full Professor of Law at University of São Paulo Law School (2002) and visiting professor at the Institut d’Études Politiques, Paris. He is Vice President of the Market Arbitration Panel of the Brazilian Mercantile & Futures Exchange and São Paulo Stock Exchange (BM&FBovespa) and a member of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada.
This colloquium took place the 31st of March 2021.
The manifestation was live broadcasted on Zoom.
Presentation of the theme:
The arbitrator is the ordinary judge of international trade. It was natural that he or she encountered Compliance: by definition Compliance Law takes hold of the whole world and follows the paths of international trade while it can only be deployed with the help of institutions which, by nature are spreading around the world and need authorities like the Courts.
The conference is based on the already perceptible connection points between Compliance and Arbitration to better identify what is emerging for tomorrow: contradiction or convergence between the two; weakening or consolidation. We are already seeing the impact that Compliance can have on the arbitrator's treatment of corruption or the consideration of money laundering. More generally, where do we stand with the arbitrator's knowledge of the many technical issues related to compliance? Beyond these, will the courts and arbitrators be able to achieve the goals, themselves new, sometimes monumental, pursued by Compliance Law?
Through this joint exploration of these avenues, the fate of compliance clauses inserted in contracts, the relevance in the matter of private codes of conduct, etc. will be examined.
Tomorrow, as of today, is the arbitrator a full and complete judge of Compliance Law?
How, with what specificities and what controls?
Notably will speak:
Mathias Audit, professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Paris I (full professor at Sorbonne - University - Paris)
Cécile Chainais, director of the Centre de Recherche sur la Justice et le Règlement des Conflits (CRJ) and professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) (Full professor at Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) University)
Claire Debourg, professeure à l'Université Paris X- Nanterre (Full professor at Paris X - Nanterre)
Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences Po - Paris (Full Professor at Sciences Po - Paris)) and Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)
Catherine Kessedjian, professeur émérite de l'Université Panthéon-Assas (professor emeritus of Panthéon-Assas - Paris II University)
Like the previous cycles devoted to the general theme of Compliance and aiming to build a "Compliance Law", intended like them to be published in the Regulations & Compliance collection, this cycle addresses a particular aspect of this branch of Law in progress. to develop, which was applied even before it was conceived. The Compliance mechanisms having preceded the conceptualization of this way of doing things, the "Compliance Tools" having been the subject of the previous cycle of conferences, this new cycle addresses what characterizes Compliance : Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Monumental Goals of Compliance) .
The notion of "monumental goals" was proposed in 2016!footnote-139. It is central in the compliance mechanisms in that they can only claim to constrain and cost those in which they are inserted in that they tend to achieve goals whose substantial quality is to be "monumental" . This notion is not self-evident, having to be justified, detailed, put into perspective and concretely illustrated, a series of conferences organized by numerous universities is therefore devoted to it.
These various conferences will be held in several places, according to the part taken by the various university structures which bring their support to the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) for the realization of the cycle. This will result in two collective books, one in French: Les buts monumental de la Compliance, the other in English: Compliance Monumental Goals.
This cycle of colloquia Compliance Monumental Goals will take place between April 2021 and November 2021.
📅 Colloquium of May 17, 2021: Public norms and Compliance in time of crisis: monumental goals put to a test, co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Montpellier University Law School, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Pascale Idoux, Antoine Oumedjkane and Adrien Tehrani: more information about this manifestation here
📅 Colloquium of September 16, 2021, Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy of a Notion, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Saclay University, under the scientific direction of Christophe André, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Marie Malaurie and Benoît Petit : more information about this manifestation here
📅 Colloquium of October 14, 2021: Compliance and Proportionality, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the IDETCOM of Toulouse University, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Lucien Rapp: more information about this manifestation here
📅 Colloquium of November 4, 2021: Effectivity of Compliance and international competitiveness, co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Centre de recherches en Economie et Droit de l'Université Paris II, under the scientific direction of Laurent Benzoni, Bruno Deffains and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche: more information about this manifestation here
The technical modes of registration are specific to each colloquium.
It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Paris Center for Law and Economics of the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II).
This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Laurent Benzoni, Bruno Deffains and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.
📅 The colloquium will take place in the Salle du Conseil (Panthéon-Assas University) on Thursday, November 4, 2021 from 1.30pm until 6.30pm.
🎥 The colloquium will be edited on video by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance.
Presentation of the topic :
Speakers:
🎤 Laurent Benzoni, professor of Economics at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Tera Consultants
🎤Bruno Deffains, professor of Economics at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), director of the CRED
The different interventions will be then transformed into contributions in the books 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance and 📘Compliance Monumental Goals which will be published in the Regulation & Compliance serie, jointly published by the JoRC and Dalloz for the French edition and by JoRC and Bruylant for the book in English.
Read a detailed presentation of the colloquium below:
Supervision and regulation authorities' impartiality and independence are conditioned to the fact that their members do not have any conflict of interest with the sector that they supervise or regulate. Such an absence of conflict of interest is necessary to guarantee a climate of trust between the authority and operators. This supposes that regulation and supervision authority members do not cumulate functions of operator and of regulator/supervision during but also after their mandate in the regulation/supervision authority because the anticipation of a future hiring can influence present decisions.
On 2nd of August 2019, the executive director of the European Banking Authority (EBA) informed the authority of its willingness to become PDG of the Association des marchés financiers en Europe, lobby of the financial sector. EBA approved this perspective. However, "Change Finance", a civil coalition, sized the European Mediator explaining that such a professional reorientation created an inevitable conflict of interest. The European Mediator reacted on 7th of May 2020 through a recommendation saying that although EBA took preventive measures, theses measures are not sufficient with regard to the risks. In this recommendation, the European Mediator also made some general propositions to manage future conflicts of interest:
The interdiction for senior managers to have positions able to create a conflict of interest for two years.
The information of senior managers and candidates to senior managers positions of the actual rules.
The implementation of internal procedures blocking access to confidential information to the member who notified its willingness to occupy later a position able to constitute a conflict of interest with its current position.
In a letter of 28th of August 2020, the president of EBA told to the European Mediator that he accepts these remarks and propositions.
In this particular case, we can draw three lessons:
The difficult articulation between independence/impartiality (necessary for trust) and regulator/supervisor expertise. The European Mediator and the ABE are agree that the interdiction to get some positions must be limited in time.
The necessity that everyone can anticipate rules correctly.
On 18th of September 2020, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) published a report about the impact of Rule of Law on Economic Growth.
The EESC defines the Rule of Law as the obligation to "all public powers act within the constraints laid down by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts". According to the Committee, the Rule of Law thus defined is favorable and even necessary to a durable economic growth especially because instability of regulations, absence of guarantee of labor and property rights, discrimination or non-application of contracts poorly favors or are detrimental for investments and economic agents' productive activities. The EESC observes by the way that countries which respect the Rule of Law grow more rapidly than those which do not respect it. The Committee also insists on the destructive effect of corruption which destroys public services, public action, public institutions on the long run and confidence, increasing inequalities.
Although EESC approves the actions of European Commission to advance Rule of Law in the Union, it however invites the Commission to continue its efforts by giving a more important place to jurisdictions and by protecting better media freedom in a context of rising autocratic forces in Eastern Europe.
We can learn three lessons from this report:
The common interest of European Union States to guarantee the Rule of Law. Indeed, Rule of Law is not only written in article 2 of TFEU and has been consecrated by CJEU case law, it is also a condition of economic progress.
The fight against corruption must be the object of a redoubled effort. In this perspective, Compliance Law is able to offer appropriate innovating legal tools.
To a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law as a simple process of application of mechanical legal rules, it is necessary to substitute a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law based on the notion of "monumental goals" and people protection. In this perspective, these branches of Law would prove to be powerful tools in the service of the advancement of the rule of law in the European space.
It is believed that the lexical distinction between two words necessarily involves the allusion to two different things. In this view, economic regulation differs from financial regulation. Based on what financial regulation is, which is not reduced to an addition of rules and regulations but is a set of mechanisms, institutions, decisions, principles and rules revolving around risk, competition law could be used as a means for financial regulation, although it is usually solely applied to ordinary markets of goods and services. But a new ambiguity has surfaced between financial regulation and economic regulation. Therefore, a wall between economic regulation and financial regulation cannot be built on the single difference between the “economic sector” such as the market of goods and services, and the “financial sector”. A more sophisticated partition could take into account the notion of « individual risk ».
GERMAN
Der Unterschied zwischen wirtschaftliche und finanzielle Regulierung.
Normalerweise weist ein lexikalischer Unterschied zwischen zwei Wörter darauf hin, dass man von zwei verschiedene Sachen spricht. Also sind die wirtschaftliche und die finanzielle Regulierung unterschiedlich. Die finanzielle Regulierung ist nicht eine ledigliche Addition von Gesetzen und Anordnungen, sondern eine Zusammenstellung von Mechanismen, Institutionen, Entscheidungen, Prinzipien und regeln, die sich mit dem Thema Risiko beschäftigen. Anhand dieser Tatsache könnte das Wettbewerbsrecht, das normalerweise erst für gewöhnlichen Waren- und Dienstleistungenmärkte gebraucht ist, auch im finanziellen Bereich Anwendung finden. Jetzt aber hat sich eine neue Zweideutigkeit zwischen wirtschaftlicher und finanzieller Regulierung entwickelt. Infolgedessen kann eine Begrenzung zwischen beide Regulierungen nicht nur aufgrund den Unterschied zwischen dem wirtschaftlichen (wie z.B. der Güter- und Dienstleistungensmarkt) und dem finanziellen Sektor. Eine anspruchsvollere Unterscheidung könnte den Begriff "individuellen Risiko" integrieren.
SPANISH
La distinción entre la Regulación económica y la Regulación financiera.
Se cree que la distinción léxica entre dos palabras necesariamente involucra la alusión a dos cosas. Teniendo esto en cuenta, la regulación económica difiere de la regulación financiera. Basándonos en lo que es la regulación financiera, lo cual no se reduce a una simple adición de reglas y regulaciones pero por lo contrario está compuesta por una serie de mecanismos, instituciones, decisiones, principios y reglas que dependen del riesgo, se podría decir que la ley de la competencia puede ser utilizado para la regulación financiera, aunque normalmente solo se aplica a mercados ordinario de bienes y servicios. Pero una nueva ambigüedad se ha dado entre la regulación financiera y la regulación económica. Por lo tanto, es imposible construir una pared entre la regulación económica y la regulación financiera basado simplemente en la diferencia entre el ‘sector financiero’ como lo es el mercado de bienes y servicios y el sector financiero. Una partición más sofisticada podría tomar en cuenta la noción del “riesgo individual.”