Search results (723 cards)

Advanced search

On the one hand, economic structures, i.e., the centers of economic power, are relevant data for the functioning of the economy, since, especially in the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, they account for important characteristics in the underdevelopment process. On the other hand, as we have observed, these structures are the only ones from which any kind of presumption can be made about the probable behavior of economic agents. What has yet to be defined is the kind of instruments that can be used to define the orientation and behavior of these structures. Economic instruments are worth little as they do not supply concrete economic results that are susceptible to empirical verification. Standing in the way of the use of legal instruments, however, is the apparent difficulty in applying social policy to the economic sphere. For many years, decisions that have affected the economic order have been left primarily to economic theories to which the discussion of values is unfamiliar. It is time therefore, for a legal theory of economic behavior, based on legal procedural values and on the restriction of economic power structures.

ENGLISH

Qualification is the key operation in Law.

For example, if one says what a bitcoin is, then one assigns to it the regime which corresponds to this "nature" that one has thus said;

One could say that the "token" that it constitutes corresponds to nothing of what it existed before. In this case, their creation, storage, management, sale, loan, purchase does not correspond to any particular category that pre-existed. They therefore come under what is called "the category unnamed".

It is then in a liberal system the vacuum of liberty that applies to it. In a system of liberty, it is contractual freedom, freedom which attaches to the property right, the articulation between the contract and the property being sufficient. Technology can establish such a qualification, because the risk inherent in a system of freedom is also borne by the blockchain mechanism. Indeed, by the spread of risk on the one hand, and the safety of machines on the other, there would be no need to worry, and the principle of freedom could give credence to the idea that the "token" would be a sui generis category.

But central banks and financial regulators are probably not convinced and prefer to qualify by bringing the "token" to a pre-existing category, which automatically triggers the legal regime. It is well known that the art of qualification consists in choosing from among the attainable qualifications the one which will allow the application of the regime which is the most adequate to satisfy the aim which one wishes to attain. In terms of regulation, governed entirely by goals, qualification is therefore primarily a matter of strategy.

Now, to affirm that the bitcoin is a sui generis object amounts to not regulating its emission, usages and intermediations, not to control those who make use of it. It amounts to taking away the merits of self-regulation.

This was excluded.

First of all by the Central Banks. Bitcoins and other tokens, based on the mechanical security of the blockchain, can be described as "money" when it is a matter of their acquisition to allow people to  access other goods. The central bankers retained the qualification of "currency", which does not prohibit their issuance but which justifies the application of banking Regulation.

Then by the Financial Regulators. Indeed, the same tokens of securities and financial instruments can be described when they are issued by persons who issue them to raise funds, buyers bringing money not to acquire other things but in consideration of  the future value of the undertaking which issued them. On July 25, 2017, the SEC therefore classified them as securities and applied all of the financial law in order to protect these investments and the capital markets.

Once again, we measure that the norm of the Regulation resides in these aims and that on the other hand its main tool is in the qualification of the various activities which are "new" only if the Regulator wants it

Guidelines are already emerging to what extents the financial supports provide by Member States to broadband networks are compatible with the principle of prohibition of State aid. The open public consultation launched the 1st June until September 3, is part of the more general approach of the Commission to change its guidelines for State aid and in the "digital strategy" of the European Union. It asked to those who respond to the consultation to have the concern to conceive aids to remedy market failures, to encourage investment and to introduce new players. By these signs, we measure it is a regulatory approach.

 

Translated summaries

The translated summaries are done by the Editors and not by the Authors.

ENGLISH

The Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — French telecommunications and postal regulator) issued an injunction on November 4, 2010, ordering Numéricâble to sign a contract with France Telecom according to the latter’s new framework for accessing its telecommunications infrastructure for the installation of fiber optics. Failure to have complied within the imparted timeframe caused Numéricâble to be fined 5 million Euros by the ARCEP on December 20, 2011.

FRENCH

L’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et de la poste (ARCEP) avait, par une décision du 4 novembre 2010, fait injonction à Numéricâble de contracter avec France Telecom selon la nouvelle offre de celui-ci pour l’accès à l’infrastructure de génie civil pour la fibre optique. Faute de l’avoir fait dans les délais, Numéricâble est condamné par une décision de l’ARCEP du 20 décembre 2011 à une amende de 5 millions d’euros.

SPANISH

La Autorité de régulation des Communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP – el regulador francés de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) emitió una mandamiento el 4 de noviembre del 2010, ordenando Numéricâble que firmara el contrato con France Telecom de acuerdo con el nuevo marco desarrollado por el último para acceder a la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones para la instalación de fibras ópticas. La inhabilidad de cumplir con este mandamiento en el tiempo definido resultó en una multa de 5 millones de Euros para Numéricâble de parte de la ARCEP el 20 de diciembre del 2011.

ITALIAN

Il 4 novembre 2010, la Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — l’Autorità francese di regolazione in materia di telecomunicazione e servizi postali) ha emesso un’ingiunzione, ordinando a Numéricâble di sottoscrivere un contratto con France Telecom secondo l’offerta di quest’ultima per l’accesso alle infrastrutture per l’installazione della fibra ottica. Il 20 dicembre 2011, a ragione del mancato rispetto di tale ordine, Numéricâble è stata multata per 5 milioni di euro dall’ARCEP.

ARABIC

الّسُّلطة التنظيمية للاتصالات الإلكترونية و الخِدمة البريدية(*) في قرار 4 نوفمبر 2010, دعت علا شركة نُمريك كابل(مشغل فِرنسٍي خاص) بالاتصال بالمؤسسة الفرنسية للاتصالات(فرانس تيلكوم)* وفق الطَّرح الجديد للوصول الا الهياكل الاساسية للهندسة المدنية للألياف البصرية. هذه لم تقوم بنفذ هذا القرار في الوقت المُحدَّد لذا حكمت علا نمريك كابل في قرار 20 ديسمبر 2011 بِدفع غرامة قدرها خمسة مليون يُورو. 

*(ARCEP) السلطة التنظيمية الاتصالات الالكترونية والخدمة البريدية:
*Numéricâble : نمريك كابل
*France Telecom : فرانس تيلكوم

....................

Other translations forthcoming.

The implementation of a joint consumer information service on Insurance, Banking, and Insurance within the ‘Autorité de Contrôle prudential – ACP’ (French Prudential Control Authority), raises questions as to the way in which the service will be coordinated with the ACP’s other activities. The signature of the agreement creating the new joint service was the occasion for Christian Noyer, Governor of the Banque de France (Central Bank of France) and President of the ACP, to clarify that this joint service, whose principal goal is consumer protection, complements the ACP’s other missions.

This colloquium co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) inaugurates the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. It is placed under the scientific direction of Christophe André, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Marie Malaurie and Benoît Petit. 

___

The works of this colloquium will be integrated into a chapter in the two following books : 

 📕 Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance,  forthcoming in the Serie Regulations & Compliance , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

📘Compliance Monumental Goals,  forthcoming in the Serie Compliance & Regulation , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

___

This colloquium will take place on September 16, 2021 at the Maison du Barreau. The manifestation will be opened to public onsite.

It is supported by Paris Place du Droit. 

 

The manifestation is opened to public on site and is available online. 

💼 to registration for the manifestation on site: christopheonline@orange.fr 

💻 to registration for the manifestation online: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/8516215084724/WN_zLcUM4gPTNChaaB5SyxOYQ

____

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)
• Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris)
• Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
• Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University)
• Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
• Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
• Dominique de La Garanderie, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 
• Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris - Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University)
• Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa)
• Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority)
• Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University)
• Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
• Benoît Petit, maître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University) 
• Jean-François Vaquieri, Secrétaire Général d'Enedis (Secretary General of Enedis)

____

Read a detailed presentation below:

 

The implementation of a joint consumer information service on Insurance, Banking, and Insurance within the ‘Autorité de Contrôle prudential – ACP’ (French Prudential Control Authority), raises questions as to the way in which the service will be coordinated with the ACP’s other activities. The signature of the agreement creating the new joint service was the occasion for Christian Noyer, Governor of the Banque de France (Central Bank of France) and President of the ACP, to clarify that this joint service, whose principal goal is consumer protection, complements the ACP’s other missions.