Search results (1064 cards)

Advanced search

The Internet has created an area of freedom, even libertarian space.

The flood of words is sometimes hateful. Never mind. This would be the price of freedom: it corresponds to the project of those who conceived the Internet, the places of expression and creation, even the worst, and the political and legal culture of the United States, a system in which the freedom of expression has constitutional value.

This in particular allows for the development of ideas spreading so-called "neo-Nazi" thinking, as the Stormfront site has been doing for years.

On August 25, 2017, the private company, Network Solutions that hosts the site and provides it with the domain name terminated hosting and deleted the domain name.

The host also banned the web master from rebuilding the site or transferring it in any way.

This case gives rise to a debate on the rise of extremists in the United States on the one hand and the limit of freedom of expression on the other.

What is here to be noted is the power of a web host in the matter.

___

The manager who made the decision found it necessary to justify himself, as a Regulatory Authority would have done, giving grounds for a sanction decision, even though he can avail himself of the general conditions of use that are accepted by the entities that create and operate the sites.

Read more below.

L'ampleur du contrôle juridictionnel sur le régulateur

Les fondements du droit communautaire de la concurrence : la théorie de la concurrence-moyen

Le juge en complémentarité du régulateur.

This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Pascale Idoux, Antoine Oumedjkane and Adrien Tehrani. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique de l'Université de Montpellier (Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes Administratives de Montpellier and Centre du Droit de l'Entreprise).

📅 This manifestation is part of the cycle of colloquia organized in 2021 around the general topic of Compliance Monumental Goals. 

 

 

 

The interventions will give rise to the production of articles which will be part of

 📕  Les bus monumentaux de la Compliance,    to be published in the Series Regulations & Compliance , co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

📘Compliance Monumental Goals,    dans la Série Compliance & Regulation , co-published by par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

 

This manifestation took place on Zoom on 17th of May 2021. 

Registrations: anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr 

Assistance to this event may be validated as part of the continuing education of lawyers.

In addition, scientific videos will be extracted and disseminated later.

 

Presentation of the topic: In the overall problematic of "Monumental goals", this conference retains a particular case: that of the crisis and the emergency situation that it generates.

First of all, in general, does the importance of public norms in the emergency context engendered by a crisis situation imply a marginalization of Compliance? Don't private actors also have their place in these circumstances, at the service of the "monumental goals" that the public authorities want to maintain, or even which appear specifically?

Secondly, more concretely, we have been living for many months in a health crisis. By taking it as a framework and, within it from particular cases, how public and private actors react, act, adjust? and how do the courts assess these movements?

Going from the most general to the most specific, this conference aims to identify criteria, limits, of what could be specific rules when the emergency of a crisis meets Compliance, and will examine specific situations.

 

Working method: The conference is therefore built on a general issue, which was the subject of a "working paper", written by Antoine Oumedjkane, Adrien Tehrani and Pascale Idoux, on which the speakers will have thought in advance and from which they are intended to study the question from their particular perspective.

The conference, which is essentially interactive, therefore begins with an outline of the main lines of this general work. It is followed by the examination of concrete practical cases.

They are as follows:

1️⃣ hydro-alcoholic gel, its manufacture, price, availability,

2️⃣ information and regulation on all media in Covid period

3️⃣ the use of the bicycle during the state of health emergency

A first conclusion, thematically limited, will relate to Revealed by the crisis situation, the place of private initiative in Compliance Law.

A second, more general, undoubtedly open-ended conclusion is drawn from this confrontation between general reflection and concrete cases which must be resolved in a particular crisis.

 

speakers: 

🎤 Jean-Bernard Auby, Emeritus Professor of Sciences po (Paris)

🎤 Julien Bonnet, Professor at Montpellier University and member of the CERCOP

🎤 Guylain Clamour, Dean of Montpellier Law School

🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, agrégée des Facultés de droit, Professor of Regulation and Compliance Law at Sciences Po (Paris) and Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎤 Pascale Idoux, Professor at Montpellier University 

🎤 Pascale Léglise, adjointe au directeur des libertés publiques et des affaires juridiques (Deputy Director of Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs) of the Ministère de l'intérieur (Home Ministry)

🎤 Michèle Léridon, Member of the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (French Media Regulator), President of the working group Pluralisme, déontologie, supervision des plateformes en ligne (Pluralism, Deontology, Supervision of Online Platforms)

🎤 Antoine Oumedjkane, Researcher of the Centre de recherche et d'études administratives (Research and Administrative Studies Center) of Montpellier University

🎤 Nelly Sudres, Maître de conférences at Montpellier University and member of the Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes Administratives (Research and Administrative Studies Center) of Montpellier University

🎤 Adrien Tehrani, Professor at Montpellier University and member of the Centre du Droit de l'Entreprise (Company Law Center)

🎤Xavier Vallad, Group Legal Director, Intermarché

 

⤵️Read a more detailed presentation of the manifestation below:

Le juge administratif et le droit européen

Les frontières entre régulation sectorielle et politique de concurrence

113 rue de Grenelle 75007 PARIS FRANCE Tél. : +33 (0)1 42 75 53 00 Fax : +33 (0)1 42 75 51 27 - RER C : stations « Musée d’Orsay » or « Invalides » - Subway : n° 8 - station « Invalides », or n° 12 - station « Solférino , or n° 13 - stations « Varenne » ou « Invalides » - Bus : n° 63 : station « Solférino - Bellechasse » or n° 69 : station «Bourgogne »

Les nouveaux acteurs de la régulation : démembrement ou renouvellement de l'état ?

Constitutional Law will have an increasingly important role to play in regulatory Law. This is especially true since the State Council uses its power to filter itself become a sort of Constitutional Court or maybe a Supreme Court.

One can think so reading the UBS decision on the 5th of November 2014.

Indeed, to refuse to transmit to the Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council)  the priority question of constitutionality formulated by UBS, the French Council of State gives what it believes to be the correct interpretation of the constitutional principle of legality of offenses and penalties in banking regulatory Law.

So to say there is no "question", the Conseil d'État says there is no "problem" because, through the interpretation it gives, the provisions of the Code Monétaire et Financier offers to the Supervisory Authority, the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR), the power to sanction the bank for having not properly implemented its internal control, comply with the constitutional principle of legality of offenses and penalties, which is applicable in administrative repression.

But because to estimate that there is no "question", it must be said that there is no "problem", it is assumed that the High Administrative Court has acted as Constitutional Court.

We must take note. Is this really what the Constituent wanted by instituting a filter system by the constitutional law of the 23rd July 2008 establishing the priority question on constitutionality? Indeed, in this very sensitive and decisive question of repression in banking and finance, is it not at least to the French Constitutional Council itself to say the authoritative interpretation to remember that the constitutional text it is the guardian?