The Ministerial Order of 19 January 2010 introduces a new approach to risk management within banks and investment firms : a transversal approach to risk, that is expressed through the creation of ‘risk departments’ (filière risques) within banks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision approved a package of new proposals to strengthen global capital and liquidity regulations for consultation, as part of its comprehensive response to the international financial crisis.
The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").
The press release is entitled "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions").
____
Isn't this surprising?
One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country.
Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?
Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?
First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.
As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body.
Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever.
One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply?
How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge?
The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).
However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release:
It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things.
Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.
Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!
The Autorité de la régulation des communications électroniques et des postes - ARCEP (French Telecommunications and Posts Regulator) organized the Colloquium on "la neutralité des réseaux" The Network Neutrality), which took place on April 13, 2010. Each actor uses the generality of the term ‘neutrality’ in an interpretation that best suits his opinions. However, neutrality means that there should be no discrimination between Internet users; however, it does not mean that they have the right to everything for free: because there has to be some sort of traffic and bandwidth management, consumer and copyright protection, it is necessary to strike a balance between these contradictory rights in order to allow the network to develop. Therefore, a regulator is necessary. The future development of the Internet depends upon it. For the moment, nobody knows who these legitimate regulators are, and how they would be able to regulate these competing forces, organize information transparency, and encourage long-term investment, while preserving competition at the same time.
On December 10, 2010, the Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE – French Commission for Energy Regulation) and the Autorité des marches financiers (French Securities Regulator – the AMF) entered into a memorandum of understanding (the MoU). Cooperation between these two sector based regulators is, for the most part, set against the background of, and aims at, a better (or, rather, burgeoning) regulation of the market for CO2 emission allowances and is grounded in the following principles:
- both regulators undertake to transmit information necessary to fulfilling each other’s respective expanded legal mandate, i.e.:
o protecting investments made in CO2 emission allowances (e.g. by detecting and punishing market abuses, i.e. insider trading, market manipulations, dissemination of false information) for the AMF and;
o overseeing transactions made by market participants on the spot and derivatives markets for CO2 emission allowances to make sure that such transactions are in line with transactions made on the markets for electricity and natural gas for the CRE;
- such mutual information is to notably take the form of regular bilateral meetings at various levels and mutual information may now cover data that the AMF had to keep confidential due to strict legal privilege restrictions applicable to its officers.
Provisions of the financial reform bill (Dodd Bill) currently being examined by the United States Congress would empower the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to implement limits on speculation on energy futures and derivatives, as well as to impose a much stricter declaratory and supervision regime for over-the-counter trades in futures and derivatives in general.
FRENCH
Fiche thématique (Energie, Finance) : Une disposition du projet de loi sur la réforme financière (Dodd Bill) qui est en train d’être examiné par le Congrès des Etats-Unis donnerait de façon explicite le pouvoir au {Commodities Futures Trading Commission} (CFTC — autorité de tutelle américaine des bourses de commerce) d’imposer des limites sur la spéculation sur les options énergétiques.
Des dispositions du projet de loi sur la réforme financière (Dodd Bill) qui est en train d’être examine par le Congrès américain donnerait au {Commodities Futures Trading Commission} le pouvoir d’imposer des limites sur la spéculation sur les options et dérivés énergétiques, ainsi que d’imposer un régime de déclaration et de surveillance beaucoup plus exigeant sur les échanges de gré-à-gré de tous les contrats d’options et dérivés.
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Energie, Finanz): Der Gesetzvorschlag bezüglich auf die Finanzreform (Dodd Bill), der gerade vor dem Congress steht, enthält eine Verfügung, die die Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC - die amerikanische Aufischtsbehörde für Futures- und Optionsmärkte) mit der Fähigkeit bevollmächtigen würde, die Spekulation auf energetischen Futures zu beschränken.
Im Gesetzvorschlag über die Finanzreform (Dodd Bill), der gerade vom Congress steht, würde der Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC - die amerikanische Aufsichtsbehörde für Futures- und Optionsmärkte) dazu ermächtigen, die Spekulation auf energetischen Futures und Derivaten einzuschränken, sowie eine strengere Erklärung- und Aufsichtsregulierung für das Schaltergeschäft von Futures und Derivaten durchzuführen.
GREEK
Θεματική Έκθεση (Ενέργεια, Χρηματοδότηση): Διατάξεις του σχεδίου νόμου για την οικονομική μεταρρύθμιση (Dodd Bill), το οποίο εξετάζεται αυτή τη στιγμή από το Κογκρέσο των ΗΠΑ, θα ενίσχυαν την Επιτροπή Προθεσμιακών Συναλλαγών σε Εμπορεύματα (CFTC) ως προς την επιβολή ορίων στην κερδοσκοπία όσον αφορά στις θέσεις των προθεσμιακών προϊόντων ενέργειας
Διατάξεις του σχεδίου νόμου για την οικονομική μεταρρύθμιση (Dodd Bill), τοοποίο εξετάζεται αυτή τη στιγμή από το Κογκρέσο των ΗΠΑ θα ενδυνάμωναν την Επιτροπή Προθεσμιακών Συναλλαγών σε Εμπορεύματα ως προς την επιβολή ορίων όσον αφορά στην κερδοσκοπία για την προθεσμιακή αγορά προϊόντων ενέργειας στις θέσεις των προθεσμιακών πράξεων ενέργειας και παραγώγων. Επίσης, θα επέβαλλε ένα πολύ αυστηρότερο καθεστώς αναγνώρισης και εποπτείας για εξωχρηματιστηριακές συναλλαγές προθεσμιακών πράξεων και παραγώγων γενικότερα.
POLISH
Tematyczny Raport (Energia, Finanse): Projekt ustawy o reformie finansowej (Dodd Bill), obecnie badany przez amerykański Kongres, dałby wyraźną władzę Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – amerykańska komisjanadzorcza giełd handlowych) do stosowania ograniczeń dotyczących spekulacji opcjami energetycznymi.
Projekt ustawy o reformie finansowej aktualnie badany przez amerykański Kongres dałby Commodities Futures Trading Commission wyraźną władzę nakazującą stosowanie ograniczeń dotyczących spekulacji opcjami i ubocznymi produktami energetycznymi,jak również dałby władzę narzucającą bardziej zaostrzony system deklarowania i nadzoru nad wolną wymianą opcji i produktów ubocznych.
SPANISH
Una disposición del proyecto de ley (Dodd Bill), actualmente siendo examinado por el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, empoderaría la Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – la Comisión americana de tutelaje de las bolsas de comercio) de imponer límites futuros sobre especulación sobre los futuros de energía
Dispocisiones de la reforma financiera (Dodd Bill), que está siendo examinada por el Congreso americano, empoderaría la Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – la Comisión americana de tutelaje de las bolsas de comercio) de imponer límites sobre la especulación de opciones y derivados de energía y de imponer un régimen declarativo y de supervisión mucho más estrictos para el comercio extrabursátil en futuros y derivados en general.
But, and the Compliance Mechanism has often been brought closer to the contractual mechanism, this is only relevant if both parties are willing to do so. This is technically true, for example for the Deferred Prosecution, which requires explicit consent. This is true in a more general sense that the company wants to choose itself how to structure its organization to achieve the goals politically pursued by the State. Conversely, the compliance mechanisms work if the State is willing to admit the economic logic of the global private players and / or, if there are possible breaches, not to pursue its investigations and close the file it has opened, at a price more or less high.
But just say No.
As in contractual matters, the first freedom is negative and depends on the ability to say No.
The State can do it. But the company can do it too.
The company sets out in a warning to the market that it is the object of a requirement on the part of the German Motor Authority (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt) of an allegation of fraud, by the installation of a software, aimed at misleading instruments for measuring emissions of greenhouse gases on cars using diesel.
It is therefore an environmental compliance mechanism that would have been intentionally countered.
On this allegation, the Regulator both warns the company of what it considers to be a fact, ie compliance fraud, and attaches it to an immediate measure, namely the removal of the circulation of 42,000 vehicles sold or proposed by Daimler with such a device.
And the firm answers : "No".
_____
Which is probably only beginning, since a No ends the dialogue of Ex Ante to project in the Ex Post sanction procedures, calls 6 observations:
1. No doubt Daimler, a German car manufacturing company, has it in mind in this allegation of fraud calculating pollution of its diesel cars what happened to his competitor Volkswagen: namely a multi-billion dollar fine, for lack of compliance in a similar hypothesis (so-called dieselgate). The strategic choice that is then made depends on education through the experience of the company, which benefits as such from a previous case that has had a very significant cost. Thus educated, the question is to measure the risk taken to refuse any cooperation, when the company can anticipate that it will still result in such an amount ....
2. In addition, we find the difficulty of the distinction of Ex Ante and Ex Post. Indeed, saying No will involve for the company a cost of confrontation with the Regulator, then the peripheral jurisdictions or review courts. But in Germany, the Government itself, concerning a bank threatened with compliance proceedings and almost summoned by the US regulator to pay "of its own free will" a transactional fine, felt that this was not normal, because it must be the judges who punish, after a contradictory procedure with due process and after established facts.
3. However, this is only an allegation, of probable assertions, of what legally allows to continue, but which does not allow to condemn. The confusion between the burden of proof, which presupposes the obligation to prove the facts before being able to sanction, and the burden of the allegation, which only supposes to articulate plausibility before being able to prosecute, is very damaging, particularly if we are committed to the principles of Repressive Law, such as the presumption of innocence and the due process. This distinction between these two probationary charges is at the heart of the probatory system in the Compliance Law. Because Compliance Law always looks for more efficiency, tends to go from the first to the second, to give the Regulator more power, since businesses are so powerful ....
4. But the first question then arises: what is the nature no so much of the future measure to be feared, namely a sanction that could be taken later, against Daimler, if the breach is proven, or which will not be applied to the firm if the breach is not established; but what is the nature of the measure immediately taken, namely the return of 42,000 vehicles?
This may seem like an Ex Ante measurement. Indeed, the Compliance assumes non-polluting cars. The Regulator may have indications that these cars are polluting and that the manufacturer has not made the necessary arrangements for them to be less polluting (Compliance) or even organized so that this failure is not detected ( Compliance fraud).
This allegation suggests that there is a risk that thiese cars will polluting. They must immediately be removed from circulation for the quality of the environment. Here and now. The question of sanctions will arise after that, having its procedural apparatus of guarantees for the company that will be pursued. But see the situation on the side of the company: having to withdraw 42,000 vehicles from the market is a great damage and what is often called in Repressive Law a "security measure" taken while the evidence is not yet met could deserve a requalification in sanction. Jurisprudence is both abundant and nuanced on this issue of qualification.
5. So to withdraw these cars, it is for the company to admit that it is guilty, to increase itself the punishment. And if at this game, taken from the "cost-benefit", as much for the company immediately assert to the market that this requirement of Regulation is unfounded in Law, that the alleged facts are not exacts, and that all this the judges will decide. It is sure at all whether these statements by the company are true or false, but before a Tribunal no one thinks they are true prima facie, they are only allegations.
And before a Court, a Regulator appears to have to bear a burden of proof in so far as he has to defend the order he has issued, to prove the breach which he asserts exists, which justifies the exercise he made of his powers. The fact that he exercises his power for the general interest and impartially does not diminish this burden of proof.
6. By saying "No", Daimler wants to recover this classic Law, often set aside by Compliance Law, classic Law based on burden of proof, means of proof, and prohibition of punitive measures - except imminent and future imminente and very serious damages - before 'behavior could be sanctioned following a sanction procedure.
Admittedly, one would be tempted to make an analogy with the current situation of Boeing whose aircraft are grounded by the Regulator in that he considers that they do not meet the conditions of safety, which the aircraft manufacturer denies , Ex Ante measurement that resembles the retraction measure of the market that constitutes the recall request of cars here operated.
But the analogy does not work on two points. Firstly, flight activity is a regulated activity that can only be exercised with the Ex Ante authorization of several Regulators, which is not the case for offering to sell cars or to drive with. This is where Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, which often come together, here stand out.Secundly, the very possibility that planes of which it is not excluded that they are not sure is enough, as a precaution, to prohibit their shift. Here (about the cars and the measure of the pollution by them), it is not the safety of the person that is at stake, and probably not even the overall goal of the environment, but the fraud with respect to the obligation to obey Compliance. Why force the withdrawal of 42,000 vehicles? If not to punish? In an exemplary way, to remind in advance and all that it costs not to obey the Compliance? And there, the company says: "I want a judge".
The {Conseil Constitutionnel} (French Constitutional Council) approves the principle of a carbon tax scheme, but obliges the Government to review its scope.
Two and a half years after having been established by the LME, the French Competition Authority has uncontestably acquired its “place in the sun” amongst the competition authorities of other countries, as demonstrated by multiple indicators.
ITALIAN
Articolo: L’Autorità garante della concorrenza tra “regolazione” e politica in materia di concorrenza
Due anni e mezzo dopo l’instaurazione da parte del LME, l’Autorità francese garante della libera concorrenza ha trovato il suo posto tra le diverse autorità degli altri paesi, così come è stato dimostrato da diversi indicatori.
SPANISH
Artículo: La Autoridad de la competencia, entre “regulación” y política competitiva.
Después de dos años y medio de haber sido establecido por el LME, la Autoridad francesa de la competencia ha incontestablemente adquirido su “lugar bajo el sol” entre las autoridades de la competencia de otros países, como demostrado por varios indicadores.
