Central banks have a decisive role on the markets and the question of their accountability is raised. This is particularly true concerning the powerful Fed which applies a genuine economic policy. For the moment, a kind of observatory made remarks to the benefit of the Congress on it. The House of Representatives voted on 8 August 2012 a text that increases the audit of this policy determined by the single Central Bank. If the Senate also voted this text, then comes a law so that the Central Bank, although independent will be more accountable . Thus the fundamental couple in regulation, namely "independence - accountability" will be more respected.
On November 16, 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India made public a 96-page report (n° 19 of November 2010) in which it revealed gross irregularities suggesting favoritism in procedures for licensing mobile telephone operators and attributing frequencies from the mobile telephone spectrum over a period stretching from April 2003 to October 2009, on behalf of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Following the revelation of this report, the Minister for Telecommunications, Andimuthu Raja, resigned from his post on the suggestion of the Prime Minister of India.
The French telecommunications and postal regulator (ARCEP – Autorité de regulation des communications électroniques et des postes) has prepared a project of pricing of mobile call termination, that is to say the amount that an operator must pay to reach another user. Thus, when a subscriber of Orange mobile calls a subscriber of Free mobile, Orange gives money to Free. Inversely, when a subscriber of Free mobile calls a user of Orange mobile, Free gives money to Orange. The regulator notes that Free mobile, new entrant, have less subscribers than the three operators, and will therefore receive less money than the others. It's the reason why, it justify to his advantage a temporarily higher pricing, the time it finds its place in the competitive market of mobile phone. On April 12, 2012, the European Commission publicly expressed that the principle of an asymmetric pricing policy is insufficient. The French telecommunications and postal regulator (ARCEP – Autorité de regulation des communications électroniques et des postes) has responded by standing that the principle of asymmetrical pricing was not sufficient and that justifications will be provided.
In a judgment taken on March 9th 2010, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice upheld the European Commission’s action against the Federal Republic of Germany, stating that by making the authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data outside the public sector in the different Länder subject to State oversight, Germany incorrectly transposed the requirement of "complete independence" of the supervisory authorities responsible for ensuring data protection, and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 "on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data".
FRENCH
Un jugement rendu par la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice le 9 mars 2010 insiste sur l'indépendance nécessaire des autorités en charge de la protection des données personnelles dans les Länder allemands au regard de l'application de la directive européenne 95/46/CE du 24 Octobre 1995 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (Directive "Données Personnelles").
Dans un jugement rendu le 9 mars 2010, la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice a jugé que les autorités de protection des données des Länder allemands qui contrôlent les fichiers du secteur privé n’agissaient pas en pleine indépendance, contrairement aux exigences de la Directive européenne de 1995 sur la protection des données.
GERMAN
Am 9. März 2010 verkündete der Europäische Gerichtshof sein Urteil in der Sache EG / Deutschland (C-518/07) betreffend der Verpflichtung des Mitgliedsstaats sicherzustellen, daß die nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden, die zur Überwachung der Datenverarbeitung verantwortlich sind, ihre Funktionen vollkommen unabhängig auszuüben.
Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat am 9. März 2010 sein Urteil verkündet in der Sache EG/Deutschland, in dem er betont, dass das deutsche Datenschutzsaufsichtssytem die Verpflichtung der Unabhängigkeit von Aufsichtsbehörden, die in den Rechtlinien 95/46 vorgeschrieben ist, unvollständig umgestetzt hat.
SPANISH
En una sentencia dictada por la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia el 9 de marzo del 2010 insiste en la independencia necesaria de las autoridades a cargo de la protección de la privacidad de data en German Länder, en cuanto a la aplicación de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos
En una sentencia del 9 de marzo del 2010 la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia confirmó que la acción que tomó la Comisión Europea contra la República Federal de Alemania, constatando que, al darle a las autoridades la responsabilidad de monitorear el procesamiento de data personal fuera del sector público en los diferentes Länder sujetos a la vigilancia estatal, Alemania transpuso incorrectamente el requisito de ‘independencia completa’ de las autoridades supervisoras responsables de asegurar la protección de data y por lo tanto, no cumplen con los requisitos detallados en el segundo subpárrafo del artículo 28(1) de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos
Little is known about how to ‘regulate the Internet’…
Outline solutions, however, do seem to have to be found in ex-post mechanisms since Regulation (broadly speaking) understand ex-ante and ex-post mechanisms as a continuum, and since Regulators increasingly concentrate ex-post mechanisms in their hands as an effective way to ensure execution of the ex-ante prescriptions they themselves elaborated.
Ex-ante mechanisms aim at making algorithms more ‘loyal’.
As long as we hope for devices to be trustworthy and to be held accountable for their ‘loyalty’, we give merits to the idea that we probably should “take liability seriously”.
The applicant based its claim to hold the companies liable on the grounds that they let terrorist groups use their networks: “The suit claims the companies “knowingly permitted” the Islamic State group, referred to in the complaint as “ISIS”, to recruit members, raise money and spread “extremist propaganda” via their social-media services”.
Conversely, the defendants unanimously claimed that they had actively implemented ‘policies’ against extremist material, and that they were working with law enforcement entities to improve regulations on the matter. Self-regulation and ethics versus common liability law.
The companies also pointed out the fact that they were not publishers, hence they could not face liability for the material users post on their networks. This is not, however, the issue at stake: the complaint concerns the use of the network not as a mere way to broadcast messages, but as a way to recruit murderers, provide them with convenient tools to communicate and to prepare criminal operations—allegations for which law does not exempt social media companies from liability.
These allegations are worth being ‘taken seriously’, should the law be unclear on whether the companies could be charged indeed, and should the total exemption from liability of such companies pleading for their ‘neutrality’ be the exception rather than the norm.
The question of principle is thus as follows: is exemption from liability of those who hold the ‘digital space’ together really the norm?
If so, their exemption from liability needs to be extended to a scenario that had not been covered by the law yet. If not, then common liability law is the rightful legal basis to assess whether the companies can be found liable or not—provided that a direct causal link between the unlawful act and an actual harm suffered by the applicant can be demonstrated.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on August 5, 2010, that it will cooperate more closely with the Department of Justice (DoJ) in merger reviews in the telecommunications sector. This measure is intended to foster reconciliation of potentially divergent goals for mergers set forth by both authorities.
GERMAN
Die Federal Communications Commission (FCC, die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde), wird im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) arbeiten.
Die FCC hat am 5. August 2010 bekannt gemacht, dass sie enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung in der Telekombranche. So wird die Annäherung von beide Behörde, die oft unterschiedliche Zielen bei Fusionen unterstützen, gefördert.
SPANISH
La American Federal Communications Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anuncia cooperación más cercana con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de justicia) en la revisión de fusiones.
La Federal Communicatins Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anunció el 5 de agosto 2010 que tomará pasos para aumentar su operatividad con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de Justicia) en la revisión de fusiones en el sector de telecomunicaciones. Esta medida sirve para fomentar la reconciliación entre objetivos potencialmente divergentes puesto en marcha por estas dos autoridades.
After a video recording of his first conference devoted to the relations between Regulation and Supreme Courts, The Journal of Regulation published a book on the future of the audit, based on another conference. This present document, written in French worked with KPMG, from conference co-hosted with this company and the "Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne", is devoted to the debates around banking regulation and its impacts. The challenge is to enable the persons concerned, that is to say to all citizens to express their opinion on an issue that concerns them directly, but whose technical dimensions, real or serviced, stand them aloof.
FRENCH
Après sa vidéo retraçant sa première conférence consacrée aux relations entre la régulation et les Cours suprêmes, le Journal of Regulation a publié un libre sur L’avenir de l’audit, consacré sur la conférence suite. La présente publication, écrite en française, élaborée avec KPMG, à partir de la conférence organise avec celle-ci et l’Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne, est consacrée aux Débats autour de la régulation bancaire et ses impacts. L’enjeu est de rendre les personnes concernées, c’est-à-dire tous les citoyens, aptes à exprimer leurs opinion sur un sujet qui les concerne tous directement mais dont la technicité, réelle ou entretenue, les tient à l’écart.
