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
The "Société de Législation comparée" (Society of Comparative Legislation) publishes the acts of a symposium.
The notion of "service of general economic interest" was developed by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, before the Treaty, including the Lisbon Treaty and its Protocol 26, give it its place.
Thus, member States, as demonstrated by the collective work, must take into consideration, this European doctrine, that balances competition and public service, and no longer develop national concept of utilities ignorant of legal developments in Law of the European Union.
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.
This article will be printed soon in a book ouvrage of collection "Droit et Economie" de LGDJ (Lextenso édition), CONCURRENCE, SANTE PUBLIQUE, INNOVATION ET MEDICAMENT
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces that it will reclassify broadband Internet service as a Telecommunications Service, in order to overcome the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on April 6, 2010, which found that the FCC’s approach to network neutrality lacked sufficient legal basis.
We hardly listen to to sermons. This is probably why Alain Supiot puts us on the table the text of Bossuet only occupying few pages, but since 1659 occupies the minds on "l'éminente dignité des pauves" (the eminent dignity of the poor). When Bossuet speaks of wealth and poverty, economists have interest in reading it. When Bossuet speaks of just order and "rightful place", lawyers must read it.
Alain Supiot comments it by writing to the following "Le renversement de l'ordre du monde" (The reversal of the order of the world).
Bossuet reminds that wealthy people think everything is owed to them while grace is given to the poor. Bossuet contends that rich people have interest to share with the poor, for thus it can alleviate the wealth that overwhelm them and they can enter the community (composed by the Church) in which poor people occupy the first place by natural order.
In his study, Alain Supiot looks back on the very definition of 'poverty', which accounts for the money the individual has. He takes up the theme of Bossuet to assert that, contrary to what the result of statistical methods (how much per person per day), the wealthy are "poor" since the market isolates them, spreading them of solidarity. Yet the natural order should lead them to share, by paying taxes, and other mechanisms through the welfare state. But he notes that the State departs increasingly this function, drawn in by this model only wealthy (the "rich-poor"), the only available model becoming what Alain Supiot calls "le marché total" (total market)!footnote-15.
We can no share this view of the world, for example if it is believed that the rich share (Social Responsibility Company theory), or if one believes that the state - sort of church - was often selfish, but already listen to the first advice: read Bossuet.
Reading the press, for example Les Echos January 16, 2015, we learn that Standard & Poor's will sign an agreement of $ 1 billion with the US administration to avoid a trial.
One can only be amazed or even upset.
First, the agreement is not yet concluded. It would be in a month or two. How is it that we already know? Secondly, contracts, because the transaction is a contract listed by the Civil Code, are not intended to be public. How is it that we already know everything? The person who gave the information "was keen to remain anonymous." It would have suspected ......
Third, it is true that the regulation of rating agencies is a big issue. Special texts have been taken but academics think the right tools stay missing and that is probably the liability, general legal instrument, which is the most appropriate.
But the responsibility of commitment requires a trial, evidence, respect for the rights of defense, due processs, legality of offenses and penalties.. Here, $ 1 billion is paid by the company only to avoid that opens a lawsuit against it. The allegation is the rating agency would have underestimated the subprime risk.
But on one hand everyone says that the rating agency has actually done the facts allegued since payroll so that the file doesn't open. On the other hand, and from the perspective of regulating the information that would be out of the trial, a trial being a form of crisis, will not come out.
So this sort of industry fof "Deals of Justice", apart from the fact that some describe the phenomenon as a "racket", isn't a "decriminalization" of regulation for a "civilized regulation" through the transaction contract. On the contrary, this movement that is spreading constitutes an increased repression whic diminishes rights of defense for the operator and information for the sector.
