Search results (723 cards)

Advanced search

Main information

The {Conseil Constitutionnel} (French Constitutional Council) approves the principle of a carbon tax scheme, but obliges the Government to review its scope.

 It is often observed, even theorized, even advised and touted, that Compliance is a mechanism by which public authorities internalize political (eg environmental) concerns in big companies, which accept them, in Ex Ante, because they are rather in agreement with these "monumental goals" (eg saving the planet) and that this shared virtue is beneficial to their reputation. It is observed that this could be the most successful way in new configurations, such as digital.

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.

And Daimler just said No.

___

 

Publicly, including through an article in the Wall Street Journal of June 28, 2019.

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 Directive innovates and improves the UCITS’ single market in three ways: first by recasting the 1985 Directive on UCITS in order to implement a simpler and harmonized regulatory framework (therefore improving UCITS’ marketing and investors’ protection) ; second, by providing for more cooperation between national and supranational regulators in order to secure and supervise UCITS’ single market ; third, by integrating the Directive into the Lamfalussy process as to ensure that its provisions be well-conceived, concurrently implemented by Member States and efficiently controlled by regulators.

ENGLISH

The Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation, et de la repression des fraudes (DGCCRF – The French Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs, and Repression of Fraud) organized a Competition Workshop on the theme “Transportation and Competition” that took place at the Ministry of Economics, Finance, and Industry, in Paris, on December 16, 2010. These workshops, which are half-day conferences on a given theme, have been organized by the DGCCRF multiple times a year on various themes since 1994. This event was chaired by Anne Wachsmann, a lawyer at Linklaters, and Christophe Lemaire, a teaching assistant at the Law School of the Sorbonne, and a lawyer at Ashurst.

 

FRENCH

Fiche bibliographique (transports) : La Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation, et de la répression des fraudes a organisé un Atelier de la Concurrence sur le thème "Transports et Concurrence"

La Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation, et de la répression des fraudes a organisé un Atelier de la Concurrence sur le thème "Transports et Concurrence" qui a eu lieu au Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie à Paris, le 16 décembre 2010. Ces ateliers, qui sont des colloques d'une demie-journée sur un thème donné, sont organisés par la DGCCRF plusieurs fois par an depuis 1994. Cet atelier a été présidé par Maître Anne Wachsmann, avocat chez Linklaters, Paris, et Maître Christophe Lemaire, maître de conférences à l'Ecole de  Droit de la Sorbonne et avocat chez Ashurst, Paris.

GERMAN

 

Die Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation, et de la repression des fraudes (DGCCRF – die französische Hauptleitung für Wettbewerb, Konsumierung und Betrugsahndung) hat ein Wettbewerbsarbeitstreffen um dem Thema « Verkehr und Wettbewerb » organisiert. Er fand statt im Gebäude des Minsisteriums für Wirtschaft, Finanz und Industrie in Paris am 16. Dezember 2010. Solche Arbeitstage, die eigentlich ein halbes Tag lang dauern, wurden seit 1994 bei der DGCCRF mehrmals im Jahr organisiert. Diese Konferenz wurde von Anne Wachsmann, Rechtsanwältin für Linklaters, und Christophe Lemaire, wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der Sorbonner Rechtsschule, und Rechstanwalt für Ashurst, geleitet. 

 

SPANISH

 

La Directiva general francesa para la competencia, asuntos del consumidor y la represión del fraude organiza un Taller de Competencia sobre el tema de “Transporte y Competencia.”

La Direction générale de la concurrance, de la consommation, et de la repression des fraudes (DGCCRF - Directiva general francesa para la competencia, asuntos del consumidor y la represión del fraude) organizó un  Taller de Competencia sobre “Transporte y Competencia” que se llevó a cabo en el Ministerio de Economía, Finanza e Industria en Paris el 16 de diciembre del 2010. Estos talleres, que son de una duración de medio día, han sido organizados por el DGCCRF en múltiples ocasiones a lo largo del año sobre varios temas desde 1994. Este evento fue dirigido por Anne Wachsmann, una abogada de Linklaters, Cristophe Lemaire, un profesor asistente en la Universidad Sorbonne, y un abogado proveniente de Ashurst.  

 

Other translations forthcoming.

http://www.fca.org.uk/
FCA Head Office
25 The North Colonnade, London E14 5HS, UK
Switchboard: 020 7066 1000

 

On 31 May, 2012 Mr Jörg Asmussen member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, said at a Conference behind closed doors in Frankfurt that the situation of Europe requires the establishment of an integrated supervisory banking in the euro area on the more systemic banks, which we can assess the number to 25. To do this, they should be supervised directly by a supranational regulatory authority and not by their national authority. Reuter was in favour of this statement. The European Central Bank spokesman confirmed the quote.

Translated summaries

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

ENGLISH

On November 28th, 2011, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) ruled that the ban on GMOs established by several ministerial decrees in December 2007 and February 2008 is not valid. The main reason for this decision is the lack of sufficient proof given by the French government that GMOs represent a high threat for public health or the environment. Yet, the French Ministers of Agriculture and Environment declared on January 13th, 2012, that the same probition will be adopted.

FRENCH

Le 28 novembre 2011, le Conseil d’Etat, a décidé que l’interdiction des OGM, établie par plusieurs décrets ministériels et adoptée en décembre 2007 et février 2008, était nulle. La principale raison de cette décision est le manque de preuves suffisantes apportées par le Gouvernement français en ce que les OGM représenteraient un grand danger pour la santé publique ou pour l’environnement. Pourtant, le ministère français de l’agriculture et de l’environnement a déclaré le 13 janvier 2011 que l’interdiction sera adoptée de nouveau.

ITALIAN

Il 28 novembre 2011, il Conseil d’Etat (il Consiglio di Stato francese) ha deciso che il divieto di OGM contenuto in diversi decreti ministeriali del Dicembre 2007 e Febbraio 2008 non è valido. La ragione principale di tale decisione è l’assenza di prove fornite dal Governo francese che gli OGM costituiscano un rischio importante per la salute pubblica o l’ambiente. Ciononostante, il 13 gennaio 2012, il Ministro francese dell’Ambiente e dell’Agricoltura, che lo stesso divieto sarà adottato

ARABIC

 28 نوفمبر 2011، قرر مجلس الدولة، أن الحظر المفروض على الكائنات المعدلة وراثيا*، التي وضعتها الوزارة في عدة مراسيم والتي اعتمدت في ديسمبر 2007 وفبراير 2008، كانت صفرا. السَّبب الرئيسي وراء هذا القرار هو عدم وجود ما يكفي من الأدلة التي أدخلتها الحكومة الفرنسية أن الكائنات المعدلة وراثيا* تشكل خطرا كبيرا على الصحة العامة أو البيئة. ومع ذلك، قالت وزارة الزراعة الفرنسية والبيئة 13 جافني 2011 أنه سيتم حظر يعاد تمثيلها..

...........

Other translations forthcoming.

Main information

Definitive ratification of the 'three-strikes' riposte system concerning illegal downloading as part of the Hadopi II Act

Translated summaries

ENGLISH

A "Chambre régionale de discipline des commissaires aux comptes" (Auditors’ regional chamber of discipline) had imposed a penalty on one of these professionals, who formed a retrial before this chamber. His action is dismissed for lack of text, that confirms the "Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes (French High Council of the Commissioner of Account). The "Conseil d’Etat" (French Council of State) invalidates the decision, demanding that retrial is open, even without special text, if the applicant claims that the decision was not adopted on the relevant documents.

 

FRENCH

Une chambre régionale de discipline des commissaires aux comptes avait infligé une sanction à un de ces professionnels, qui forme un recours en révision devant cette chambre. Le recours est rejeté faute de texte, ce que confirme le Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Compte. Le Conseil d’Etat invalide la décision, en posant qu’un recours en révision est ouvert, même sans texte spécial, si le requérant prétend que la décision n’a pas été adoptée sur des pièces pertinentes.