In the United States, in its political program, the Republican Party has indicated that it considered inadequate the decision of the Department of Justice adopted in December 2011, according to that the prohibition of poker does not apply when this game was played on line. Indeed, the Republican Party said that this game can be pathological, because it can destroy the players and their families. As such, the distorted interpretation that the previous administration that made of the Wire Act should be canceled for that to be restored, according to it, the outright prohibition of online poker. This program must be compared, in contrast with the court decision, which comes instead to ask that poker can be freely organized, because it is not even a gambling game.
Like the previous cycles devoted to the general theme of Compliance and aiming to build a "Compliance Law", intended like them to be published in the Regulations & Compliance collection, this cycle addresses a particular aspect of this branch of Law in progress. to develop. "Compliance tools" having been the subject of the previous cycle of conferences and showing judges, lawyers, jurisdictions, this new cycle addresses a new phenomenon in Compliance: La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance (The jurisdictionalisation of Compliance).
There have always been judges and lawyers in Compliance Law, in particular because this is the extension of Regulatory Law in which they have a full place. This results from the fact that the decisions taken in respect of Compliance are contestable in court, those issued by the company, such as those of States or Authorities. The novelty lies more in the phenomenon of "legalization", that is to say that the jurisdictional model penetrates all Compliance Law, and not only the Ex Post part that this includes. Furthermore, it seems that this jurisdictionalization influences the non-legal dimension of Compliance. This movement has effects that must be measured and causes that must be understood. Advantages and disadvantages that must be balanced. If only to form an opinion on this "juridictionalization of Compliance".
📅 Inaugural colloquium: Compliance jurisdictionalisation: why? Who? How? Where? and Toward What?, organized by the JoRC under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche : read more information here
📅 Colloquium of March 31, 2021 : Arbitration and Compliance, co-organized by the JoRC and Paris II University, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine : read more information here
📅 Colloquium of June 23, 2021 : The firm instituted as Court by Compliance Law, co-organized by the JoRC and the équipe de recherche Louis Josserand of Lyon 3 University, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda : read more information here
📅 Colloquium of September 23, 2021 : Which judges for Compliance? , co-organized by the JoRC and the CR2D of Paris-Dauphine University, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Sophie Schiller : read more information here
📅 Colloquium of October 2021 : Compliance Law, crucible between American Procedure Law and Procedure Law, co-organized by the JoRC and the Brussels University, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Arnaud van Waeyenberge: read more information here
Technical registration modes are specific to each colloquium.
In Congo (Brazzaville), following the dissolution of the {Direction Générale de l’Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications} (DGACPT — General Direction of the Central Administration of Posts and Telecommunications), two bodies have been implemented: the “Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications” (General Direction of Posts and Telecommunications), and the “Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques” (ARPCE – Congolese Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Agency).
FRENCH
Loi n° 11-2009 du 25 novembre 2009 portant création de l’agence de régulation des postes et des communications électroniques (Arpce)
Au Congo, après la dissolution de la Direction Générale de l'Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT), deux organismes ont été mis en place : la Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications et l’« Agence de régulation des postes et des communications électroniques» (ARPCE), créé par la loi du 25 novembre 2009.
GERMAN
Kongolesisches Gesetz Nr. 11-2009 vom 25. November 2009 bezüglich auf der Durchführung der Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques (ARPCE, Post- und elektronische Kommunikationsregulierungsagentur).
Nach der Auflösung der Direction Générale de l'Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT - Hauptführung der Post- und Telekommunikationszentralverwaltung), wurden zwei Behörde eingefürht: die Direction Générale des Postes et Télécommunications (Hauptführung für Post- und Telekommunikationsdienst) und die Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques (ARPCE, Post- und elektronische Kommunikationsregulierungsagentur).
SPANISH
Ley n° 11-2009 del 25 de noviembre del 2009 sobre la creación de la “Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques” (ARPCE- una agencia de reglación de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones del Congo).
En Congo (Brazzaville), después de la disolución de la Direction Générale de l’Administration Centrale des Postes et Télécommunications (DGACPT —la Dirección General de la Administración Central de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones del Congo), dos cuerpos han sido introducidos : la “Dirección Générale des Postes et Télécommunications” (la Direccion General de Servicios Postales y Telecomunicaciones) y la “Agence de Régulation des Postes et des Communications Electroniques” (ARPCE– la agencia de regulación de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones del Congo).
The European Medicine Agency (Agence européenne du Médicament - EMA) launched on May 31, 2012 a database, available on an Internet site, indicating "suspicious side effects" of drugs allowed on European Union markets. The information comes both of the different authorities of national regulation of drugs and pharmaceutical companies who spontaneously reported these side effects.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On December 20, 2011, the European Commission adopted a decision based on the Almark ruling that expounds upon the four conditions necessary so that compensation paid by a State to any state-owned or private company entrusted with the operation of a public service not require prior notification of the European Commission, despite the general prohibition on State Aids. Each state has a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. A communication and de minimis regulation will complete this decision.
FRENCH
Par une décision du 20 décembre 2011, la Commission Européenne, s’appuyant sur l’arrêt Almark , développe les 4 conditions pour que les compensations versées par un Etat à une entreprise, qu’elle soit publique ou privée, pour qu’elle assure un service public, ne donne pourtant pas lieu à notification à la Commission européenne, malgré la prohibition des aides d’Etat. Les Etats sont légitimes à définir les activités qui relèvent de l’intérêt économique général. Une communication et un règlement de minimis complèteront cette décision.
SPANISH
El 20 de diciembre del 2010, la Comisión Europea adoptó una decisión basada en la decisión Almark que trata de las cuatro condiciones necesarias para que una compensación pagada por el Estado a cualquier empresa pública o privada no requiera de una notificación previa a la Comisión Europea, a pesar de la prohibición general sobre Asistencias Estatales. Cada estado tiene un gran margen de discreción en la definición de servicios que podrían ser clasificados como servicios de interés económico general. Una comunicación y regulación de minimis completará la decisión.
ITALIAN
Il 20 dicembre 2011, la Commissione europea, sulla base della decisione Almark, ha identificato le quattro condizioni in presenza delle quali gli aiuti dati dallo Stato ad un’azienda, pubblica o privata, per far assicurare un servizio pubblico, non sarà necessario fare una notifica alla Commissione, nonostante il divieto di procedere con degli aiuti di Stato. Ogni Stato avrà un ampio margine di manovra nella definizione dei servizi che possono essere qualificati come servizi di interesse generale. Una comunicazione ed un regolamento de minimis completeranno questa decisione.
ARABIC
في قرار مؤرّخ يوم 20 ديسمبر2011’ اللّجنة الأوروبية* تعتمد على قرار الحكم ألمارك* لوضع أربع شروط للتّعويضات التّي تدفعها الدّولة للشركة سواء كانت عامة أو خاصة’ لأنّه يوفّر خدمة عمومية’ ومع ذلك’ لا يؤدّي في الإخطار إلى اللّجنة الأوروبية على الرّغم من حظر المعاونة الدّولية. الدّول غير المشروعة يحدّدون الأنشطة الّتي تندرج في إطار الاقتصادية العامة. اتصال و تنظيم سوف يستكملني الحد الأدنى للقرار.
Procedure is that by which a body of law finds its unity: the right to an impartial tribunal, as stated in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, created a new unit in Regulation Law, as it also requires from Regulatory Authorities to "show" their impartiality whenever they act as courts.
Nevertheless, little by little, the national courts and the ECHR itself indicated the contours of this right, which cannot, admittedly, end up nullifying the effectiveness of the mission of Regulators.
It is assumed that whenever a Regulatory Authority intervenes whether in "civil matters", i.e., when it affects the civil rights or the property rights of a person, or in "criminal matters", i.e., when it sanctions a significantly serious behavior, the individuals that are exposed to the power of the Regulator are protected against it by the right to impartiality. Since the regulator has the power to judge, it also has to respond to the condition of impartiality.
As such, not only those within the Regulatory Authority involved should not be in conflict of interest or have already experienced the event (personal, subjective and/or objective impartiality), but the Authority in its organization and processes itself shall give to see its impartiality to the person who is threatened by its power- and, beyond, to the entire society. This objective structural impartiality is called after English law "apparent impartiality."
The Tribunal des Conflits ruled in a May 2, 2011 decision that administrative courts have jurisdiction over examining the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF—French Financial Markets Authority)’s liability when the facts involved are unrelated to an individual decision against a corporate plaintiff, but rather pertain to the conditions under which applications for the approval of documents relating to public issuance of shares are examined: the AMF is a legal person incorporated according to public law, and this is not a case in where jurisdiction had specifically been transferred to civil courts of law.
* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.
FRENCH
Le Tribunal des conflits pose, dans un arrêt du 2 mai 2011, que le juge administratif est compétent pour connaître de la responsabilité de l’Autorité des marchés financiers, lorsque les faits reprochés ne tiennent pas à une décision individuelle visant la société demanderesse, mais aux conditions d’instructions de demande de visa de documents d’appel public à l’épargne : l’AMF est une personne morale de droit public et nous ne sommes plus dans un cas précis de transfert de compétence au bénéfice du juge judiciaire.
SPANISH
Informe Temático (Finanza): La responsabilidad del Regulador Financiero debe ser examinada por una jurisdicción administrativa cuando los hechos involucrados no conciernen estrictamente una decisión individual, el único hipótesis cuando una jurisdicción civil es legalmente competente.
El Tribunal des Conflits decidió el 2 de mayo del 2011 que las cortes administrativas tienen jurisdicción sobre la revisión de la responsabilidad de la Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF – la Autoridad francesa de los mercados financieros) cuando los hechos a mano son independientes de una decisión individual contra un demandante corporativo, sino pertenecen a las condiciones bajo las cuales la solicitud para la aprobación de documentos relacionados de acuerdo con derecho público, y esto no es un caso donde la jurisdicción haya sido específicamente transferido a cortes civiles de justicia.
