This shows that the document is primarily intended for investors and financial markets, the document being placed on the company website in the section for the "investors".
This illustrates the evolution from the traditional "contrats de plan" (plan contracts). But then, who are the parties to these types of contract?
Indeed, the very term "Regulatory contract" is new in public Law. It appears as a sort of modernization of "plan contract." The Conseil d'État (French State Council) finally admitted the contractual nature of these planning contracts. In these contracts, are parties were the State and the company in charge of a public service.
Because here the contract is an instrument of "economic regulation" the open public consultation draft rather expresses a global conception of ADP, the company which manages the Paris airports, for the future of the development of critical infrastructure that is the airport as the heart of global development of air transport.
The enterprise manager of the airport in the heart of the contract (rather than the State) in setting objectives for the coming four years is the letter and spirit of the French law of 20 April 2005 about Airports, which put the apparatus of this "Contrat de Régulation Economique" in place.
In this, the infrastructure manager is set by law as a "regulator of second degree", as can be a financial market enterprise. The company that manages and develops the Paris airports undoubtedly belongs to the category of " critical firms", as well it manages the future of the sector and helps to keep France a place in the world.
More, A.D.P. behaves like a Regulator, since it is carrying out the "public consultation", the consultation paper prepared by it, being placed on its site and developing its ambitions for the sector and for France. But A.D.P. also expressed as a financial and economic actor, emphasizing the competitive environment, demanding in passing more stability and clarity in the regulation in which it moves ...
That is why the consultation mechanism provided by the law must be more complex. Indeed, ADP can not be judge and jury. Therefore if the project raises observations, they must be formuled not to ADP but to the Ministries of Aviation and Economy, within a month. They shall communicate theiir content to ADP . Then the Commission consultative aéroportaire (French Airport Consultative Committee) will be consulted. At the end of this process, the "Contrat de Régulation Economique" will be signed.
Seing the end of the process, it remains in line with the plan contracts, since it remains the Economic Regulatory Contract is signed between the State and the essential infrastructure manager. But the consultation process shows firstly investors are the first recipients of the statements made by a privatized company presenting its draft primarily in terms of competitive context and international development and secondly the airlines that use daily services of the airports are also directly involved by theses questions of tarification.
Airlines protest against the increase in the money that will be asked. This will be imposed, since it is tarification and princing public policy. We are in unilateral rules. But it is indeed a "price" they feel to pay, they also heard a speech referring to competition in what the mechanism is presented as a "contract".
But then, does it take to admit that these "contracts for economic regulation" are not between two parties that are the state and the regulator of second degree that is the infrastructure manager but must be three, the State, the infrastructure manager and "stakeholders" that are mainly airlines?
This practical difficulty is much to the fact that the qualification of "contract" is difficult to justify in proceeding in which prevail unilateral mechanisms.
Référence complète : Boy, Laurence, L'ordre concurrentiel : essai de définition d'un concept, in Mélanges en l'honneur d'Antoine Pirovano L'ordre concurrentiel, Éditions Frison-Roche, 2003, p.23-56.
L'auteur définit l'ordre concurrentiel lorsque "la concurrence constitue par elle-même et pour elle-même une forme d'organisation. L'ordre est concurrentiel en ce qu'il implique une rationalité, un paradigme ... et une logique fondée sur les préceptes de la concurrence.".
Laurence Boy constate qu'il s'agit d'un "ordre invasif".
►Full Reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS) of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, La Vigilance, pointe avancée de l'Obligation de Compliance (Vigilance, advanced point of the Compliance Obligation), Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, December 5, 2023, 12 place du Panthéon, salle 6.
To register for a physical presence: anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr (as places are limited, you will be asked to confirm 48 hours in advance). To register for an online presence, via Zoom: Click HERE
🧮 The event will take place at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 12 place du Panthéon 75005, in Salle 6, on 5 December 2023.
____
► Présentation of the theme : The Vigilance Obligation is difficult to define because of the multiplicity of texts and cases in which it can be understood. This is particularly true of the Vigilance mechanism, which illustrates, and even emphasises, the Vigilance Obligation. Through international texts, French law and European texts that have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted, the constraints of vigilance, but also the structures and actions that companies have put in place and the actions that stakeholders have taken, Vigilance has highlighted aspects of the Compliance Obligation, and even modified it.
The revelatory effect thus produced and the movement thus unleashed, whose roots run deep and whose systemic effects are very significant, justify a greater focus on mechanisms that are interconnected, whereas they are sometimes perceived in silos, which makes it difficult to understand the whole picture. In the same way, because Vigilance is the advanced point of the Compliance Obligation, we can better distinguish and articulate what is sector-specific, in particular in banking and finance or in digital matters, and articulate them with what Vigilance has, like Compliance, of a more general nature. What's more, the intensity of Vigilance varies according to its ambitions and the position of the company subject to it, which is reflected in the variations in legal qualification, ranging from a duty to a criminally sanctioned obligation.
The different legal systems reflect these developments in their legislation, case law and the practice of companies and stakeholders in specific ways, because these different techniques express standards of behaviour and accountability, which are directly reflected in evidential requirements, concepts of responsibility and institutional translations through possible regulatory bodies.
As a result, the symposium is divided into three parts. After a general introduction on the systemic relationships between Vigilance and Compliance, the first part will focus on the variation in Vigilance Intensities, the advanced point of Compliance, the second part will look at the Tensions that Vigilance generates or exacerbates, and the third part will look at the Modalities that Vigilance uses in Compliance systems.
____
The proceedings of this colloquium will form the basis of one chapter in the books:
A Chinese company issued shares on American exchanges, and was subsequently the subject of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. The company’s auditor concomitantly revealed frauds it had discovered during its review of the company’s accounts. The SEC sued the auditor on May 27, 2011 in order to force it to communicate the documents it held. The auditor refused, arguing that Chinese criminal law prohibited the revelation of such documents. The SEC filed a motion in Federal Court to compel the auditor to comply with its request on September 6, 2011.
FRENCH
Une société chinoise lève des fonds aux Etats-Unis, puis fait l’objet d’une enquête de la part du régulateur financier nord-américain. Parallèlement, l’auditeur de la société dénonce des fraudes qu’il a découvertes par l’examen des comptes. La SEC assigne l’auditeur le 27 mai 2011 pour obtenir communication des documents qu’il détient. L’auditeur refuse, arguant de l’interdiction par le droit pénal chinois qui prohibe. La SEC saisit le 6 septembre 2011 le juge fédéral pour que celui-ci contraigne l’auditeur.
SPANISH
Informe Temático (Finanza): el regulador financiero americano presentó una moción para obligar ante una Corte Federal a un auditor para que revele documentes concerniendo una compañía china que había auditado, aunque la revelación de dicho documente es prohibido por la ley china.
Una compañía china emitió acciones sobre intercambios americanos, y fue subsecuentemente el sujeto de una investigación del Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). El auditor reveló fraude que había descubierto durante su revisión de las cuentas de la compañía. El SEC demandó al auditor el 27 de mayo del 2011 para forzarlo a comunicar documentos en su posesión. El auditor se rehusó, argumentando que el derecho criminal chino prohibía la revelación de dichos documentos. El SEC presentó el 6 de septiembre del 2011 una moción en la Corte Federal para obligar al auditor a obedecer estas órdenes.
Net Neutrality first became news in the United States just after the year 2000. The issue arose when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took decisions regarding conflicts between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cable operators. The FCC's decisions focused on ensuring non discriminatory conditions for ISP's access to the Internet communications market using existing cable networks. These issues became the basis of the debate on Internet users' rights, namely their right to freely access the content and services of their choice. On September 25, 2005 the FCC published a policy statement recognizing these issues, and clearly defined four main principles for Network Neutrality.
FRENCH
La Neutralité du Net : une perspective économique
La neutralité du Net apparu aux États-Unis au tout début des années 2000. Les problèmes ont surgi lorsque la "Federal Communications Commission -FCC" (Commission fédérale en charge des communications) a dû prendre des décisions concernant les conflits entre les fournisseurs d'accès Internet (ISP) et les opérateurs de réseaux cablés. Les décisions de la FCC étaient axées sur la garantie du caractère non discriminatoire des conditions d'accès des fournisseurs de services sur le marché des communications sur Internet via les réseaux câblés. Ces questions ont servi de base au débat sur les droits des utilisateurs d'Internet, à savoir leur droit d'accès aux contenus et aux services de leur choix. Le 25 Septembre 2005, la FCC a publié une déclaration de principe reconnaissant ces questions, et clairement définie autour de quatre grands principes.
GERMAN
Die Netzneutralität: eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive
Die Netzneutralität ist in den Vereinigten Staaten im Beginn den Jahren 2000 entstanden. Die erste Problemen sind entstanden, als die Federal Communications Commission (FCC - die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde) Entscheidungen über Widerstreite zwischen Internetdienstanbieter und Kabeloperatoren treffen sollte. Diese Entscheidungen bestanden darauf, dass die Internetdienstanbieter durch Kabelnetzwerke Zugang zum Markt ohne Benachteiligung erhalten. Diese Fragen haben zufolge die Diskussionen über den Zugang den Internetsverbrauchern zu bestimmten Inhalten und Diensten hervorgebracht. Am 25. September 2005 hat die FCC eine Grundsatzerklärung über diese Fragen veröffentlicht, und hat vier Hauptprinzipien für die Netzneutralität dargelegt.
GREEK
Άρθρο: Ουδετερότητα του Δικτύου: μια οικονομική προοπτική
Η ουδετερότητα των δικτύων έγινε για πρώτη φορά γνωστή στις ΗΠΑ αμέσως μετά το 2000. Το ζήτημα ανέκυψε όταν η Ομοσπονδιακή Επιτροπή Τηλεπικοινωνιών (FCC) έλαβε αποφάσεις σχετικά με διαφορές μεταξύ των Παρόχων Υπηρεσιών Internet και των φορέων καλωδιακής τηλεόρασης. Οι αποφάσεις της Ομοσπονδιακής Επιτροπής Τηλεπικοινωνιών έδωσαν έμφαση στη διασφάλιση ύπαρξης μη διακριτικών όρων πρόσβασης των παρόχων υπηρεσιών Διαδικτύου στην αγορά τηλεπικοινωνιών Internet, με τη χρήση των υπαρχόντων καλωδιακών δικτύων. Τα θέματα αυτά αποτέλεσαν τη βάση της συζήτησης αναφορικά με τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών Internet, και συγκεκριμένα του δικαιώματός τους για ελεύθερη πρόσβαση στο περιεχόμενο και τις υπηρεσίες της επιλογής τους. Στις 25 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005, η Ομοσπονδιακή Αρχή Τηλεπικοινωνιών δημοσίευσε μια δήλωση πολιτικής, αναγνωρίζοντας τα θέματα αυτά και ορίζοντας παράλληλα ξεκάθαρα τέσσερις γενικές αρχές σχετικά με την Ουδετερότητα του Δικτύου.
POLISH
Neutralność Internetu : Perspektywa ekonomiczna
Neutralność Internetu pojawiła się jako nowy temat w Stanach Zjednocznych w 2000 roku. Problemy dały o sobie znać w momencie, kiedy « Federal Communications Commission –FCC » (amerykańska federalna komisja do spraw komunikacji) musiała podjąć decyzje rozwiązujące spory pomiędzy dostawcami dostępu do internetu (ISP) i operatorami sieci kablowych. Decyzje FCC dotyczyły zagwarantowania warunków, które nie dyskryminują dostawców usług na rynek kommuikacji internetowej, korzystających z dostępu do internetu za pomocą sieci kablowych. Te kwestie stały się podłożem debaty o prawach użytkowników Internetu ; mianowicie o prawie do wolnego dostępu do wybranych treści i usług. W dniu 25 września 2005 roku FCC opublikowałapodstawową deklarację rozwiązując i uznając te kwestie, określając przy tym wyraźnie cztery główne zasady neutralności Internetu.
SPANISH
La neutralidad al acceso a la red: una perspectiva económica
La neutralidad al acceso a la red se trajo al primer plano por primera vez en los EEUU en el año 2000. Este tema surgió cuando la “Federal Communications Commission” (FCC – la Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) tomó decisiones concerniendo los conflictos entre los “Internet Service Providers” (ISPs – los proveedores americanos de servicios de Internet) y los operadores de cables. Las decisiones de la FCC tenían el objetivo de asegurar condiciones no discriminatorias para el acceso de los ISPs al mercado de comunicaciones en Internet. Estos temas se volvieron la base del debate sobre los derechos de los usuarios de Internet, especialmente su derecho al acceso libre al contenido y a los servicios de su preferencia. El 25 de septiembre del 2005, la FCC publicó un programa que reconoce estas cuestiones y que define claramente cuatro principios esenciales para la Neutralidad sobre la red.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On December 20, 2011, the Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et de la Poste (ARCEP — French postal and telecommunications regulator) fined La Poste, France’s universal postal service provider, one million Euros for not having provided an easily-available and affordable priority mail service for the shipment of low-value objects weighing less than two kilograms. This failure was in disregard of the regulator’s injunction, French legislation, and European directives.
FRENCH
Par une décision du 20 décembre 2011, l’Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et de la Poste (ARCEP), condamne à une amende d’un million d’Euros l’opérateur en charge du service universel, La Poste, car celle-ci n’a pas offert d’une façon accessible et abordable, sur un modèle proche de la « lettre », l’envoi d’objet de faible valeur de moins de deux kilos. En cela, l’opérateur a méconnu la mise en demeure du régulateur, la loi française et les directives communautaires.
SPANISH
El 20 de diciembre del 2011, la Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et de la Poste (ARCEP – el Regulador francés de servicios postales y telecomunicaciones) multaron a La Poste, el proveedor universal de servicios postales en Francia, un millón de Euros por no haber proveído un acceso fácil y asequible a un servicio postal prioritario por el envío de objetos de poco valor pesando menos de dos kilogramos. Este fallo fue un acto de indiferencia del mandamiento judicial del regulador, de la legislación francesa y de las directivas europeas.
ITALIAN
Il 20 dicembre 2011 l’“Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et de la Poste (ARCEP – l’autorità di regolazione francese in materia di servizi postali e telecomunicazione) ha fatto una multa a “Le Poste”, fornitore francese del servizio universale di posta, per un importo di un milione di euro per non aver fornito un servizio di posta celere accessibile e affidabile per la consegna di oggetti di poco valore e di un peso inferiore ai due chili. La Poste ha quindi commesso tale infrazione violando la diffida dell’autorità di regolazione, la legislazione francese e le direttive europee.
ARABIC
منذ قرار20 ديسمبر 2011 السُّلطة التنظيمية للاتصالات الإلكترونية و البريد( عادل فرنسي للاتصالات و البريد) ، حكمت علا المشغل المسؤول عن الخدمة العالمي ، البريد*(نِظام بريدي فِرنسِي)، بِدفع غرامة قدرُها مِليون يورو. هذه لم توفِّر سُهولة تُماثِل "الرِّسالة" لإرسال أشياء ضعيفة القيمة ذُو وزن أقل من اثنان كيلوغرام العامل تجاهل إنذار المُنظّم، القانُون الفرنسي و التوجيهات المُجتمعِية. *La Poste : نِظام بريدي فرنسي
Forum de la Commission de régulation de l'énergie (CRE), Super grids : des réseaux électriques transcontinentaux
Organisé par la Commission de régulation de l'énergie
17 mai 2011 | de 18h00 à 20h00
