The subject of neutrality brings to my mind a certain number of preliminary ideas and reminiscences.
First of all, the image of Buddha comes to mind, because it alone expresses the extent to which neutrality is an endless subject, since by thinking about the fact that he isn’t thinking about anything, Buddha is still thinking about something. It also makes me think of contemporary music’s constant attempts to attain a form of neutrality: yet this goal remains unattainable, because it is evident that the search for the neutral, in a sound or a timbre, can probably never be found.
FRENCH
Tout d’abord, la figure du Bouddha, qui exprime à elle seule combien la question de la neutralité est un thème sans fin, car en pensant qu’il ne pense à rien, le Bouddha pense malgré tout à quelque chose.
Il me fait penser aussi à la musique contemporaine, à son souci constant d’atteindre une forme de neutralité ; préoccupation à jamais déçue lorsqu’elle reconnaît ultimement que le neutre, en ayant toujours une qualité – un son, un timbre - est probablement introuvable.
SPANISH
El principio de los estándares de la neutralidad (el ejemplo de estándares de contabilidad)
El tema de la neutralidad trae a luz un cierto número de ideas preliminares.
Para comenzar, la figura de Buda viene a mente, porque él sólo expresa la naturaleza interminable que es el tema de la neutralidad, ya que al pensar en el hecho de que él no piensa en absolutamente nada, Buda aún así piensa en algo. También me hace pensar el intento constante de la música contemporánea de alcanzar una forma de neutralidad: pero este objetivo permanece inalcanzable, porque es evidente que la búsqueda de lo neutral, en un sonido o un timbre, probablemente nunca se podrá encontrar.
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".
The cost issue of regulation is a recurring issue.
One can complain specifically, when companies are protesting about the "cost of regulation" or when the topic is taken as an object of study, through the cost / benefit calculation.
A practical question of importance is whether there is a "legal question" or not.
The "juridicity" of a question is defined by the fact that discussing about this question has an effect on the outcome of a case before a judge. This concrete definition, leaving the judge's power, binding nature of the rule (here the balance between cost and benefit) the effectiveness of its decision before the judge, its consideration by him in the decision he makes, has been proposed in France by Carbonnier. It is opposed to a definition of Law by the source, the author of the rule, which identifies law for example through Parliament Acts, because the text is adopted by the legislator, listed source of law.
The first definition, more sociological, more flexible, giving the spotlight on judge better corresponds to a legal system which gives more room for ex post and for the judge. It is logical that we find more demonstrations of this conception in the common law systems.
However, the issue of cost / benefit is being debated before the Supreme Court of the United States, about the latest environmental regulations, adopted by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). It is a question of law. It is under the empire of the judge.
For it is in this light that President Barack Obama in November 2014 asked a very costly regulation, and it was under his leadership that the Environmental Protection Agency has developed texts. Indeed, pollution of certain plants are the cause of asthma and laid in public health imperative to fight a regulation that results in a direct cost on firms. Indeed, some plants pollution is the cause of asthma and President Obama has asked public health imperative to combat by a regulation that results in a direct cost on the industry. The regulations adopted in 2012 they cost a $ 9 million, some claiming that future ones could result in billions of costs directly related to business The President emphasized by stating that the health of children was priceless.
By challenging those of 2012 before the Supreme Court, in the case Michigan v. EPA, this is the other texts that conservative states and companies have in mind because it is the principle that is posed: : does A regulator have the right to take regulations very "expensive" when the advantage, however legitimate it is, is small-scale in terms of costs? The Supreme Court, having chosen to handle the case, listened to March 25, 2015, the arguments of each other and discussed the case.
The question is the integration or not into the constitutional notion of "necessity of the law" of the "cost / benefit" calculation. This is a crucial point because the concept of "necessity of the law" is a common notion to the constitutions of many countries.
However, not only the so-called judges "conservatives" as Justice Antonio Scalia, took position felt it was crazy not "consider" the cost of new regulations from the expected health benefits, but also Justice Stephen Breyer called "progressive," said "irrational" the environmental regulator has not taken in consideration such an imbalance between cost and benefit.
It is true that Justice Breyer was formerly professor of competition law at Harvard.
After the publication of the 21 January 2010 Ordinance implementing the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel (ACP - Prudential Control Authority), two decrees published on 3 March 2010 complete this legislation and define the institutional and budgetary workings of the new Authority.
►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.
