The media sector is organized on an equilibrium between the principle of competition and other concerns like information pluralism. Generally, competition Law by making market accessible to many competitors ensures information pluralism. But, this is not the case if an operator get an excessive market power, running risk not only for competition but also for information pluralism. It is the reason why the Italian legal system forbids the constitution of an operator gathering more than 40% of the total income generated by the media sector or more than 10% of the total income generated by the Italian communication sector.
In 2016, Vivendi, a French media group, got more than 28% of the Mediaset Group's actions and around 30% of its voting right. The Italian communication regulation authority sized by Mediaset demands in 2017 to Vivendi to ends its participations in the group Mediaset. Vivendi contested this decision before the regional administrative court which referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to know if freedom of establishment can legitimately be discarded in favor of information pluralism in this concrete case. The Court of Justice answered, in a decision of 3rd of September 2020, that the restriction of the freedom of establishment can in principle be justified by a general interest objective such as information pluralism protection but that in this concrete case, this is not justified because the fact that a firm is committed in the transmission of contents does not necessarily give it the power to control the production of such contents.
We can learn three lessons form this case:
The Court precises that even if the principle is the freedom of establishment, it is possible to discard it to protect information pluralism protection under the condition that the concerned member State do not use this legitimate power to create a political monopoly, the burden of proof falling on the person attacking national legislation and not on the Member State.
The Court distinguishes transmission of contents and production of contents and explains that if the State rejects this decision, the burden falling to it to prove the concrete links between these two activities.
This case shows that the power to share the respective places of the "principle" and of the "exception" always comes back to the judges.
What does Regulating to operators? How do they feel? Do they internalize? Does it means to them, simply a cost or an impact on their strategy on the markets?
The question is all the more important that you adhere to the theory of incentives, whereas the adequate regulatory techniques are those that produce the desired behavior by regulated operators.
The issue is not whether the Regulating is included in spending. This is acquired. For example, in two years the banks move internal forces of certain services, such as credit, to the compliance department and regulation. The regulation may represent a very high share of costs: it lies in the fact that through compliance the regulatory system has internalized the costs of regulation in the firms.
But does it make to change the strategic choice of the operator on the market, not only increase the number internal processes?
Mr. Blankfein Lloys who also sits on the board of the Harvard Law School, asked about the question of whether the bank doesn't suffer from the pressure of regulations and supervisors replied that must be considered especially in the very design of technical systems to meet compliance but that for him, Regulation isn't really an annoyance: it is a "background noise". He compares it to music: something that he listens a lot, but while he is doing its job. Something which remains outside.
This means that Regulation occupies its technical regulatory services but doesn't affect its own work of invest bank president.
We can rejoice, since it shows that Regulation doesn't impede free enterprise and the operator's choice. One might worry if Regulation should have an "educational" function wanting influence how the president himself decides. In this case, Regulation must cease to be a kind of expensive elevator music.
It is not sure that regulators and supervisors have the same understanding
Ofcom (The Office of Communications), Britain’s audiovisual and telecommunications regulatory authority, revoked Teletext Limited’s public teletext license on January 29, 2010 and fined Teletext Ltd. £225,000 on May 27, 2010, for having unilaterally ceased broadcasting of teletext services on December 15, 2009, in advance of the expiration of its license in 2014.
FRENCH
Le 27 mai 2010, la Broadcasting Sanctions Committee (Commission des Sanctions de l’Autorité britannique de régulation des communications électroniques et de l’audiovisuel (Ofcom) a sanctionné pour un montant de £225.000 Teletext Limited, validant en outre la révocation administrative opérée le 29 janvier 2010 par Ofcom de la délégation de service public concernant la fourniture de services de télétexte, suite à la cessation unilatérale de la diffusion de ceux-ci par Teletext le 15 décembre 2009.
L’Ofcom (The Office of Communications — le régulateur britannique des télécommunications et de l’audiovisuel), a annulé le 29 janvier 2010 la délégation de service public accordé à Teletext Limited pour la fourniture de services de télétexte, et a rendu le 27 mai 2010 un arrêt de sanction de £225.000 à l’encontre de ce dernier, pour avoir unilatéralement cessé de diffuser les services de télétexte le 15 décembre 2009, alors que sa licence n’expirait qu’en 2014.
GERMAN
Teletext Ltd. hat am 27. Mai 2010 eine Strafe von £225.000 von der Ofcom's Broadcasting Sanction Committee (die Sanktionskommission der britischen Medienaufsichtsbehörde) bekommen. Grund dafür ist, dass Teletext Ltd. am 15. Dezember 2009 einseitig aufgehört hat, die Teletextsdienste, für die sie von einer Übertragung öffentlicher Diensten bezug, zu leisten. Diese Strafe bestätigt auch die Amtsenthebung, die am 29. Januar 2010 infolge der einseitigen Entscheidung von Teletext Ltd., verkündet wurde.
Die Ofcom (The Office of Communication - die britische Mediensaufsichtsbehörde) hat am 29. Januar 2010 Teletext Ltd. aus seiner Amt enthebt, da die Firma am 15. Dezember 2009 einseitig aufgehört hat, die Teletextdiensten zu liefern, für welche sie tätig war, obwohl seine Lizenz noch bis 2014 gültig war. Infolgedessen hat am 27. Mai 2010 die Ofcom auch eine Geldstrafe von £225.000 gegen Teletext Ltd. verhängt.
SPANISH
El 27 de mayo del 2010, el Comité de sanciones de emisoras del Ofcom (la oficina británica de comunicaciones) multó a Teletext Ltd. la cantidad de £225,000 después de que Ofcom haya revocado la licencia pública para los servicios teletext el 29 de enero del 2010, acto necesario en vista del cese unilateral de emisiones que Teletext Ltd. dio a los servicios telextext el 15 de diciembre del 2009.
Ofcom (la Oficina de comunicaciones), la autoridad regulatoria de audiovisuales y telecomunicaciones de Gran Bretaña, revocó la licencia pública teletext de Teletext Ltd. el 29 de enero del 2010 y sancionó a éste con la cantidad de £225,000 el 27 de mayo del 2010 por haber unilateralmente cesado las emisiones de servicios teletext el 15 de enero del 2009, antes de la caducidad de la licencia en el 2014.
The President of the Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (Arcep –French Electronic and Postal Communications Regulation Authority) presents his vision of Telecommunications Regulation in favour of Network Neutrality.
On 18th of September 2020, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) published a report about the impact of Rule of Law on Economic Growth.
The EESC defines the Rule of Law as the obligation to "all public powers act within the constraints laid down by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts". According to the Committee, the Rule of Law thus defined is favorable and even necessary to a durable economic growth especially because instability of regulations, absence of guarantee of labor and property rights, discrimination or non-application of contracts poorly favors or are detrimental for investments and economic agents' productive activities. The EESC observes by the way that countries which respect the Rule of Law grow more rapidly than those which do not respect it. The Committee also insists on the destructive effect of corruption which destroys public services, public action, public institutions on the long run and confidence, increasing inequalities.
Although EESC approves the actions of European Commission to advance Rule of Law in the Union, it however invites the Commission to continue its efforts by giving a more important place to jurisdictions and by protecting better media freedom in a context of rising autocratic forces in Eastern Europe.
We can learn three lessons from this report:
The common interest of European Union States to guarantee the Rule of Law. Indeed, Rule of Law is not only written in article 2 of TFEU and has been consecrated by CJEU case law, it is also a condition of economic progress.
The fight against corruption must be the object of a redoubled effort. In this perspective, Compliance Law is able to offer appropriate innovating legal tools.
To a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law as a simple process of application of mechanical legal rules, it is necessary to substitute a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law based on the notion of "monumental goals" and people protection. In this perspective, these branches of Law would prove to be powerful tools in the service of the advancement of the rule of law in the European space.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is an organ, depending on the American Treasury, in charge of fighting against financial criminality and especially against money laundering and terrorism financing. For this, it has large control and sanction powers.
In August 2020, the FinCEN published a document untitled "Statement on Enforcement" which aimed to explicit its control and sanction methods. It reveals what firms risk in case of offense (from the simple warning letter to criminal pursuits passing through financial fines) and the different criteria on which FinCEN is based to use one sanction rather than another. Among these criteria, we find for examples the nature and the seriousness of committed violations or the firm's history but also the implementation of compliance program or the quality and the spread of the cooperation with FinCEN durning the investigation.
One of the objectives of the publication of such an information document is to obtain the cooperation of firms by creating a confidence relationship between the regulator and the regulated firm. However, it is very difficult to ask to the firms to cooperate and to furnish information if they can fear that this same information can be used later as proof against them by the FinCEN.
Another objective is to reinforce legal security and transparency. However, the FinCEN's declaration does not seem to commit it, because it is not presented as a chart but as a simple declaration. Indeed, the list of the possible sanctions and the criteria used by the FinCEN are far from being exhaustive and can be completed in concreto by the FinCEN without any justification.
In the most developed nations, as in emerging countries, the economy and society are currently being entirely transformed by an industrial revolution originating in information and communication technologies.
Anti-competitive Behaviour Audacity - Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes (ARCEP - French Electronic Communications and Posts Regulator) - Communication - Competition - Confidence - Cooperation - Darwin - Digital revolution - Discrimination - European Commission - Ex ante / Ex post - Fiber optic - Future - impredictibility - Information - Infostructure - Infrastructure - Innovation - Internet - Lamarck - Napoleon - Network - Overregulation - Risk - Uncertainty - Underregulation *
* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.
ITALIAN
Articolo: Innovazione e regolazione al servizio della rivoluzione digitale
Nelle nazioni le più sviluppate, nonché negli stati in via di sviluppo, l’economia e la società sono completamente trasformati da un rivoluzione industriale che trova le sue origini nelle teconologie d’informazione e di comunicazione.
Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes (ARCEP – Autorità francese di regolazione dei servizi postali e di telecomunicazione) – Commissione Europea - Comportamento anticoncorrenziale – Comunicazione – Concorrenza – Cooperazione – Darwin – Deregolamentazione - Discriminazione - Ex ante / Ex post – Fibra ottica – Imprevisibilità – Incertezza - Inflazione normativa - Informazione – Infostruttura – Infrastruttura – Innovazione – Internet – Lamarck – Napoleone – Rete – Rischio - Rivoluzione digitale *
* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.
PORTUGUESE
Artigo: Inovação e Renovação a serviço da Revolução digital.
Nos países mais desenvolvidos, bem como nos em desenvolvimento, a economia e a sociedade vem sendo, atualmente, completamente transformados por uma revolução industrial baseada em tecnologias da informação e da comunicação.
Comportamento anti-concurrencial – Autoridade de regulação das comunicações eletrônicas e dos correios (ARCEP – Regulador francês de Comunicações e dos Correios) – Comunicação – Concorrência – Confiança – Cooperação – Darwin - Revolução digital – Discriminação – Comissão Europeia – Ex ante / Ex post – Fibra ótica – Futuro – Imprevisibilidade - Informação – Info-estrutura – Infra-estrutura – Inovação – Internet – Lamarck – Napoleão – Rede – Sobre-regulação – Risco – Incerteza – Sub-regulação.*
* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.
SPANISH
Artículo: Innovación y regulación sirviendo la revolución digital
En las naciones más desarrolladas, tal como en los países emergentes, la economía y la sociedad están actualmente siendo transformadas por una revolución industrial provenientes de las tecnologías informáticas y de telecomunicaciones.
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, chelo stesso divietosarà 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..
