The translated summaries are done by the Editors
and not by the Authors.
ENGLISH
The Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — French telecommunications and postal regulator) issued an injunction on November 4, 2010, ordering Numéricâble to sign a contract with France Telecom according to the latter’s new framework for accessing its telecommunications infrastructure for the installation of fiber optics. Failure to have complied within the imparted timeframe caused Numéricâble to be fined 5 million Euros by the ARCEP on December 20, 2011.
FRENCH
L’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et de la poste (ARCEP) avait, par une décision du 4 novembre 2010, fait injonction à Numéricâble de contracter avec France Telecom selon la nouvelle offre de celui-ci pour l’accès à l’infrastructure de génie civil pour la fibre optique. Faute de l’avoir fait dans les délais, Numéricâble est condamné par une décision de l’ARCEP du 20 décembre 2011 à une amende de 5 millions d’euros.
SPANISH
La Autorité de régulation des Communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP – el regulador francés de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) emitió una mandamiento el 4 de noviembre del 2010, ordenando Numéricâble que firmara el contrato con France Telecom de acuerdo con el nuevo marco desarrollado por el último para acceder a la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones para la instalación de fibras ópticas. La inhabilidad de cumplir con este mandamiento en el tiempo definido resultó en una multa de 5 millones de Euros para Numéricâble de parte de la ARCEP el 20 de diciembre del 2011.
ITALIAN
Il 4 novembre 2010, la Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — l’Autorità francese di regolazione in materia di telecomunicazione e servizi postali) ha emesso un’ingiunzione, ordinando a Numéricâble di sottoscrivere un contratto con France Telecom secondo l’offerta di quest’ultima per l’accesso alle infrastrutture per l’installazione della fibra ottica. Il 20 dicembre 2011, a ragione del mancato rispetto di tale ordine, Numéricâble è stata multata per 5 milioni di euro dall’ARCEP.
ARABIC
الّسُّلطة التنظيمية للاتصالات الإلكترونية و الخِدمة البريدية(*) في قرار 4 نوفمبر 2010, دعت علا شركة نُمريك كابل(مشغل فِرنسٍي خاص) بالاتصال بالمؤسسة الفرنسية للاتصالات(فرانس تيلكوم)* وفق الطَّرح الجديد للوصول الا الهياكل الاساسية للهندسة المدنية للألياف البصرية. هذه لم تقوم بنفذ هذا القرار في الوقت المُحدَّد لذا حكمت علا نمريك كابل في قرار 20 ديسمبر 2011 بِدفع غرامة قدرها خمسة مليون يُورو.
*(ARCEP) السلطة التنظيمية الاتصالات الالكترونية والخدمة البريدية: *Numéricâble : نمريك كابل *France Telecom : فرانس تيلكوم
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
The Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) handed down a ruling (n°339154) on October 19, 2011 in the French Data Network, Apple, and iTunes case. In this ruling, it refused to annul the decree giving the "Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet" (HADOPI — France’s Internet Piracy Regulator) the power to issue injunctions to force the accessibility of essential information on the Internet in order to guarantee interoperability, using either penalties or fines.
FRENCH
LeConseil d’Etata rendu un arrêt(n °339154)le 19 Octobre2011 French Data Network, Apple etiTunes.Dans cet arrêt, ila refusé d’annulerle décretdonnant à la Haute Autoritépour la diffusiondes Œuvresetla protection desDroitssurInternet (HADOPI) le pouvoir d’émettredes injonctionspour forcerl’accessibilité des ’informations essentielles sur Internet afin degarantir l’interopérabilité,en utilisant des injonctions ou des amendes.
ITALIAN
Il “Conseil d’Etat” (il Consiglio di Stato francese) ha pronunciato una decisione (n° 339154) il 19 ottobre 2011 nel caso della rete di dati francese, Apple ed iTunes. In questa decisione, il Consiglio di stato ha rifiutato di annullare il decreto che conferisce alla “Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet” (HADOPI – l’autorità francese di regolazione contro la pirateria informatica) il potere di emettere delle sanzioni per assicurare l’accessibilità di informazioni essenziali su internet per garantire l’interoperabilità, usando così delle multe o delle ammende.
Madame Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, gives a speech at the inauguration of the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel (ACP – Prudential Control Authority), implemented by the Ordinance of 21 January 2010, in which she explains the philosophy behind the ACP’s activities. Stability and solidity of the international financial system and consumer protection are the ACP’s main responsabilities.
The conferences cycle Les outils de la Compliance (The Compliance tools) taking place between November 2019 and June 2020 organized by The Journal of Regulation & Complianceand all the Partner Universities will start this year on the theme of "La cartographie des risques" (Risk Mapping) .
Risk Mapping is defined as a process of identifying, evaluating and prioritizing risks: it is an integral and fundamental part of an effective global strategy for managing these risks.
As a central tool for Compliance, this approach may not be radically new, but the Risk Mapping Technique is now renewed and sometimes compromised by the emergence of new Risks, often due to their new mutiform nature. Moreover, the primacy of the new pair of "Political Risks/Compliance Risks" tends to increase the vulnerability of organizations obliged by new legal provisions to draw up these maps, whereas these tools must also protect these organizations.
Before discussing it with the audience, the speakers will explain through their experience the place of this tool in Compliance, by looking at how Risk Mapping is articulated with the logic of value creation through risk-taking, inherent in entrepreneurial and political action. This good understanding is not only essential for the company, but also for the administrative and judicial authorities which control or sanction firms.
Especially with the interventions of:
- Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, full professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Sciences Po
- Jean-François Guillemin, former general secretary of the Bouygues Group
- Lamia Liabes, Chief Operating Office, HSBC France
A recommendation concerning professional “good practices” in pharmaceutical treatments issued by the Haute Autorité de la Santé (French Healthcare Regulator) was attacked before the Council of State by an association. It was invalidated by Council of State decision on April 27, 2011 for violation of the principal of impartiality, because members of the regulator’s working group had interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
ITALIAN
Relazione di settore (Salute): Una raccomandazione sulle “buone prassi” pubblicata dall’Autorità di regolazione in material di salute è stata annullata a ragione della sua parzialità
Una raccomandazione relativa alle “buone prassi” nei trattamenti farmaceutici resa dalla Haute Autorité de la Santé (l’autorità francese di regolazione in materia di salute) era stata contestata da un’associazione dinanzi al Consiglio di Stato. Il 27 aprile 2011, il Consiglio di Stato ha annullato tale raccomandazione in quanto resa in violazione del principio d’imparzialità, diversi membri del gruppo di lavoro nominati dall’autorità di regolazione avevano interessi personali nell’industria farmaceutica.
SPANISH
Informe Temático (Salud): Una recomendación concerniendo las “buenas prácticas” publicada en por el regulador francés de la salud fue invalidada por razones de parcialidad.
Una recomendación concerniendo las “buenas prácticas” en tratamientos farmacéuticos publicada por la Haute Autorité de la Santé (el Regulador francés de la salud) fue atacada frente al Consejo de Estado por una asociación. Fue invalidada por el Consejo de Estado en una decisión del 27 de abril del 2011 por violación del principio de la imparcialidad, porque miembros del grupo de trabajo del regulador tenían ciertos intereses en la industria farmacéutica.
PORTUGUESE
Informe setorial (Saúde): Uma recomendação relativa a “boas práticas” publicada pelo regulador francês de saúde foi anulada por motivos de parcialidade.
Uma recomendação relativa a “boas práticas” em tratamentos farmacêuticos adotada pela Haute Autorité de la Santé (Regulador francês de saúde) foi atacada perante o Conselho de Estado por uma associação. Ela foi invalidada pela decisão do Conselho de Estado de 27 de abril de 2011 por violação do princípio da imparcialidade, pois alguns membros do grupo de trabalho do regulador tinham interesses na indústria farmacêutica.
Revogação – Ônus da prova – Conflito de interesses – Deontologia – Ex post – Boas práticas – Guia – Hard Law – Haute Autorité de la Santé (Regulador Francês da Saúde) – Imparcialidade – Independência – Legislador – Responsabilidade – Programa de tratamento médico – Obrigação – Parcialidade – Indústria farmacêutica – Recomendação – Ciência – Autoridade científica – Dados científicos – Grupo de trabalho.*
* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.
Little is known about how to ‘regulate the Internet’…
Outline solutions, however, do seem to have to be found in ex-post mechanisms since Regulation (broadly speaking) understand ex-ante and ex-post mechanisms as a continuum, and since Regulators increasingly concentrate ex-post mechanisms in their hands as an effective way to ensure execution of the ex-ante prescriptions they themselves elaborated.
Ex-ante mechanisms aim at making algorithms more ‘loyal’.
As long as we hope for devices to be trustworthy and to be held accountable for their ‘loyalty’, we give merits to the idea that we probably should “take liability seriously”.
The applicant based its claim to hold the companies liable on the grounds that they let terrorist groups use their networks: “The suit claims the companies “knowingly permitted” the Islamic State group, referred to in the complaint as “ISIS”, to recruit members, raise money and spread “extremist propaganda” via their social-media services”.
Conversely, the defendants unanimously claimed that they had actively implemented ‘policies’ against extremist material, and that they were working with law enforcement entities to improve regulations on the matter. Self-regulation and ethics versus common liability law.
The companies also pointed out the fact that they were not publishers, hence they could not face liability for the material users post on their networks. This is not, however, the issue at stake: the complaint concerns the use of the network not as a mere way to broadcast messages, but as a way to recruit murderers, provide them with convenient tools to communicate and to prepare criminal operations—allegations for which law does not exempt social media companies from liability.
These allegations are worth being ‘taken seriously’, should the law be unclear on whether the companies could be charged indeed, and should the total exemption from liability of such companies pleading for their ‘neutrality’ be the exception rather than the norm.
The question of principle is thus as follows: is exemption from liability of those who hold the ‘digital space’ together really the norm?
If so, their exemption from liability needs to be extended to a scenario that had not been covered by the law yet. If not, then common liability law is the rightful legal basis to assess whether the companies can be found liable or not—provided that a direct causal link between the unlawful act and an actual harm suffered by the applicant can be demonstrated.
Regulation Law, in order to recognize and draw the consequences from the specificities of some objects, has been build, at the start, around the notion of "technical sector" although their delimitation is partially related to a political choice. But, in facts, there are multiple points of contacts between sectors, actors moving from one to another as objects. The regulatory solution is so to climb over some technical borders through the methodology of interregulation which is by the way the only one to enable the regulation of some phenomena going beyond the notion of sector and related to Compliance Law.
This news takes the exemple of companies furnishing new payment services. In order to they can provide these services, these firms needs to access to banking accounts of concerned people and so to very sensitive personal data. Regulation of such a configuration needs a cooperation between the banking regulator and the personal data regulator. Legislation being not sufficient to organize in Ex Ante this interregulation, the European Data Protection Board has published some guidelines on 17th of July 2020 about the way it conceives the articulation between the PSD2 (European directive about payment services) and GDPR and has announced that it intended to expand the circle of its interlocutors to do this interregulation. Such an initiative from EDPB can be justified by the uncertainty about how interpreting both texts and articulating them.
This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Arnaud van Waeyenberge. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre Perelman of Brussels University.
The different interventions will be then transformed into contributions in the books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance and Compliance Juridictionnalization which will be published in the Regulation & Compliance serie, jointly published by the JoRC and Dalloz for the book in French and by JoRC and Bruylant for the book in English.
This colloquium will take place in Brussels in October 2021.
