Search results (680 cards)

Advanced search

Main information

The European Commission approves a Swedish export-credit insurance scheme until December 31st, 2010, in accordance with the Temporary Framework for State Aid Measures in the current financial and economic crisis

Internet requires regulation. It does not works solely because of the moral sense of the users or through vigilance of companies that develop on it.

The regulator of the virtual space can be imagined, or a regulator of the various possible activities that develop there, regulators then deploying their powers as when the activity takes place on the Internet. Thus, it is the case of advertising.

In the UK, the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) monitors the advertising business, also on the Internet.

Its decision of 26 November 2014 is remarkable for several reasons. It punishes two non-professionals, namely two users Youtube tool. But in communication, non-market entrepreneurs sometimes have more weight than businesses. But on the Internet, users can sponsor their free activity, which is to monetize. In this case, the two had played on their Youtube channel short films that were advertisements.

The complaint made against them is that Youtube is not a support on which those who put content make it to commercial purposes. And other users could not understand they watched the advertisement and not a distraction film or information.

The Regulator imposes a sanction against Internet users not because they did a promotional contract with the company, in this case Cadbury wich  wants to promote Oreo cookies. By this contract, the entreprisee via the famous Internet users can reach consumers, which is permissible. They are punished because they have deceived the confidence of the other Internet users who can't imagine being the target of an advertisement. The fact that it is people with many fans on youtube counted in the severity of the Regulator. Indeed, they have more than 2 million subscribers. More than 1.3 million have seen the offending video. Only 243 people have not loved it.

► Full Reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Conseil national des Barreaux (CNB), Compliance, vigilance et médiation (Compliance, Vigilance and Mediation), November 30, 2023, Amphithéâtre du Conseil national des barreaux.

____

____

► The symposium is organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Conseil national des barreaux (CNB). 

This symposium is held in French.

The symposium is placed under the scientific direction of 🕴️Matthieu Boissavy, 🕴️Hirbod Dehghani-Azar and 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

____

► Presentation of the theme: To increase respect for human rights and the environment in the context of corporate social responsibility and compliance, public authorities and companies have for several years been implementing instruments and processes for dialogue between companies on the one hand and stakeholders inside and outside the company on the other. Among these, mediation is regularly highlighted as a necessary and fruitful process for reaching agreements that benefit employees and civil society players, as well as the environment and society as a whole.

John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in his report of 21 March 2011, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, recommends mediation as an effective and appropriate non-judicial grievance mechanism. The ISO 26000 standard on social responsibility also explicitly refers to the use of mediation in the section Actions and related expectations (6.3.2.6) and say that an organisation should establish or ensure the availability of redress mechanisms for its own use and for that of its stakeholders. For these mechanisms to be effective, they should be [...] based on dialogue and mediation: the process should aim to remedy breaches through mutually agreed solutions reached through dialogue between the parties. Where a judgment is desirable, the parties should retain the right to reach it through separate, independent mechanisms.

Similarly, the French law No. 2017-399 of 21 March 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre (on the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies) has given rise to disputes relating to the design and application of vigilance plans by certain companies subject to this law. Mediation has been proposed by the courts, sometimes accepted, and we know that some have been successful.

At the same time, the draft European Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D) is likely to impose or extend obligations relating to the duty of vigilance on a large number of companies in the European Union, for the respect of human rights and the environment by companies in global value chains.

The result of all this is that respect for human rights within organisations and companies depends on recourse to the courts, on cooperation processes such as mediation, both project mediation and mediation specific to the resolution of disputes, while recourse to the courts will not suffice to rapidly make respect for these obligations effective.

The legislator and the parties concerned are aware of this, and they refer to the use of mediation as necessary to help both civil society actors committed to respect for human rights and the environment and companies to reach agreements on compliance with these obligations.

Lawyers, mediators and people assisting stakeholders and companies have an important role to play in the success of these mediations.

In collaboration with the Journal of Regulation and Compliance (JoRC), the Conseil national des barreaux (CNB) is organising a half-day conference on "Compliance, vigilance et médiation" ("Compliance, Vigilance and Mediation") to train lawyers to this activity, which will develop either as an extension of another activity or as its own activity, and which has major implications for individual rights, society and the environment.

____

► Construction of the symposium:  After a general introduction to the triptych of Compliance, Vigilance and Mediation and the links that it implies, the first part of the event will focus on the contribution of Mediation to the effectiveness of Compliance and, more particularly, to its most advanced aspect, the duty of vigilance. After a debate on this topic, the second part of the event will focus on the conduct of project mediation or dispute resolution in such a context. A conclusion will enable us to draw immediate lessons from the information and exchanges that have taken place.

____

Speakers:  

🎤Matthieu Boissavy, attorney at the Paris Bar, vice-president of the Commission Liberté et droits de l'homme of the CNB

🎤Matthieu Brochier, attorney at the Paris Bar

🎤Stéphanie Brunengo, attorney at the Aix-en-Provence Bat, mediator

🎤Malik Chapuis, judge in the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court)

🎤Bruno Deffains, professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University

🎤Hirbod Dehghani-Azar, attorney at the Paris Bar, president of the Commission Modes alternatifs de règlements des Règlements (MARD) of the CNB

🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎤Jérôme Gavaudan, president of the CNB

🎤Thibault Goujon-Bethan, professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University

🎤Céline Haye Kioussis, legal director if the BPCE Group

🎤Stéphane de Navacelle, attorney at the Paris Bar

🎤Lori Roussey, Data Protection Officer, founder and Director of Data Rights

🎤Stephanie Smatt Pinelli, litigation legal director, Orano Group

____

🔻 Read a detailed presentation of the event below:

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.

Judgment will be given in June.

http://www.eba.europa.eu/
European Banking Authority
One Canada Square (Floor 46), Canary Wharf, London E14 5AA, United Kingdom
+44 (0)207 382 1776 / info@eba.europa.eu