In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On November 28, 2011, the French Council of State issued a summary judgment suspending the Government price freeze on household natural gas prices because the ‘price scissors’ effect it had was harming competition, and because no superior legal norm justified the freeze.
FRENCH
Le28Novembre2011,le Conseild’Etat a rendu une Ordonnance de référé, suspendant le gel des prixdu gouvernementconcernant les prixdomestiquesdu gaz naturel, carl’effet de «ciseauxdes prix" avaitpour effet de nuire à la concurrence,et parce qu’il n’existe pas de normejuridique supérieurejustifiait cegel des tarifs par un décret.
SPANISH
El 28 de noviembrede 2011, elConsejo de Estado francésemitió una orden judicialde congelacióndel precio delgobiernosobre los precios internosdelgas natural,porque el efecto del"precio detijeras"efecto fue el deperjudicar a la competencia,y porqueno existe una normalegalquejustificaelcongelamiento de las tarifaspor decreto.
ITALIAN
Il 28 novembre 2011, il Consiglio di stato francese ha reso una sentenza sommaria in cui ordina la sospensione de gelo dei prezzi del gas naturale per le famiglie, previsto precedentemente dal governo, l’effetto “forbice prezzi” causato da tale decisione stava causando danni alla libera concorrenza e poiché tale decisione di gelare i prezzi non era fondata su nessuna norma legale superiore.
SPANISH
El 28 de noviembre del 2011, el Conseil d’Etat (Consejo de Estado de Francia) decidió que la prohibición de los OGM establecido por varias decretos ministeriales en diciembre 2007 y febrero 2008 no son válidos. La razón principal detrás de esta decisión es la falta de prueba suficiente dada por el gobierno francés que los OGM representan una gran amenaza a la salud pública y el ambiente. No obstante, los Ministros de Agricultura y Ambiente declararon el 13 de enero 2012 que esta misma prohibición será adoptada.
Impartiality of the regulator is one of the most important principles of Regulation and Compliance Law. However, this impartiality can be difficult to implement when the regulation object has a strong moral dimension.
In August 2020, various religious associations sized the Conseil National de Régulation de l'Audiovisuel sénégalais (Senegalese audiovisual regulatory authority) to ask the interdiction of broadcasting on television of the film "Les infidèles" telling the story of a married woman with multiple lovers.
First, the regulator distinguishes the sequences likely to be detrimental to cultural and religious identities and shocking sequences or likely to attack the dignity of the person. Then, it asks the deletion of indecent and obscene scenes and of scenes likely to be detrimental to cultural and religious identities, bans the broadcasting of the film in the television before 10.30 pm, asks an update of the trailer and requires the introduction of a pictogram "forbidden to children under 16" during the broadcasting. The CNRA judges itself able to regulate the content of telefilms in order to protect cultural identities with regards to the law of 4th of January setting its mission.
In 2012, a similar controversy surrounded, in France, the broadcasting of a different film with the same name. However, the purpose and the context were very different because the film was broadcasted at cinema, because it presented adultery men, because it was comic, because the competent regulator was not an administrative body but a professional body and because the broadcasting country was not the same. Here, only the poster was modified.
Thus, an impartial regulation must however taking into consideration "local cultural identities".
Although Regulation Law was born from the notion "sector", constant interferences between sectors and frequent interactions between some sectors and more general questions common to different sectors, make interregulation necessary. Compliance Law being the extension of Regulation Law, this interregulation mechanism is also necessary in Compliance Law.
This interregulation can take many legal paths like letters exchanges between regulators, the creation of a network of regulators and supervisors at the world level or about some specific question or the adoption of a "cooperation protocol" as the AMF (French Financial Market Regulator) and the AFA (French Anticorruption Agency) did on 16th of September 2020 to reinforce their respective fight against corruption, against market abuses and for the protection of investors.
This cooperation protocol between the AFA and the AMF has the following subjects:
A more efficient methodology concerning the research and the analysis of corruption and market abuses.
A more efficient prevention of corruption and market abuses.
A better capacity to give recommendations of new regulations to the Legislator.
A more rigorous monitoring of international works on the topic.
Germany adopted a law modifying its investment legal framework in application of the UCITS IV Directive (Directive 2009/65/EC) on December 15th, 2010. This law introduces three main changes, in taxation, in the framework of micro finance funds and in the supervisory regime for investments.
FRENCH
Fiche thématique (Finance): l’Allemagne transpose la directive OPCVM IV
L’Allemagne a modifié le 15 décembre 2010 son cadre légal sur l’investissement en application de la directive OPCVM IV (Directive 2009/65/EC). La nouvelle loi introduit trois principaux changements dans le régime fiscal, le cadre légal des fonds de micro-finance et la supervision des investissements.
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Finanz) : Deutschland überträgt die OGAW-IV-Richtlinie.
Deutschland hat das Investmentgesetz am 15. Dezember 2010 verändert, um es zur OGAW IV-Richtlinie (Richtlinie 2009/65/EC) gemäß zu machen. Eingeführt wurden drei Hauptveränderungen im folgenden Bereichen: Das Steuerregim und das Rechtssystem von Mikrofinanz, sowie die Investmentsaufsicht.
SPANISH
Informe temático (finanza): Alemania implementa el UCIT IV directive
Alemania adoptó una ley que modifica el marco legal de inversiones en aplicación del UCITS IV Directive (Directive 2009/65/EC) el 15 de diciembre del 2010. Esta ley introduce tres cambios substanciales, en el área de impuestos, en el marco de fondos de microfinanzas y en el régimen de supervisión de las inversiones.
PORTUGUESE
Informe temático (finanças): Alemanha dá aplicação à diretiva UCIT IV
A Alemanha adotou, em 15 de dezembro de 2010, uma lei que, ao dar aplicação à Diretiva UCITS IV (Diretiva 2009/65/EC), modifica seu marco legal de investimentos. Esta lei introduz três mudanças principais, na área de impostos, no marco legal de fundos de micro finanças e no regime de supervisão dos investimentos.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (Finanza): La Germania ha applicato la direttiva in material di OIVCM
Il 15 dicembre 2010, la Germania ha adottato una legge in materia di OICVM, applicando la quarta direttiva OICVM (la Direttiva 2009/65/CE). Questa legge introduce diversi cambiamenti, per quanto riguarda le imposte, in materia di fondi di micro finanza e nel controllo del regime degli investimenti.
The cycle of conferences Les outils de la Compliance(The Compliance tools) began in November 2019 and runs until June 2020. It is organized by The Journal of Regulation & Compliance and all of its partner universities. It includes a conference more particularly devoted to the theme of "Measuring the effectiveness of Compliance Tools (Mesurer l'effectivité des outils de la Compliance)".
in the Amphitheater of Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2) University,
391, rue de Vaugirard 75015 Paris
General presentation of the Conference
After having examined various specific tools, such as Risk mapping or Incentives, and before tackling others such as those falling under a "Compliance by Design", it also deserves to be examined with some distance in its claim to be the solution to any compliance issue, it is worth looking at how we measure the effectiveness of all these Compliance Tools. Indeed, since all techniques are "tools", they only take on meaning with regard to a purpose that they must effectively achieve. This effectiveness must be measured, and this immediately in Ex Ante, the company constantly having to show the effectiveness of the performance of the Compliance tools.
But at the same time as the standards proliferate, the discourses multiply, the commitments are made, the techniques for measuring the effectiveness of the whole seem quite weak. The subjects of law obliged by Compliance obligations or freely wishing to achieve the systemic or common good goals targeted by Compliance do wish to have these measurement instruments. But they seem still little built, often declarative or discursive, or too mechanical. Therefore, is it starting from the goal of Compliance that we must measure the effectiveness of the Compliance tools, without by this way transforming the tasks weighing (willingly or by force) on operators in obligation to result? Or is it by staying upstream, by a single "conformity" to what is asked of them, as behavior and as structural organization, that companies show that they have effectively fulfilled their task, without worrying about the effects products about the reality, this reality that those who designed the Compliance norms and standards had in mind?
This question has major implications in terms of burden of proof and responsibility, involving organizations which place Trust, the heart of Compliance, rather in technological instruments - only but so efficiency connecting data - or rather in people with a sense of common good. This question is now open.
Under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, full professof de Regulatory & Compliance Law at Sciences Po (Paris).
Articulate the instruments for measuring Effectiveness with the purposes of the Compliance tools (Articuler les instruments de mesure de l'effectivité avec les finalités des outils de la compliance)
Freedom and constraints of the company in its implementation of measures of the effectiveness of compliance tools (Liberté et contraintes de l’entreprise dans sa mise en place des mesures de l’effectivité des outils de compliance)
Bertrand Bréhier, deputy head, Banking and Finaical Regulation Departement, Société Générale Group, associate professor Paris I University, Groupe Société Générale
Control by the Regulator of the effectiveness of compliance instruments implemented by the company (The contrôle par le Régulateur de l’effectivité des instruments de compliance mis en place par l’entreprise)
