Search results (751 cards)

Advanced search

► Full reference : series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract.

____

____

____

► This series of colloquia follows on from previous series, which have resulted in English publications on:

📘Compliance Obligation, 2026

📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024

📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2023

📘Compliance Tools, 2021

___

► The Symposium Series in a nutshell : As a direct continuation of the previous symposium series co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and its partner universities on "Compliance Obligation", which served as the basis for the publication of the book 📘Compliance Obligation,  The series, some elements of which began in 2024 and others are already present in this book, explored in depth the specific theme of the links between compliance law and contracts. Indeed, compliance law is often analysed as the construction of laws and regulations to achieve "📘 Monumental Goals " of a political nature desired by States and public authorities, to the achievement of which systemic economic operations contribute through 📘Compliance Tools that are now well documented. Contracts are still relatively little studied, or even developed, in compliance systems that are often perceived through the orders issued, the technologies put in place and the 📘sanctions to be avoided or endured. On the contrary, the future of compliance law, particularly in its European conception, which places human beings at the centre of concerns for the sustainability of systems and the use of contracts, is the new conception that we must adopt. Contracts then appear to be both the means by which the subject company fulfils its legal obligations, forges relationships with other actors and deploys the necessary innovations. Contract law is both used and renewed as a result. The series of symposiums will examine various aspects of this general issue. It will result in the publication of a 📘book Compliance and Contrat.

► Presentation of symposiums in development : 

• 29 May 2026🧮THE JUDGE CONFRONTED WITH CONTRACTS OF COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE CLAUSES: read the presentation

 

• 12 June 2026🧮THE "CONTRACT OF COMPLIANCE" : read the presentation

 

• 25  Septembre 2026🧮COMPLIANCE: CLAUSE BY CLAUSE: read the presentation

 

• October 2026🧮COMPLIANCE AND COMMON CONTRACT LAW : read the presentation

 

• September 2026🧮COMPLIANCE, VALUE CHAINS AND CONTRACT: read the presentation

 

• 2 November 2026 🧮COMPLIANCE AND THE STRATEGIC CONTRACTUAL ORGANISATION OF CHAINS VALUE BY ENTERPRISES: read the presentation 

________

► All of these symposiums, designed to complement each other, form the basis of a book, available in both French and English versions. : 

 📕 Compliance et Contrat, to be published in 📚Regulations & Compliance, copublished by theJournal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.

📘Compliance  and Contract,  to be published in 📚Compliance & Regulation , copublished by Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

Régulation versus concurrence

Régulation versus concurrence

http://www.federalreserveonline.org/
Federal Reserve Banks Contacts

 

On June 27, 2012, the "Financial Securities Authority – FSA" of the United Kingdom sanctioned the Barclays Bank to have manipulated the Libor. By a chain reaction, on July 6, 2012, the German regulator, Bafin, opened an investigation into banks, with no doubt on Deutsche Bank, while the Japanese regulator, the "Securities Exchange Commission" in the United States, the Canadian competition office, in particular open all investigations since the 6 July concerning all banks within their competence on their statements. In addition, JP Morgan said that it was already the subject of a class action in this regard. The domino effect begins.

Complete reference : Catala, P., La propriété de l'information,  in Le droit à l'épreuve du numérique. Jus ex Machina, coll. "Droit, Éthique, Société",  PUF , Paris, 1998, p.245-262

 

 

 Read the article (written in French).

 

 

Complete reference : SIBONY, Anne-Lise, Peut-il y avoir des fondements économiques à la motivation des sanctions, in CHAINAIS, Cécile, FENOUILLET, Dominique, GUERLIN, Gaëtan (dir.), Les sanctions en droit contemporain, vol. 2, La motivation des sanctions prononcées en justice, coll. "L'esprit du droit", Dalloz, 2013, p. 49-63

In a judgment taken on March 9th 2010, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice upheld the European Commission’s action against the Federal Republic of Germany, stating that by making the authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data outside the public sector in the different Länder subject to State oversight, Germany incorrectly transposed the requirement of "complete independence" of the supervisory authorities responsible for ensuring data protection, and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 "on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data".

 

FRENCH

Un jugement rendu par la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice le 9 mars 2010 insiste sur l'indépendance nécessaire des autorités en charge de la protection des données personnelles dans les Länder allemands au regard de l'application de la directive européenne 95/46/CE du 24 Octobre 1995 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (Directive "Données Personnelles").

Dans un jugement rendu le 9 mars 2010, la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice a jugé que les autorités de protection des données des Länder allemands qui contrôlent les fichiers du secteur privé n’agissaient pas en pleine indépendance, contrairement aux exigences de la Directive européenne de 1995 sur la protection des données.

GERMAN

Am 9. März 2010 verkündete der Europäische Gerichtshof sein Urteil in der Sache EG / Deutschland (C-518/07) betreffend der Verpflichtung des Mitgliedsstaats sicherzustellen, daß die nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden, die zur Überwachung der Datenverarbeitung verantwortlich sind, ihre Funktionen vollkommen unabhängig auszuüben.

Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat am 9. März 2010 sein Urteil verkündet in der Sache EG/Deutschland, in dem er betont, dass das deutsche Datenschutzsaufsichtssytem die Verpflichtung der Unabhängigkeit von Aufsichtsbehörden, die in den Rechtlinien 95/46 vorgeschrieben ist, unvollständig umgestetzt hat.

SPANISH

En una sentencia dictada por la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia el 9 de marzo del 2010 insiste en la independencia necesaria de las autoridades a cargo de la protección de la privacidad de data en German Länder, en cuanto a la aplicación de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos

 

En una sentencia del 9 de marzo del 2010 la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia confirmó que la acción que tomó la Comisión Europea contra la República Federal de Alemania, constatando que, al darle a las autoridades la responsabilidad de monitorear el procesamiento de data personal fuera del sector público en los diferentes Länder sujetos a la vigilancia estatal, Alemania transpuso incorrectamente el requisito de ‘independencia completa’ de las autoridades supervisoras responsables de asegurar la protección de data y por lo tanto, no cumplen con los requisitos detallados en el segundo subpárrafo del artículo 28(1) de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos