Contacts:
The Securities and Exchange Commission has 12 offices across the country (Washington, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fort worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City & San Francisco): see official website
Usually the companies in charge of a public service established with the State of the "plan contract". In application of the "Code de l'aviation civile (Civil Aviation Code), the private company "Aéroports De Paris - ADP" (Paris Airports) establishes a "contract of regulation". This one develops "contracts of economic regulation". They must generate visibility for the company and for the customers, set ceilings for the royalty, set quality objectives, respect the just remuneration of invested capital. The new "regulation agreement" concluded between the French State and "Aéroports De Paris - ADP" (Paris Airports) covers the 2011-2015 period, presented as a period of transition towards the profitability of capital. This contract was signed in July 2010. The contract was presented to investors June 27, 2012 in its implementation, "Aéroports De Paris - ADP (Paris Airports) progressing in its profitability.
The optic fiber is a very difficult issue for regulators: they want its deployment, for the good of consumers, but they are not willing to pay much more for this and the operators are not prepared to invest without profitability. Incentives are insufficient and uncertainties, major flaw of the regulation, are very large. This is why the European Commissioner in charge of digital, Mrs. Neelie Kroes, announced that on the one hand that the system would now stable for regulation of the optic fiber and that on the other hand there is no more tendency of the regulator to lower the price of access to cost method which discourage operators to invest.
The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Judicial Court) made a decision on 19th of December 2019 about a case concerning a refusal to communicate his mobile phone's unlock code to the police while the police found him with a significant quantity of narcotic and a lot of cash and that there was a certain probability that this mobile phone get proofs of culpability of its owner. The individual was indicted not for narcotic trafficking but for not having communicate its unlock code which constitute an offense to article 434-15-2 of code pénal, from the loi du 3 juin 2018 renforçant la lutte contre la criminalité organisée, et le terrorisme et leur financement (law reinforcing organized crime, terrorisme and their financing).
The accused invokes before the court its right to not incriminate oneself. Indeed, the configuration face to policemen was such that if he refused to communicate its unlock code, he will be punished because of this obligation to communicate his code and that if he accepted, he will also be sanctioned because of the proofs contained into the mobile phone. Such a configuration therefore offered him no alternative to confessing, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and to European and national jurisprudence.
Face to such a case, the Cour de Cassation chose to segment the information and proposed the following solution: if the researched information cannot be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness, it is not possible to constraint this person to communicate this information without violating its procedural rights, but if the information can be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness then the individual is obliged to communicate his code. In the current case, as it was possible for policemen to obtain information contained in the phone by technical means, longer but existent, then the refuse of communication of the unlock code by the suspect constitute an obstruction that should be sanctioned.
Such a decision is an exemple of the conciliation by the judge of two fundamental but contradictory "monumental goals" of Compliance Law: transparency of information towards public authorities and very sensible personal data protection.
On April 27, 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee for Health voted to introduce an amendment to the European Commission’s ‘Pharmacovigilance and Prescription Medicine Package’, which would introduce a strict regime for online prescription medicine sellers.
On December 20, 2011, the European Commission adopted a decision based on the Almark ruling that expounds upon the four conditions necessary so that compensation paid by a State to any state-owned or private company entrusted with the operation of a public service not require prior notification of the European Commission, despite the general prohibition on State Aids. Each state has a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. A communication and de minimis regulation will complete this decision.
It quarrels on the best model of banking regulation, but the key is to determine the criteria against which we fight. However, two representatives of the Bank of England, during the global meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole in the US, have appointed what they believe to be the relevant criterion: simplicity. In a short intervention, they stressed that the North American banking regulation would make about 30,000 pages and 60,000 pages for the European Union. Entitling their speech "Dog and Frisbee", they said that it is equivalent to require that a dog learns Newton's laws before catching the Frisbee. Under these conditions, many would would like to return to Glass-Steagall Act, the mere fact that this law was simple.
Rapport thématique (Télécommunications, Internet) : La première Chambre Civile de la Cour de cassation française, par une décision du 19 novembre 2009, affirme que l'obligation du fournisseur d'accès d'offrir les services à l'abonné est une obligation de résultat.
Dans un contrat entre un usager et le fournisseur d’accès Free, une clause avait prévu l’accès au service audiovisuel, sous réserve de l’éligibilité de sa ligne téléphonique à un tel service. La Cour de cassation estime qu’en dehors d’un cas de force majeure, une telle clause ne peut dispenser le fournisseur d’offrir un tel accès car il s’agit pour lui d’une obligation de résultat. Cette solution, originale en droit traditionnel des contrats illustre le rôle central que la notion d’accès, et de droit d’accès, joue en matière de régulation
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Telekommunikation, Internet): Die erste Zivilkammer der Cour de Cassation (Französischer Kassationshof) hat in einer Entscheidung vom 19. Dezember 2009 behauptet, dass der Internetdienstanbieter dazu verpflichtet ist, seine Kunden Dienste zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dieses gilt als Pflicht.
Ein Vertrag zwischen Free (ein französischer Internetdienstanbieter) und einer seinen Kunden enthielte einer Klausel, die behauptete, dass der Zugang zum Fernsehdienst der Kundenslinie unterworfen war. Der Gerichtshof hat dieser Klausel als ungültig erklärt.
SPANISH
La Primera Cámara Civil de la “Cour de Cassation” (la corte francés de casación) afirma una decisión el 19 de diciembre del 2009 que dicta que la obligación de un proveedor de servicio de Internet de proveer servicios a sus clientes es una responsabilidad objetiva.
Un contrato entre Free (un proveedor francés de servicios de Internet) y uno de sus abonados contenía una clausula que estipulaba que el acceso a servicios audiovisuales dependía sobre la elegibilidad de la línea telefónica para estos servicios. La Corte de casación que excepto en casos de “force majeur” (fuerzas mayores) dicha clausula no excluye los proveedores de servicios de su responsabilidad objetiva de proveer dichos servicios.
The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").
The press release is entitled "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions").
____
Isn't this surprising?
One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country.
Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?
Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?
First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.
As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body.
Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever.
One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply?
How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge?
The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).
However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release:
It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things.
Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.
Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!
