Internet permits to access to expanded knowledge but also make easier the broadcasting of fake news and hate speeches. Unfortunately, public powers cannot know who broadcast these fake news and hate speeches and are so not able to fight efficiently against this. A solution would be to expect from digital firms that they find a way to contain these fake news and hate speeches that they structurally contribute to diffuse.
Digital firms already do that and especially Facebook which plans to sensibilize its American users to 2020 presidential elections. However, digital firms explain that if they fight against fake news and hate speeches, it is only because of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). But, even if it is a calculus to get a better reputation and avoid boycott actions, this remains a willingness of the firm which is therefore neither forced to succeed, nor even to act.
The solution proposed by Compliance Law is to make of this effort a legal obligation by internalizing in crucial operators (digital firms) the "monumental goal" to fight against fake news and hate speeches so that digital companies are required to act and that they are supervised by public authorities in this task. The forthcoming law about digital services will impose to digital firms Ex Ante obligations while the law of 22 of December 2018 related to the fight against information manipulation already forces platforms operators a legal obligation to "cooperate" in the fight against fake news.
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
The original spirit of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was to think of agriculture as a sector unfolding in time, subject to natural hazards, including actors, both farmers and the population that is fed, having interests on which national states shall ensure.
The spirit of the new Common Agricultural Policy is different, even opposite, which explains the length of its gestation. Indeed, competition becomes the principle guarantor of innovation, fair prices for consumers and competitiveness of the European agricultural industry facing global competition, which leads to assist agricultural enterprises, to worry about products quality, away from the subtraction of these products of the principle of competition.
It points out that the agricultural sector is subject to competition law only if the Community legislature didn't stipulate differently!footnote-16. The Regulation almost affirms the opposite principle: "It should be provided that the rules on competition relating to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 101 TFEU and to abuse of a dominant position apply to the production of, and the trade in, agricultural products, provided that their application does not jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the CAP.". The Regulation details: A special approach should be allowed in the case of farmers' or producer organisations or their associations, the objective of which is the joint production or marketing of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities, unless such joint action excludes competition or jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 TFEU.
On 15 January 2015 the European Commission launches a consultation on the "joint salling of olive oil, beef and veal livestock and arable crops, cases covered by the Regulation.
How the new balance will be between competition and regulation?!footnote-20
It is likely that future guidelines will be the place of expression of this balance.
The case is a gap. Indeed, sports activities are regulated in the most traditional way, by administrative texts, administrative supervision, delegations, judicial control. There are rules, both legal and ethical. The most sophisticated rules have been developed, notably on "permissible violence" and that which is not, for example in the field of boxing or rugby, through the notion of "rules of the game".
Video games are at first sight quite different.
They are regulated by other bodies of rules and other regulators, such as the Regulatory Authority for Online Games, when they are played in the digital space.
But the Regulator of online games does not at first sight have competence to apply the "rules of the game" in the perspective of what sport is and the particular integration of the distinction between permissible violence and inadmissible violence.
Assuming that it extends its competence to that dimension, the fact that the blows carried are only "virtually" should necessarily modify the contour and the application of the rules, transforming this regulator of games into a regulator of sports.
Conversely, assuming that the sports regulators are concerned, it is necessary that the analogy between "game" and "sport" should be strong enough for the extension to take place legitimately.
The criterion that poses the problem is precisely le notion of "violence".
In France, doyen Ripert, who wrote the most eminent treatises on both Civil Law and Corporate Law, possessed a genius that led him to be the first law scholar to study the relationship between Corporate Law and the economic organization of capitalism. In this fundamental work, he highlighted the benefits of the Société Anonyme: it’s majority rule is a tribute to efficiency, and its limitation of shareholders’ liability to the amount of their capital invested produces an incentive to invest. Ripert thereby studied law from an outsider’s perspective. Nobody has ever denied the relationship between the economic structure of the corporation and the legal structure of the corporation, just as no jurist has ever denied the link between the commercial transaction and the contract. Precisely, Ripert gave a sort of evaluation, a way of understanding law from the outside, instead of discussing law from the inside by substituting what the law is for what one wishes it would be. Economics were external to Law, Law adapted itself to Economics, and Economics were not at the heart of Law.
FRENCH
Le droit des sociétés, lorsqu’il est vu par le prisme de la Régulation : Industrie des services financiers et protection du marché de l’investissement
En France, le doyen Ripert qui écrivit tout à la fois les plus grands traités de droit civil et de droit commercial a eu l’ingéniosité d’être le premier juriste à étudier le rapport entre le droit des sociétés et l’organisation économique du capitalisme. Dans cet ouvrage fondamental, il soulignait les bienfaits de la société anonyme, par le tribut que la loi de la majorité rend à l'efficacité et par l'incitation à investir produite par la limitation de responsabilité des actionnaires à hauteur de leur apport. Il s'agissait de parler à propos du droit, dans une perspective extérieure à celui-ci. Nul n'a jamais ignoré les rapports entre la structure économique de l'entreprise et la société commerciale, de la même façon qu'aucun juriste n'a dénié le rapport entre l'échange marchand et le contrat. Mais précisément, il s'agissait d'un rapport, une façon de parler du droit en se situant en dehors de celui-ci, et non pas d'une intimité ou d'une substituabilité entre le droit et ce qui est attendu de lui. L'économie était vue comme extérieure, le droit se mettait en rapport avec elle, l’économie n'était pas au cœur du droit.
GERMAN
Artikel: Körperschaftsrecht durch das Prisma der Verordnung gesehen: der Finanzdienstleistungssektor und der Investorenschutz
In Frankreich war Doyen Ripert, der bedeutende Abhandlungen sowohl über Zivil- und als auch über Körperschaftsrecht schrieb, der erste Jurist, der das Verhältnis zwischen Körperschaftsrecht und der wirtschaftlichen Organisation des Kapitalismus untersuchte. In dieser entscheidenden Arbeit betonte er die Vorteile der Aktiengesellschaft (AG): Mehrheitsentscheidung führt zu maximaler Effizienz und Investitionen werden gefördert durch die Beschränkung der Haftung der Aktionäre. Ripert studierte Rechtswissenschaften somit aus der Perspektive eines Außenstehenden. Niemand hat zwar das Verhältnis zwischen der ökonomischen Struktur eines Unternehmens und seiner rechtlichen Struktur angezweifelt, ebenso wie kein Jurist die Verbindung zwischen dem Handelsgeschäft und dem Vertragsrecht leugnen würde. Jedoch gab Ripert eine Art von Evaluierung, eine Analyse des Rechts in der Perspektive eines Außenstehenden, anstatt von einem Insider-Standpunkt zu philosophieren was das Gesetz sagt und was es sagen sollte. Ökonomie und Recht waren zwei getrennte Disziplinen: das Recht musste sich zwar der Wirtschaft anpassen, jedoch befanden sich wirtschaftliche Beweggründe nicht im Zentrum der Rechtswissenschaft.
POLISH
Artykuł: Prawo o spółkach widziane z punktu widzenia Regulacji: Sektor usług finansowych i ochrona rynku inwesticji.
We Francji, Dziekan Ripert, który napisał najbardziej znane traktaty z prawa cywilnego i prawa handlowego, był jednocześnie pierwszym prawnikiem, który studiował relację istniejącą pomiędzy prawem o spółkach a ekonomiczną organizacją kapitalizmu. W swoim głównym traktacie, podkreślał korzystne strony francuskiej formy spółki z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Société Anonyme) : Obowiązująca reguła większości nadaje skuteczności w działaniu, a ograniczenie odpowiedzialności wspólników w stosunku do zainwestowanego kapitału, zachęca do inwestowania. Riper analizował prawo w kontekscie innym niż kontekst prawny. Nikt nigdy nie zaprzeczał istnienia relacji pomiędzy strukturą ekonomiczną firmy i spółką handlową. Tak samo jak żaden prawnik nie negował związku istniejącego pomiędzy wymianą handlową i umową.
Ale to właśnie Ripert, zaproponował po raz pierwszy analizę prawa, wychodzac poza jego kontekst prawny, zamiast oceniać prawo z wewnętrznego, prawnego punktu widzenia lub próbować substytuowac prawo na takie jakie chciałoby się żeby było.
Ekonomia była zawsze traktowana odzielnie od prawa. Prawo dostosowywało się do ekonomii, a ekonomia nie była w centrum prawa.
SPANISH
El derecho corporativo visto a través de la prisma de la regulación: la industria de los Servicios financieros y la protección al inversor.
En Francia, el decano Ripert, quien escribió uno de los tratados más inminentes sobre el Derecho civil y el Derecho corporativo, poseía un genio que lo convirtió en el primer erudito en estudiar la relación entre el Derecho corporativo y la organización económica del capitalismo. En su obra fundamental, subraya los beneficios de la Sociedad Anónima: su regla de la mayoría es tributo a la eficiencia y la limitación que pone sobre los pasivos de los accionistas en cuanto al acceso al capital que han invertido se convierte en un incentivo más para invertir. Ripert ha logrado, por consiguiente, estudiar el derecho de una perspectiva ajena. Nadie ha negado nunca la relación entre la estructura económica de la corporación y la estructura legal de la corporación, tal como ningún jurista no ha negado nunca el lazo entre la transacción comercial y el contrato. Precisamente, Ripert da una clase de evaluación, una manera de comprender el derecho desde afuera, en vez de discutirlo desde adentro al substituir lo que el derecho es en la realidad y lo que desearíamos que el derecho fuera. La Economía se encontraba fuera de la esfera del Derecho, pero el Derecho se ha adaptado a la Economía, y la Economía no se encontraba en el núcleo del Derecho.
This shows that the document is primarily intended for investors and financial markets, the document being placed on the company website in the section for the "investors".
This illustrates the evolution from the traditional "contrats de plan" (plan contracts). But then, who are the parties to these types of contract?
Indeed, the very term "Regulatory contract" is new in public Law. It appears as a sort of modernization of "plan contract." The Conseil d'État (French State Council) finally admitted the contractual nature of these planning contracts. In these contracts, are parties were the State and the company in charge of a public service.
Because here the contract is an instrument of "economic regulation" the open public consultation draft rather expresses a global conception of ADP, the company which manages the Paris airports, for the future of the development of critical infrastructure that is the airport as the heart of global development of air transport.
The enterprise manager of the airport in the heart of the contract (rather than the State) in setting objectives for the coming four years is the letter and spirit of the French law of 20 April 2005 about Airports, which put the apparatus of this "Contrat de Régulation Economique" in place.
In this, the infrastructure manager is set by law as a "regulator of second degree", as can be a financial market enterprise. The company that manages and develops the Paris airports undoubtedly belongs to the category of " critical firms", as well it manages the future of the sector and helps to keep France a place in the world.
More, A.D.P. behaves like a Regulator, since it is carrying out the "public consultation", the consultation paper prepared by it, being placed on its site and developing its ambitions for the sector and for France. But A.D.P. also expressed as a financial and economic actor, emphasizing the competitive environment, demanding in passing more stability and clarity in the regulation in which it moves ...
That is why the consultation mechanism provided by the law must be more complex. Indeed, ADP can not be judge and jury. Therefore if the project raises observations, they must be formuled not to ADP but to the Ministries of Aviation and Economy, within a month. They shall communicate theiir content to ADP . Then the Commission consultative aéroportaire (French Airport Consultative Committee) will be consulted. At the end of this process, the "Contrat de Régulation Economique" will be signed.
Seing the end of the process, it remains in line with the plan contracts, since it remains the Economic Regulatory Contract is signed between the State and the essential infrastructure manager. But the consultation process shows firstly investors are the first recipients of the statements made by a privatized company presenting its draft primarily in terms of competitive context and international development and secondly the airlines that use daily services of the airports are also directly involved by theses questions of tarification.
Airlines protest against the increase in the money that will be asked. This will be imposed, since it is tarification and princing public policy. We are in unilateral rules. But it is indeed a "price" they feel to pay, they also heard a speech referring to competition in what the mechanism is presented as a "contract".
But then, does it take to admit that these "contracts for economic regulation" are not between two parties that are the state and the regulator of second degree that is the infrastructure manager but must be three, the State, the infrastructure manager and "stakeholders" that are mainly airlines?
This practical difficulty is much to the fact that the qualification of "contract" is difficult to justify in proceeding in which prevail unilateral mechanisms.
In India, a special Department of the Ministry of Health control the drug sector and issue market authorisations for medicines, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). A report of the Indian Parliament has concluded that responsibilities within the Organisation had not respected the rules of regulation and not required that drugs are subject to mandatory tests before issuing to them an authorisation on the market, and even if some of them are banned in other countries. The conclusion of the report is that such a breach cannot be only explained by collusion between regulator and pharmaceutical industry. The Government will initiate an investigation.
Regulation of the digital world, we agree on its necessity, we talk about it a lot but it is difficult to do it.
The stakes are multiple: management of innovation, protection of people, treatment of different sorts of powers, future of the human being, the Politics and the Judge being like a bullet that ricochets between these 4 subjects.
It then rediscovers that the first "regulators" are the Governments and that the first modality of the Regulation Law is the taxation.
Notably in the digital field and even more so in the face of GAFA.
Indeed, the 4 American companies, Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, admit the need for rules but propose self-regulation or co-regulation. These would include not only their own behavior, but also those of others, including the fight against terrorism. Maybe, when one is stronger than the States, he should substitute himself for their core business....
Undoubtedly being dispossessed of the regalian, Europe today demands "accounts" to the GAFA in the literal sense of the term. Indeed, the French and German governments will table in September a tax proposal specific to the GAFA, the fruit of which will come back to the countries where they earn their income.
Concerned companies replied that in the tax system everyone has the right to be skilled and to organize at the best, so long as one does not fall into the abuse. In accordance with this legal conception, the French administrative high Court (Conseil d’État) has just recalled it in an important decision to their benefit.
In August 2017, the French Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Lemaire, justified the reiteration of his will to tax them, raising this issue at European level in the name of "distributive justice", the Law being defined as what gives everyone his share. This is a strong but dangerous argument, for while it is true that in the very function of taxation, correlated with public finances, the redistributive function is essential, tax optimization becomes staggering.
In a more convincing and regulatory way, this measure of equity is presented as correlated to the construction of the European digital market. It is an economic conception. To the extent that European taxation is still embryonic, its link with such a construction would make it possible to see in vivo the strength of the tax tool in Regulation Law, more than ever distant from Competition Law.
It is in this context, and because the European Digital Market must be built at forceps, since the GAFA will benefit from it, but also must participate in its construction, that such an investment sharing is justified.
Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process.
If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing).
However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future.
The Ministerial Order of 19 January 2010 introduces a new approach to risk management within banks and investment firms : a transversal approach to risk, that is expressed through the creation of ‘risk departments’ (filière risques) within banks.
