It is true the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council follows a consultation conducted for several years by the European Commission on the subject of Social Responsibility. Whatever might have said the "stakeholders", the Directive contains the same lines tham the European Commission Communication of 13 April 2011, adopted on 25 October 2011 on the topic.
It is difficult today to oppose "Hard Law" and "Soft Law": Law hardens gradually. Thus, from the "communication", we went to the "resolutions", whose status remains uncertain, both a communication firmer but less binding than a law, since resolution is only for its author ... Thus Parliament in its resolutions of 6 February 2013 'resolved' to design an "inclusive" vision of the corporate action, to dance together profitability and social justice. To get by, it must suffice to say that the Social Responsibility Company is "multidimensional" ... Guidelines of the European Commission (non-binding) will explicit. Wait and see.
Following a series of obligations on information that companies must make available "to the public and authorities." Thus, companies must do the work instead of public authorities themselves. The provisions relating to non-financial information are mandatory and standardized. They are particularly demanding on the environment.
But when the text provides more substantial obligations, such as making the activity business less polluting, the Directive simply ask the member states to encourage companies to adopt "best practices" in the field. The market itself is incitative, in particular for making boards of large corporations more diverses. Because the principle is the belief that "investor access to non-financial information is a step towards achieving the goal of effective .... Europe in the use of resources," in a regulatory context of a "smart, sustainable and inclusive" growth".
The implementation of the Transfer Matching System (TMS) on October 1, 2010 was announced by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) as a first step to regulate international player transfers through an increased transparency of these human and financial flows.
On December 10, 2010, the Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE – French Commission for Energy Regulation) and the Autorité des marches financiers (French Securities Regulator – the AMF) entered into a memorandum of understanding (the MoU). Cooperation between these two sector based regulators is, for the most part, set against the background of, and aims at, a better (or, rather, burgeoning) regulation of the market for CO2 emission allowances and is grounded in the following principles:
- both regulators undertake to transmit information necessary to fulfilling each other’s respective expanded legal mandate, i.e.:
o protecting investments made in CO2 emission allowances (e.g. by detecting and punishing market abuses, i.e. insider trading, market manipulations, dissemination of false information) for the AMF and;
o overseeing transactions made by market participants on the spot and derivatives markets for CO2 emission allowances to make sure that such transactions are in line with transactions made on the markets for electricity and natural gas for the CRE;
- such mutual information is to notably take the form of regular bilateral meetings at various levels and mutual information may now cover data that the AMF had to keep confidential due to strict legal privilege restrictions applicable to its officers.
After the close of financial markets , the Charmain of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, announced on 10 may 2012, the loss of 2 billion dollars on hedging activities. The announcement was carried out by a conference call, the Chairman saying the past that this is the result of errors of assessment and in the future that losses may increase. Commentators have pointed out that it made less legitimate criticism that this Chairman has always made on the regulation of banking of the Dodd-Frank Act and the ban of trading for own account, the press considered moreover that the manager has more shown by such a result the need of constraint to exercise in the future on banks. But should we have to confuse ad hoc case and the general rule to adopt? Is relevance of a critic and special case in which is described that is one was critical can be remain relevant?
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
Thematic Report (Energy): The French energy regulator publishes its first unfavorable opinion regarding the government’s proposed natural gas tariffs for residential customers.
The Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE — French energy regulator) published an opinion “regarding the draft executive order regarding the regulated tariffs for natural gas publicly distributed by GDF Suez.” This non-binding opinion was published on September 29, 2011, and claims that it is not acceptable for the Government to leave natural gas prices unchanged because these prices do not cover GDF Suez’s costs and symmetrically prevent newcomers from competing with it.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (Energia): L’autorità di regolazione francese nel settore dell’energia ha reso pubblica il suo primo parere sfavorevole a proposito delle tariffe del gaz proposte dal governo per le utenze residenziali
La Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE – l’autorità francese di regolazione nel settore dell’energia) ha reso pubblico un parare « riguardante la bozza di proposte di tariffe per il gaz naturale distribuito da GDF Suez ». Questo parere non vincolante è stato pubblicato il 29 settembre 2011 e afferma che non è possibile per il Governo di lasciare immutati i prezzi del gas naturale poiché questi prezzi non coprono i costi di GDF Suez e, al contempo, impedisce ai nuovi operatori di competere con tali costi.
🧮The event will take place at Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) on 15 October 2026.
Il will be held in French.
_____
Presentation of the topic: While Contract Law, in its common rules expressed by the "general theory of contracts", is often considered to be the most developed branch of Law in practice and the most studied at university, at first glance it seems to be given little consideration when it comes to compliance matter.
This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the company, which is at the heart of the action expected of it—action that is expected to be powerful (since it affects the collective future) and diversified (since it concerns all systems beyond the company's direct activity)—seems above all to have the status of a subject of law. This is exacerbated if, by mistakenly confusing the latter terms, we only talk about "conformity" and assert that it is simply for businesses a matter of "complying with the regulations that apply to them", which then leaves little room for contractual initiative. This would be associated only with Ethics, a normative order that also differs from a contract, which is a binding legal act.
The relationship between Contract and many sorts of documents, standards and ethical acts that are so numerous in compliance techniques, to which we can add the soft law produced by courts, regulators, supervisors and the companies themselves, is therefore an open question. This delicate reconciliation, which the terms "CSR" and "Governance" express without referring to very precise legal definitions, can cause difficulties in relation to general Contract Law: thus, the "commitments" that punctuate the techniques and behaviours that make up the "culture of compliance" have a central place in Compliance Law. However, their place, if not their equivalence with the contract, is not established, and may even be excluded. This too is an open question.
Based on these initial questions, it appears that in order to gain a firmer footing in the analysis of the practices of companies that include compliance clauses into multiple contracts, we must observe that compliance may consist of a comprehensive service that is the very subject of a specific contract, the "compliance contract, or even assist in the conception that judges may, or must, develop in their office when they are seized of "contractual litigation involving Compliance", we must return to common contract law.
Indeed, if we stop viewing Compliance Law solely through the prism of punishment, if we do not limit it to the "detection and prevention" of fraudulent behaviour which, if it occurred, would be punished, the contract does not have the same place in practice. In this initial restrictive conception of Compliance Law based on sanctions, simply by moving from ex post to ex ante, the company remains subject to the regulations that apply to it, and the contract would be just one of the ways in which it fulfils its legal compliance obligation.
However, the obligation of compliance can also be considered to have its legitimate source in the Contract, which in general termes is based on the autonomy of will and all its consequences (contractual freedom, binding force, effect on third parties, etc.), with the Principle of Compliance fitting into it as a second pillar linked to the first pillar, which is the Principle of free Competition.
It is therefore very useful to better understand practices by comparing the technical principles of general Contract Law with Compliance Principles, such as concern for others that contractors may pursue independently of any regulatory requirement (these others who are distant in space and time), preservation of systems, the obligation to provide evidence, etc.
This is the subject of this symposium which, according to the classic dichotomy of contractual formation and contractual execution, revisits the contractual thread based on the founding principles of autonomy and freedoms, binding force and its relativity, the meeting of consents, groups of contracts, and regulatory contracts often drawn up to implement compliance policies. Enforcement and contractual liability under general Contract Law are themselves coloured in a unique way when a compliance concern or goal has been included in the contract or is implied by it.
_____
Speakers include:
🎤 Nicolas Bargue professor at Panthéon-Sorbonne University,
🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, university professor, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the European School of Regulation and Compliance (EeRC)
🎤 Julia Heinich, professor at Panthéon-Sorbonne University
____
The proceedings of this symposium will form the basis of a specific chapter in the following publications:
A recommendation concerning professional “good practices” in pharmaceutical treatments issued by the Haute Autorité de la Santé (French Healthcare Regulator) was attacked before the Council of State by an association. It was invalidated by Council of State decision on April 27, 2011 for violation of the principal of impartiality, because members of the regulator’s working group had interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
ITALIAN
Relazione di settore (Salute): Una raccomandazione sulle “buone prassi” pubblicata dall’Autorità di regolazione in material di salute è stata annullata a ragione della sua parzialità
Una raccomandazione relativa alle “buone prassi” nei trattamenti farmaceutici resa dalla Haute Autorité de la Santé (l’autorità francese di regolazione in materia di salute) era stata contestata da un’associazione dinanzi al Consiglio di Stato. Il 27 aprile 2011, il Consiglio di Stato ha annullato tale raccomandazione in quanto resa in violazione del principio d’imparzialità, diversi membri del gruppo di lavoro nominati dall’autorità di regolazione avevano interessi personali nell’industria farmaceutica.
SPANISH
Informe Temático (Salud): Una recomendación concerniendo las “buenas prácticas” publicada en por el regulador francés de la salud fue invalidada por razones de parcialidad.
Una recomendación concerniendo las “buenas prácticas” en tratamientos farmacéuticos publicada por la Haute Autorité de la Santé (el Regulador francés de la salud) fue atacada frente al Consejo de Estado por una asociación. Fue invalidada por el Consejo de Estado en una decisión del 27 de abril del 2011 por violación del principio de la imparcialidad, porque miembros del grupo de trabajo del regulador tenían ciertos intereses en la industria farmacéutica.
PORTUGUESE
Informe setorial (Saúde): Uma recomendação relativa a “boas práticas” publicada pelo regulador francês de saúde foi anulada por motivos de parcialidade.
Uma recomendação relativa a “boas práticas” em tratamentos farmacêuticos adotada pela Haute Autorité de la Santé (Regulador francês de saúde) foi atacada perante o Conselho de Estado por uma associação. Ela foi invalidada pela decisão do Conselho de Estado de 27 de abril de 2011 por violação do princípio da imparcialidade, pois alguns membros do grupo de trabalho do regulador tinham interesses na indústria farmacêutica.
Revogação – Ônus da prova – Conflito de interesses – Deontologia – Ex post – Boas práticas – Guia – Hard Law – Haute Autorité de la Santé (Regulador Francês da Saúde) – Imparcialidade – Independência – Legislador – Responsabilidade – Programa de tratamento médico – Obrigação – Parcialidade – Indústria farmacêutica – Recomendação – Ciência – Autoridade científica – Dados científicos – Grupo de trabalho.*
* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.
David J. Dickinson is an Attorney-Advisor for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality within the Office of Air and Radiation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC.
He received his J.D from George Washington University, National Law Center in Washington, D.C., and his B.A. in History and Political Science from the University of California, San Diego.
