Speaking to the press is a way for the Regulator to reach everyone, including policymakers, European institutions, and fellow Regulators who also seek to compete for space in the digital area.
As he reported: "Nous arrivons aujourd’hui, avec l'irruption du numérique, à un acte 2 de la régulation. Il y a 20 ans, on est passé du modèle PTT où l’Etat produisait le service public, au modèle d’État-régulateur qui a permis l’ouverture à la concurrence. Ce modèle vise à une bonne organisation du marché avec des outils de pilotage efficaces, mais parfois très intrusifs : les licences mobiles, qui sont des contrats assortis de sanctions administratives en cas de non-respect des obligations, ou le dégroupage, qui est une intervention sur la propriété privée… Aujourd’hui il nous faut franchir une étape nouvelle et nous projeter dans la suite, repenser nos outils pour permettre, en complément, une régulation plus focalisée, plus humble et plus agile". We can translate this passage as it follows : “As of today, considering the onset of digital, we are getting to a second phase for Regulation. Over the past 20 years, we went from the ‘PTT model’, where the State provided for public service, to a new Regulatory State model that enabled competition to thrive. This model aims for good market organization with effective management tools, which may be sometimes very intrusive: e.g., mobile licenses, which are agreements that include administrative penalties in the event of failure to comply with its provisions, or unbundled access, which relates to a State intervention on private ownership… Today, we need to take it another step further and plan for the future, reconsider our tools to allow for a Regulation that would be better focused, humbler and nimbler”.
Whatever “Phase 1” was would thus be already outpaced. Farewell stringent public service, so long market openings to competition. Such an understanding of Regulation was certainly consistent with the idea that Regulation was only meant to be temporary, namely considering the everlasting protection of personal data by the dedicated supervisory authority (Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés, CNIL)…
We would then need to implement “Phase 2” and, as Sébastien Soriano advises, to “Regulate by the multitude”, which is "a concept that includes consumers, but also users, observers, and the civil society as a whole. The key question is how to use the power of information to get the greatest possible leverage on the market while relying on the multitude. The answer is clear: Regulation by data"("La multitude, ce sont les utilisateurs, les observateurs, la société civile. Cela inclut les consommateurs, mais pas uniquement. Et la question centrale, c’est comment utiliser le pouvoir de l’information pour avoir un maximum d'effet de levier sur le marché et grâce à la multitude. La réponse, c’est la régulation par la data.").
Like all the others, the Telecom Regulator introduces himself as a sort of ‘natural’ Regulator for digital activities, as he relies on the key notion that is information. In doing so, he is seeking allies that are just as natural as he is— that is to say, consumers. Consumers fall indeed into the scope of the Regulator insofar as they provide him with the information he needs to Regulate the digital sector and space.
The Regulator thus does not define himself anymore as the one that protects consumers against the market, but as the one that binds the two together, transforming the complaint into a civic act: “There’s a problem. As a consumer, I am alerting you as a Regulator who has the means to regulate market failures and whom I shall let operate”.
In such a statement, the ARCEP not only becomes the ‘natural’ digital Regulator, but it also become the one that operates on the grounds of information brought by the web-user, who is protected by and who somehow benefits in return from the action of the Regulator.
Two concluding thoughts:
What a nimble reasoning indeed from the Regulator, who had initially been created to be the ‘container Regulator’, and who is now becoming, since Phase 2 is on its way, a kind of ‘overall’ Regulator that regulates both the container and the content.
This is a salient example that rationales and frameworks that were developed by the Banking and Financial Regulation are modelling Regulation in general: see whistleblowers, information, obsolescence of the ‘public service’.
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.
In an article written in French, the press of Senegal reported a conference in which the First President of the Dakar Court of Appeal stated that the judicial court - in the present case the Dakar Court of Appeal - after being a bit "frightened "by the regulatory law, because of its technicality, and after its fear of being dispossessed of cases because of the power of that the regulatory authorities in place to exercise the dispute resolution, is able to play its role today.
He first asserts that judges learned the technic of regulatory matter(in this case, his speech was about the public markets).
He asserts, secondly, that when the parties are in conflict, they continue to go before the judicial court, regardless of the existence of the independant administrative bodies and their dispute resolution function.
René Sève is a graduate of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, holds an agrégation in philosophy, and a doctorate degree in Law. He also has advanced postgraduate degrees in Philosophy, Social Psychology, and Law. (...)
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On December 5, 2011, the United States Postal Service, an agency of the federal government, announced that it would close 252 of its mail processing centers by March 2012, thereby ending the expectation for next-day delivery of intra-zone first-class mail and increasing all delivery times by one day, as well as seek legislative approval for a plethora of other service cuts.
FRENCH
Le 5 décembre 2011, La Poste américaine, une agence fédérale, a annoncé qu’elle fermerait 252 de ses centres de courrier d’ici mars 2012 ainsi mettant fin à la livraison J+1 pour le courrier prioritaire intra-zone et rajoutant un jour à la livraison de tout autre pli, et qu’elle demanderait au Congrès l’autorisation d’effectuer des coupures de service plus significatives encore.
ITALIAN
Il 5 dicembre 2011 il servizio postale degli Stati Uniti, agenzia del governo federale, ha annunciato che chiuderà 252 centri di smistamento per la fine del mese di marzo 2012, mettendo fine alla consegna in 24 ore di posta di prima classe aumentando i tempi di consegna di un giorno. L’agenzia ha inoltre richiesto l’autorizzazione del legislatore per altri tagli di servizio.
The Directive innovates and improves the UCITS’ single market in three ways: first by recasting the 1985 Directive on UCITS in order to implement a simpler and harmonized regulatory framework (therefore improving UCITS’ marketing and investors’ protection) ; second, by providing for more cooperation between national and supranational regulators in order to secure and supervise UCITS’ single market ; third, by integrating the Directive into the Lamfalussy process as to ensure that its provisions be well-conceived, concurrently implemented by Member States and efficiently controlled by regulators.
FRENCH
La directive innove et améliore le marché interne des OPCV de trois façons : tout d’abord en réformant la Directive de 1985 sur les OPCVM de manière à instaurer un système de régulation plus simple et harmonisé (améliorant ainsi l’activité des OPCVM et la protection des investisseurs) ; en second lieu, elle met en place un meilleure coopération entre régulateurs nationaux et supranationaux de façon à sécuriser et mieux superviser le marché des OPCVM ; enfin, elle intègre la Directive dans le processus Lamfalussy afin de s’assurer de la qualité de ses dispositions, de sa transposition simultanée par les Etats Membres et de son contrôle effectif par les régulateurs européens.
GERMAN
Dank der OGAW Richtlinie von July 2009 richtet sich der Europäische Aktionsplan für Finanzdienstleistungen schritterweise nach mehr Liberalisierung sowie Regulierung der Binnenmarkt.
Die OGAW Richtline führt drei Reformen ein: Erstens wird die vorherige Richtlinie von 1985 verbessert, damit die Regulierung von OGAW leichter und harmonischer wird (und infolgedessen, damit der OGAW Betrieb und der Investorensschutz besser funktionnieren). Zweitens wird die Zusammenarbeit zwischen nationale- und europäische Regulierungsbehörde gefördert, um den OGAW-Markt sicherer zu machen. Und letztens wird die Richtlinie im Lamfalussy- Verfahren integriert. So werden die Qualität der Anordnungen der Richtlinie, ihre gleichzeitige Umsetzung der Richtlinie von Mitgliedstaaten und ihre tatsächtliche Überwachung auf der EU-Ebene gewährleistet.
SPANISH
Una Directiva visionaria sobre los OICVM: un nuevo paso hacia un mercado interno liberal, pero regulado en el sector de servicios financieros
La Directiva innova y mejora el mercado interno de los OICVM de tres formas: la primera, al relanzar la Directiva de OICVM de 1985 para poder implementar un marco regulatorio mas simple y harmonizado (lo cual mejora las acciones de los OICVM y la protección de los inversores); la segunda, al proveer más cooperación entre los reguladores nacionales y supranacionales para asegurar y supervisar el mercado de los OICVM; y la tercera, al integrar la Directiva en el proceso Lamfalussy para asegurar la calidad de sus disposiciones, su transposición simultanea para los Estados Miembros y su control eficaz por los reguladores europeos.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
At first sight, the notion of the neutrality of the State seems to be obvious and simple, almost a pleonasm. Being above isolated individuals, the State is responsible for the general interest, even envisioned on a long-term basis. However when one gets deeper into the analysis, this first observation, evident at first sight, must be mitigated and qualified.
FRENCH
A première vue,la notionde la neutralité del’Etatsemble êtreévidente et simple,presque un pléonasme. Etant au-dessusd’ individus isolés, l’Étatest responsable del’intérêt général, mêmeenvisagésur le long terme.Toutefois, A aller plus loin dans l’analyse,cette première observation,évidenteà première vue,doiventêtre atténués etexpliquée.
SPANISH
A primera vista, la noción de la neutralidad estatal parece ser obvio y simple, casi un pleonasmo. Estando por encima de los individuos aislados, el Estado es responsable por el interés general, aun cuando considerado a largo plazo. Pero cuando uno se sumerge en el análisis, esta primera observación, evidente a primera vista, puede ser mitigado y calificado.
ITALIAN
A prima vista, la nozione di neutralità dello Stato sembra un concetto ovvio e semplice, quasi un pleonasmo. Lo Stato, al di sopra degli individui singolarmente considerati, è responsabile dell’interesse generale, persino a lungo termine. Tuttavia, quando si analizza in modo più approfondito tale concetto, questa prima osservazione, evidente a prima vista, deve essere relativizzata e specificata.
