The European Commission conducted a competition inquiry on the competitiveness of European energy markets, because it believed that these markets functioned poorly, especially because they are insufficiently open to competition and their prices are too high. Proceedings were begun in December 2009 against E.ON, and were closed by this corporation’s May 4, 2010 legally-binding commitments to the European Commission to improve its competitors’ access to its natural gas transportation network. Access to transportation networks, which are essential facilities, is the heart of any regulatory system, and if access was not organized beforehand (ex ante), it can be arranged afterwards (ex post), as is the case in this affair, via an alliance between Competition Law and Contract Law, wherein the commitments take on the form of a sort of co-regulation (cf. infra brief summary)
FRENCH
Par une décision du 4 mai 2010, la Commission Européenne a accepté le les engagements proposés par la société énergétique allemande E.ON d’ouvrir davantage à ses concurrents l’accès à son réseau de transport de gaz.
La commission européenne a mené en 2007 une enquête sectorielle sur le fonctionnement concurrentiel des marchés énergétiques européens en estimant que ceux-ci fonctionnent mal, notamment puisqu’ils sont peu ouverts et leurs prix trop élevés. Une procédure ouverte en décembre 2009 contre E.ON est ici close par l’engagement de celle-ci envers la commission européenne d’ouvrir à ses concurrents son réseau de transport de gaz. L’accès au réseau de transport, facilité essentielle, est le cœur du système de régulation et s’il ne se fait pas {ex ante} il peut se faire alors {ex post}, comme on le voit dans cette affaire, par une alliance entre le droit de la concurrence et le droit du contrat, l’engagement devenant une sorte de corégulation (voir infra dans le bref commentaire).
GERMAN
Die Europäische Kommission hat am 4. Mai 2010 ein Beschluss veröffentlicht, in dem sie die Zusage des deutschen Energiekonzerns E.ON, der Konkurrenz effektiven Zugang zu seinen Gasleitungen zu öffnen, für verbindlich erklärt.
Die Europäische Kommission hat eine kartellrechtliche Untersuchung im Energiesektor durchgeführt, da sie die europäischen Energiemärkte für ineffizient hielt, vor allem aufgrund mangelnden Wettbewerbs und zu hohen Preisen.Mit dem Beschluss vom 4. Mai 2010 werden die von E.ON angebotenen Verpflichtungen, den Zugang zu den Gasnetzwerken für potentielle Konkurrenten zu öffnen, für rechtlich bindend erklärt. Zugang zu Transportnetzen, die als wesentliche Einrichtungen ({Essential Facilities}) zählen, ist zentral für jedes Regulatierungssystem. Wenn dieser Zugang nicht im Voraus ({ex ante}) organisiert ist, kann er trotzdem im Nachhinein ({ex post}) etabliert werden, wie es hier den Fall ist, durch ein Bündnis zwischen Wettbewerbsrecht und Vertragsrecht, indem das Unternehmen durch seine Verpflichtungen quasi mitregulierend wirkt (siehe unten {Brief Summary})
SPANISH
En una decisión del 4 de mayo 2010, la Comisión Europea acepta los compromisos de la corporación alemana de energía, E.ON, para mejorar el acceso de competidores a la red de transporte del gas natural.
La Comisión Europea llevó a cabo una encuesta sectorial sobre la concurrencia en los mercados europeos de energía, ya que sea cree que estos mercados no funcionan de manera eficaz, especialmente porque no son los suficientemente abiertos a la competencia y sus precios son demasiado altos. Los trámites comenzaron en diciembre del 2009 contra la E.ON y fueron cerrados por ésta ante sus compromisos vinculantes ante la Unión Europea del 4 de mayo 2010 de mejorar el acceso de competidores a la red de transporte de gas natural. El acceso a las redes de transporte, que son facilidades esenciales, se encuentra al centro de cualquier sistema regulatorio, y si el acceso no fue organizado anteriormente (ex ante), puede ser organizado posteriormente (ex post), como en este caso a través de un alianza entre la Ley de la Concurrencia y la Ley de Contrato, donde los compromisos actúan de manera ‘co-regulatoria’ (VER. Infra para resumen breve).
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.
Procedure is that by which a body of law finds its unity: the right to an impartial tribunal, as stated in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, created a new unit in Regulation Law, as it also requires from Regulatory Authorities to "show" their impartiality whenever they act as courts.
Nevertheless, little by little, the national courts and the ECHR itself indicated the contours of this right, which cannot, admittedly, end up nullifying the effectiveness of the mission of Regulators.
It is assumed that whenever a Regulatory Authority intervenes whether in "civil matters", i.e., when it affects the civil rights or the property rights of a person, or in "criminal matters", i.e., when it sanctions a significantly serious behavior, the individuals that are exposed to the power of the Regulator are protected against it by the right to impartiality. Since the regulator has the power to judge, it also has to respond to the condition of impartiality.
As such, not only those within the Regulatory Authority involved should not be in conflict of interest or have already experienced the event (personal, subjective and/or objective impartiality), but the Authority in its organization and processes itself shall give to see its impartiality to the person who is threatened by its power- and, beyond, to the entire society. This objective structural impartiality is called after English law "apparent impartiality."
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.
In the United States, in its political program, the Republican Party has indicated that it considered inadequate the decision of the Department of Justice adopted in December 2011, according to that the prohibition of poker does not apply when this game was played on line. Indeed, the Republican Party said that this game can be pathological, because it can destroy the players and their families. As such, the distorted interpretation that the previous administration that made of the Wire Act should be canceled for that to be restored, according to it, the outright prohibition of online poker. This program must be compared, in contrast with the court decision, which comes instead to ask that poker can be freely organized, because it is not even a gambling game.
The Libor is the rate of the interbank market practised in the United Kingdom. A large number of financial operations are based on it. So far, its daily development is grounded on a declaratory system on the part of the banks. Since the conviction of Barclays on June 27, 2012 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the general suspicion that a very great banks have contributed to manipulations of the Libor, the relevance of the system itself is questioned.
While investigations and prosecutions was put in place for the past in all countries, British Government give to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) study of reform of a Libor, either to detach itself from a declaratory system, or to keep an eye on it and internalize effective sanctions. The report, which will serve as a basis for the reform will be made the end of September 2012.
The Italian upper administrative court (“Consiglio di Stato”) ruled that the Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (“AgCom” – the Italian Regulatory Authority for electronic communications) is not bound to provide a rigorous justification when issuing decisions not compliant with European Commission’s comments.
This judgment is of general interest since, on the basis of a formalistic reasoning, it does not pay adequate attention to the role played by the European Commission in electronic communications’ regulatory proceedings at national level.
Under the European regulatory framework (and the multilevel governance system established therein), comments from the European Commission are the main pillar of the horizontal coordination system between the European level and the national level, aimed at creating a competitive common market for electronic communications.
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?
