Search results (1064 cards)

Nov. 30, 2016

JoRC

Updated: Sept. 19, 2012 (Initial publication: May 25, 2012)

Sectorial Analysis

Main information

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.

Updated: Dec. 19, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 19, 2011)

Doctrine

Concurrence et Services publics, Enjeux et perspectives

Updated: Dec. 5, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 5, 2011)

Doctrine

L’expérience espagnole en matière d'autorités administratives indépendantes

April 25, 2019

10. Independant Administrative Authorities

June 17, 1998

Thesaurus

July 3, 2018

10. Independant Administrative Authorities

June 21, 2018

Jurisprudence

Oct. 19, 2016

JoRC

Oct. 15, 2026

JoRC

► Full referenceJournal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I), Institut de Recherche juridique de la Sorbonne -IRJS (Sorbonne Legal Research Institute),   Compliance et droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), 15 October 2026.

____

🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract.

____

The symposium is under the scientific responsibility of Nicolas Bargue, 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and 🕴️Julia Heinich.

____

To register:

____

🧮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:

📕Compliance and Contractsforthcoming in the series 📚Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

📘Compliance and Contract, to be published in the 📚Compliance & Regulation  Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

 

🔻 Read the schedule for the event below ⤵️