As part of a procedure initiated for anti-competitive behaviors, the European Commission has three times requested, between the 13th of March and the 11th of November 2019, from Facebook the communication of information, reitarated in a decision in May 2020.
Facebook contests it alleging that the requested documents would contain sensitive personal information that a transmission to the Commission would make accessible to a too broad number of observers, while "the documents requested under the contested decision were identified on the basis of wideranging search terms, (...) there is strong likelihood that many of those documents will not be necessary for the purposes of the Commission’s investigation".
The contestation therefore evokes the violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality but also of due process because these probatory elements are collected without any protection and used afterwards. Moreover, Facebook invokes what would be the violation of a right to the respect of personal data of its employees whose the emails are transferred.
The court reminds that the office of the judge is here constraint by the condition of emergency to adopt a temporary measure, acceptable by the way only if there is an imminent and irreversible damage. It underlines that public authorities benefit of a presumption of legality when they act and can obtain and use personal data since this is necessary to their function of public interest. Many allegations of Facebook are rejected as being hypothetical.
But the Court analyzes the integrality of the evoked principles with regards with the very concrete case. But, crossing these principles and rights in question, the Court estimates that the European Commission did not respect the principle of necessity and proportionality concerning employees' very sensitive data, these demands broadening the circle of information without necessity and in a disproportionate way, since the information is very sensitive (like employees' health, political opinions of third parties, etc.).
It is therefore appropriate to distinguish among the mass of required documents, for which the same guarantee must be given in a technique of communication than in a technic of inspection, those which are transferable without additional precaution and those which must be subject to an "alternative procedure" because of their nature of very sensitive personal data.
This "alternative procedure" will take the shape of an examination of documents considered by Facebook as very sensitive and that it will communicate on a separate electronic support, by European Commission's agents, that we cannot a priori suspect to hijack law. This examination will take place in a "virtual data room" with Facebook's attorneys. In case of disagreement between Facebook and the investigators, the dispute could be solved by the director of information, communication and medias of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission.
___
We can draw three lessons from this ordinance:
This decision shows that Procedural Law and Compliance Law are not opposed. Some often say that Compliance guarantees the efficacy and that Procedure guarantees fundamental rights, the protection of the one must result in the diminution of the guarantee of the other. It is false. As this decision shows it, through the key notion of sensitive personal data protection (heart of Compliance Law) and the care for procedure (equivalence between communication and inspection procedures; contradictory organization of the examination of sensitive personal data), we see once again that two branches of Law express the same care, have the same objective: protecting people.
The judge is able to immediately find an operational solution, proposing "an alternative procedure" axed around the principle of contradictory and conciliating Commision's and Facebook's interests has shown that it was able to bring alternative solutions to the one it suspends the execution, appropriate solution to the situation and which equilibrate the interest of both parties.
The best Ex Ante is the one which anticipate the Ex Post by the pre-constitution of evidence. Thus the firm must be able to prove later the concern that it had for human rights, here of employees, to not being exposed to sanctioning pubic authorities. This Ex Ante probatory culture is required not only from firms but also from public authorities which also have to give justification of their action.
A Chinese economic newspaper revealed, by an anonymous source, that the Chinese banking regulator, ordered end of 2011, five first Chinese financial institutions to proceed in the determination and the quality of loans granted, so they rank their bad debt. The control by the regulator through the self-assessment will be made from end of May 2012.
A series of decisions handed down by the European Court of Justice on March 9, 2010 reduces the burden of proof for environmental damages, in order to facilitate the application of the 'polluter pays' principle, and provides national regulatory authorities broad powers in enforcing environmental liability.
The cost issue of regulation is a recurring issue.
One can complain specifically, when companies are protesting about the "cost of regulation" or when the topic is taken as an object of study, through the cost / benefit calculation.
A practical question of importance is whether there is a "legal question" or not.
The "juridicity" of a question is defined by the fact that discussing about this question has an effect on the outcome of a case before a judge. This concrete definition, leaving the judge's power, binding nature of the rule (here the balance between cost and benefit) the effectiveness of its decision before the judge, its consideration by him in the decision he makes, has been proposed in France by Carbonnier. It is opposed to a definition of Law by the source, the author of the rule, which identifies law for example through Parliament Acts, because the text is adopted by the legislator, listed source of law.
The first definition, more sociological, more flexible, giving the spotlight on judge better corresponds to a legal system which gives more room for ex post and for the judge. It is logical that we find more demonstrations of this conception in the common law systems.
However, the issue of cost / benefit is being debated before the Supreme Court of the United States, about the latest environmental regulations, adopted by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). It is a question of law. It is under the empire of the judge.
For it is in this light that President Barack Obama in November 2014 asked a very costly regulation, and it was under his leadership that the Environmental Protection Agency has developed texts. Indeed, pollution of certain plants are the cause of asthma and laid in public health imperative to fight a regulation that results in a direct cost on firms. Indeed, some plants pollution is the cause of asthma and President Obama has asked public health imperative to combat by a regulation that results in a direct cost on the industry. The regulations adopted in 2012 they cost a $ 9 million, some claiming that future ones could result in billions of costs directly related to business The President emphasized by stating that the health of children was priceless.
By challenging those of 2012 before the Supreme Court, in the case Michigan v. EPA, this is the other texts that conservative states and companies have in mind because it is the principle that is posed: : does A regulator have the right to take regulations very "expensive" when the advantage, however legitimate it is, is small-scale in terms of costs? The Supreme Court, having chosen to handle the case, listened to March 25, 2015, the arguments of each other and discussed the case.
The question is the integration or not into the constitutional notion of "necessity of the law" of the "cost / benefit" calculation. This is a crucial point because the concept of "necessity of the law" is a common notion to the constitutions of many countries.
However, not only the so-called judges "conservatives" as Justice Antonio Scalia, took position felt it was crazy not "consider" the cost of new regulations from the expected health benefits, but also Justice Stephen Breyer called "progressive," said "irrational" the environmental regulator has not taken in consideration such an imbalance between cost and benefit.
It is true that Justice Breyer was formerly professor of competition law at Harvard.
On April 27, 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee for Health voted to introduce an amendment to the European Commission’s ‘Pharmacovigilance and Prescription Medicine Package’, which would introduce a strict regime for online prescription medicine sellers.
On April 7, 2011, the Belgian Council of State handed down a ruling (n° 212.557) in which it overruled a decision by the Commission de Regulation de l’Electricité et du Gaz (CREG – Belgian Regulatory Commission for Electricity and Gas) to fine the City of Wavre for non-compliance with its annual reporting obligations.
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Energie): Der belgische Bundesrat kippt ein von der belgischen Regulierungsbehörde für Elektrizität und Gas beschlossenes Bußgeld
Am 7. April 2011 beschließt der Belgische Bundesrat per Gerichtsentscheid (n° 212.557) die Entscheidung der Kommission für Regulierung von Elektrizität und Gas (CREG – Belgian Regulatory Commission for Electricity and Gas) umzustoßen, welche der Stadt Wavre ein Bußgeld für nicht-Einhaltung der jährlichen Berichtspflicht auferlegte.
PORTUGUESE
Informe temático (Energia): O Conselho de Estado belga anulou multas impostas pela Comissão regulatória belga para eletricidade e gás.
Em 7 de abril de 2011, o Conselho de Estado belga publicou julgamento (nº 212.557) no qual ele anulou uma decisão da Commission de Regulation de l’Electricité et du Gaz (CREG – Comissão regulatória belga para eletricidade e gás) em que a cidade de Wavre foi multada pelo descumprimento de suas obrigações de divulgação de informes anuais.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica: Il Consiglio di Stato belga abroga la multa fatta dalla Commissione di regolazione per il gas e l’elettricità
Il 7 aprile 2011, il Consiglio di Stato belga ha reso una decisione (n° 212.557) nella quale dichiara illegittima una decisione della Commissione di regolazione del gas e delle’elettricità (CREG - Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz) che aveva previsto una multa alla città di Wavre per inadempienza agli obblighi di rendiconto annuale.
