Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Terré, F., Concurrence et proportionnalité, in Parléani, G. (coord.), Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Claude Lucas de Leyssac, LexisNexis, novembre 2018, pp.467-471. 

____

 

Lire une présentation générale des Mélanges dans lesquels l'article a été publié.

____

Oct. 14, 2021

Publications

 Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionnalité et Conformité (" Proportionality and Compliance"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

 This article is based on the Working Paper: Proportionality and Compliance

 It has followed the conference done in the colloquium Compliance et Proportionnalité. Du contrôle de proportionnalité à la proportionnalité du contrôle ("Compliance and Proportionality. From the Controle of Proportionality to the Proportionality of the controle 

___

 

 Article English Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.

 

However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression.   But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition...  Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...

In this definition of Compliance Law, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of  squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.

By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law,  the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression  Law  has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.

In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of ​​Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...

 

But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!

 

Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose  effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.

A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as Goals have be precised, Proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of Criminal Law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "Monumental Goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Goal Monumental Goals". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to that. Then all the Compliance Tools must adjust in a "proportionate way", that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).

In consequence, the rule contrary to the Principle of Proportionality is: the rule useless to achieve the goal. The unnecessary rule is the disproportionate rule: this is how the judicial review of excessive sanctions should be understood, not by the notion of "the limit" but not by the notion of "the unnecessary".

Everything then depends on the legal quality of the goal. De jure - and this would deserve to be a requirement at constitutional level, the goal must always be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, attainable.

This increases the office of the Judge. This renews the power of the Legislator in a conception which ceases to be discretionary.

But the Legislator retains the prerogative of determining the Monumental Goals, while the Judge controls the quality of the formulation that he makes of them, in order to be able to measure the proportionality of the means which are put in front by the State and the Companies, while Companies can rally to the Monumental Goals of the Politics by making an alliance with them, but certainly not instituting others in an autonomous way because they are not normative political entities, whereas they are free to determine the means necessary to achieve these goals, the Judge controling the proportionality mechanism that makes this new system work.

The case law of the German Constitutional Council expresses this conception. It is fully consistent with what Compliance Law is in what is the one Monumental Goal containing all the systemic Monumental Goals: the protection of the human being.

____

 

📝 Go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published in French.

 

__________

 

Oct. 14, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionality and Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, to be published.

It is based on the Working paper: Proportionality and Compliance.

___

► Article Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.

However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression.   But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition...  Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...

In this definition of Compliance Law, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of  squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.

By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law,  the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression  Law  has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.

In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of ​​Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...

 

But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!

 

Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose  effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.

A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as Goals have be precised, Proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of Criminal Law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "Monumental Goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Goal Monumental Goals". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to that. Then all the Compliance Tools must adjust in a "proportionate way", that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).

In consequence, the rule contrary to the Principle of Proportionality is: the rule useless to achieve the goal. The unnecessary rule is the disproportionate rule: this is how the judicial review of excessive sanctions should be understood, not by the notion of "the limit" but not by the notion of "the unnecessary".

Everything then depends on the legal quality of the goal. De jure - and this would deserve to be a requirement at constitutional level, the goal must always be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, attainable.

This increases the office of the Judge. This renews the power of the Legislator in a conception which ceases to be discretionary.

But the Legislator retains the prerogative of determining the Monumental Goals, while the Judge controls the quality of the formulation that he makes of them, in order to be able to measure the proportionality of the means which are put in front by the State and the Companies, while Companies can rally to the Monumental Goals of the Politics by making an alliance with them, but certainly not instituting others in an autonomous way because they are not normative political entities, whereas they are free to determine the means necessary to achieve these goals, the Judge controling the proportionality mechanism that makes this new system work.

The case law of the German Constitutional Council expresses this conception. It is fully consistent with what Compliance Law is in what is the one Monumental Goal containing all the systemic Monumental Goals: the protection of the human being.

____ 

 

► read the Working Paper, with techical developments, references and hypertext links.

 

► go to the  general presentation of the book in which this article is published

July 22, 2021

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Definition of Principe of Proportionality  and  definition of Compliance Law,  Working Paper, July  2021.

____

 

🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference in the colloquium Compliance and Proportionality. From the control of Proportionality to the proportionality of the control, to be helded in Toulouse, France, on the 14th October 2021.

 

📝It constitutes the basis for an article: 

📕 this article will be published in its French version in the book  Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancein the Series 📚   Régulations & Compliance

 📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goalsin the Series 📚   Compliance & Regulation

____

► Working Paper Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.

 

However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression.   But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition...  Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...

In this definition of Compliance Law, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of  squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.

By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law,  the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression  Law  has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.

In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of ​​Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...

 

But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!

 

Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose  effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.

A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as Goals have be precised, Proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of Criminal Law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "Monumental Goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Goal Monumental Goals". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to that. Then all the Compliance Tools must adjust in a "proportionate way", that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).

In consequence, the rule contrary to the Principle of Proportionality is: the rule useless to achieve the goal. The unnecessary rule is the disproportionate rule: this is how the judicial review of excessive sanctions should be understood, not by the notion of "the limit" but not by the notion of "the unnecessary".

Everything then depends on the legal quality of the goal. De jure - and this would deserve to be a requirement at constitutional level, the goal must always be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, attainable.

This increases the office of the Judge. This renews the power of the Legislator in a conception which ceases to be discretionary.

But the Legislator retains the prerogative of determining the Monumental Goals, while the Judge controls the quality of the formulation that he makes of them, in order to be able to measure the proportionality of the means which are put in front by the State and the Companies, while Companies can rally to the Monumental Goals of the Politics by making an alliance with them, but certainly not instituting others in an autonomous way because they are not normative political entities, whereas they are free to determine the means necessary to achieve these goals, the Judge controlling the proportionality mechanism that makes this new system work.

The case law of the German Constitutional Court expresses this conception. It is fully consistent with what Compliance Law is in what is the one Monumental Goal containing all the systemic Monumental Goals: the protection of the human being.

_____________

 

June 3, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Hochmann, Th., Un succès d'exportation : la conception allemande du contrôle de proportionnalité, AJDA 2021, p.805 s. 

Dec. 9, 2020

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Dezeuze, E. , La proportionnalité des sanctions administratives en matière économique et financière, in Mélanges en l'honneur d'Alain CouretUn juriste pluriel, Editions Francis Lefebvre et Dalloz, 2020, pp.683-701.

 

Consulter la présentation générale de l'ouvrage dans lequel cet article a été publié

May 22, 2020

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Full reference: Support, A., "La refondation de l'Europe ne pourra se faire sans sortir des traités actuels" ("The refoundation of Europe cannot be done without leaving the current treaties"), column in Le Figaro, 22nd of May 2020

Read Alain Supiot's column (in French)

 

In this column, Alain Supiot underlines the opportunity offered by the judgment of the Court of Karlsruhe of May 5, 2020 concerning the proportionality of the unconventional monetary measures adopted by the ECB.

May 8, 2020

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Full reference: Pistor, K., Germany Constitutional Court Goes Rogue, Project Syndicate, 8th of May 2020

Read the article 

Dec. 1, 2019

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : De Backer, N., « Le principe de proportionnalité à l’épreuve de la liberté d’expression numérique », J.E.D.H., 2019/4, p. 243-277. 

Nov. 15, 2017

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Le Gac-Pech, S., Le nouvel art de juger : quand la proportionnalité s'invite dans la mise en œuvre de la règle de droit, Revue Lamy Droit civil, nº 153, 2017. 

 

Oct. 24, 2017

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Dezeuze, E., La proportionnalité des sanctions administratives en matière économique et financièreGaz. Pal., n°36, 2017.  

Jan. 18, 2017

Thesaurus

Référence complète : Gaudemet, Y., La régulation économique ou la dilution des normes, Revue de droit public, p.23 et s.

Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l'article via le drive de Sciences po dans le dossier "MAFR - Régulation"

Dans cet article critique, Yves Gaudemet affirme que le Droit de la Régulation économique illustre le phénomène plus général de la "dilution des normes, phénomène auquel est consacré le dossier ici consacré par la Revue de Droit public au "Désordre normatif".

Il estime que le Droit de la Régulation économique l'illustre en ce qu'il fait subir aux normes une sorte de "dilution".

Cela tient tout d'abord au vocabulaire, où règne ce qu'il qualifie le "désordre des mots", affectant la sécurité juridique. Le "Droit souple" est le moyen d'une "régulation bavarde", faite de proclamations, de recommandations et de lignes directrices.

Le juge devient alors le "régulateur ultime", puisqu'il applique à ce Droit souple un contrôle de proportionnalité.

Les "actes de régulation" eux-mêmes sont dilués entre eux, puisque les Autorités peuvent les utiliser d'une façon alternée, les pouvoirs s'appuyant les uns sur les autres, notamment le pouvoir de sanction, avec une "utilisation indifférenciée par les autorités de régulation des nombreux outils qu'elles ont à leur disposition", le tout s'appuyant le plus souvent sur un pouvoir d'auto-saisine. Par exemple l'auto-saisine pour émettre un avis. Yves Gaudemet cite l'ARCEP qui pour prendre une décision s'appuie sur de futures lignes directrices ....

L'auteur reprend à son compte les reproches formulés en 2010 par le Rapport Dosière-Vaneste sur la production normative excessive des Autorités de Régulation, et le Rapport du Conseil d'État de 2001 sur les AAI qui leur reproche "l’ambiguïté magique" de leur activité.

Yves Gaudemet propose de ramener de ramener le champs de la Régulation dans la "langue du Droit" et de soumettre son contrôle aux "qualifications du Droit".

Dans la seconde partie de l'article, qui confronte la Régulation économique et l'Ordre du Droit, Yves Gaudemet attend de la jurisprudence, ici principalement celle du Conseil d'État qu'elle discipline cette régulation, telle qu'exprimée par les arrêts du 21 mars 2016, Fairwesta et Numericable.

De cette façon là, les Autorités de Régulation deviennent responsable de l'exercice de leur pouvoir normatif d'émettre du Droit souple.

 

 

 

Feb. 3, 2016

Thesaurus : 03. Conseil d'Etat

Référence complète : C.E., sous-section 6 et 1 réunies, Président de l'Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF).

 

Lire l'arrêt.

May 20, 2015

Thesaurus : 02. Cour de cassation

La chambre criminelle de la cour de cassation a précisé la portée qu'elle donne à la décision du 18 mars 2015 rendue par le Conseil constitutionnel, EADS.

Un prévenu ne peut plus être condamné, sur le fondement de l' article L. 465 1 du Code monétaire et financier , pour des faits identiques à ceux pour lesquels la commission des sanctions de l'AMF avait antérieurement statué à son encontre de manière définitive sur le fondement de l'article L. 621 15 du même Code.

Quand bien même le juge pénal aurait, comme en l'espèce, fait application en matière de délit boursier des dispositions de l' article L. 621 16 du Code monétaire et financier permettant d'imputer la sanction pécuniaire prononcée par la commission des sanctions de l'AMF sur le montant de l'amende pénale, faisant ainsi application du principe de proportionnalité rappelée alors par le Conseil constitutionnel dans sa décision du 29 juillet 1989 sur la loi relative à la sécurité et à la transparence du marché financier, le principe ne bis in idem fera désormais obstacle à ce que le juge pénal puisse prononcer une quelconque sanction après un décision définitive de condamnation prononcée du chef du manquement boursier correspondant.

Nov. 15, 2014

Blog

La question a été posée dans un cas d'école au Conseil constitutionnel, qui a nettement répondu dans sa décision du 14 novembre 2014, QPC, M. Alain L.

Même si le dispositif est aujourd'hui abrogé, son appréciation par les juges suprêmes vaut le détour.

Une loi du 23 juin 1941 a eu pour objectif de préserver l'art et l'histoire français. Le nationalisme se portait particulièrement bien à l'époque. Le dispositif était en deux temps. Dans un premier temps (article 1ier de la loi), l'État pouvait refuser l'autorisation de sortie du territoire de l'oeuvre, présentant un intérêt national d'histoire ou d'art. Puis, dans un second temps (article 2 de la loi), il pouvait retenir l'oeuvre pour lui-même, transférant la propriété de celle-ci à une personne publique, ayant six mois pour le faire après un refus d'exportation qu'il aurait prononcé, le propriétaire ne pouvant pendant ce délai céder le bien.

La QPC a porté sur cette seconde disposition en tant qu'elle porte atteinte au droit de propriété privée sans nécessité publique, violant ainsi l'article 17 de la Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, partie intégrante du bloc de constitutionnalité.

Le Conseil répond qu'effectivement si le refus d'exportation poursuit un objectif d'intérêt général, en revanche le droit de "retenir" ainsi le bien pendant six mois sans que le propriétaire ne puisse rien faire de son bien, puis l'appropriation forcée par une personne publique, alors que la décision d'empêcher l'exportation a déjà été prise ne correspond pas aux critères établissant une "nécessité publique".

On ne peut qu'approuver une telle décision. Tout d'abord, parce que sans doute le Législateur de 1941 avait quelques arrières-pensées en s'appropriant des oeuvres d'art que certains propriétaires à l'époque voulaient sauver de quelques griffes dans cette sombre époque. Le Conseil d'État qui a transmis la QPC et le Conseil constitutionnel ne peuvent pas ne pas y penser. Ensuite, l'art est aussi un marché. On peut porter atteinte à celui-ci et restreindre la circulation. Oui, mais le refus d'exportation suffit. Pourquoi restreindre les acheteurs ? La "nécessité publique" ne justifie pas l'expropriation.

Surtout pas en 1941, quand on songe aux personnes qui voulaient vendre leurs tableaux pour fuir. Préserver l'Histoire, c'est peut-être pour l'État français de l'époque les exproprier, c'est surtout pour les juges de 2014 de songer à cette réalité de l'époque.

 

Nov. 9, 2014

Blog

La Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme (CEDH) a rendu un arrêt le 4 mars 2014, Grande Stevens, affirmant qu'en matière financière, l'État italien ne peut pour un même fait infliger à une personne et une sanction pénale et une sanction administrative.

Le Conseil constitutionnel vient de rendre une décision sur QPC le 24 octobre 2014, M. Stéphane R. et autres (Cour de discipline budgétaire et financière), concluant à la constitutionnalité d'un tel cumul. Par un arrêt du 23 juillet 2014, le Conseil d'État avait estimé que la question était suffisamment sérieuse pour qu'elle lui soit posée.

Les deux Considérants justifiant la solution la motivent ainsi :

Le premier pose "que le principe de nécessité des peine n'interdit pas au législateur de prévoir que certains faits puissent donner lieu à différentes qualifications ; que le principe de proportionnalité des peines ne fait pas obstacle à ce que, lorsque des faits peuvent recevoir plusieurs qualifications ayant un objet ou une finalité différents, le maximum des sanctions prononcées par la même juridiction ou autorité répressive puisse être plus sévère que pour des faits qui ne pourraient recevoir que l'une des ces qualifications ; que les sanctions prévues par les articles L.313-1, ..., du code des juridictions financières ne sont pas contraires aux principes de nécessité et de proportionnalité des peines".

Le second pose que "le principe de la nécessité des peines ne fait pas obstacle à ce que les mêmes faits commis par une même personne puissent faire l'objet de poursuites différentes aux fins de sanctions de nature disciplinaire ou pénale en application de corps de règles distinctes devant leurs propres ordres de juridictions".

Certes, le fait qu'il s'agit d'une des multiples ramifications de ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler L'affaire Tapie a peut-être joué. Mais les deux décisions de justice semblent bien en pleine contradiction. Décidément, les juges dialoguent de moins en moins ... S'il y a "bataille", qui restera sur le carreau ?

June 20, 2014

Thesaurus : 01. Conseil constitutionnel

July 1, 2012

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Bouloc, B., Remarques sur l’incitation à la mise en place d’un programme de conformité, RLC, n°32, 1 juillet 2012.

Les étudiants Sciences Po peuvent consulter l'article via le drive, dossier "MAFR-Régulation & Compliance".

May 1, 2012

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Fraissinier-Amiot, V., « Le principe de proportionnalité protecteur de la liberté d’entreprendre face à l’activité normative de l’État ? », Revue Lamy Droit civil, nº 71, 2012. 

March 5, 2009

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Puig, P., Le contrôle de proportionnalité en droit des affairesPetites affiches, n°46, 2009. 

March 5, 2009

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Kalfleche, G., Le contrôle de proportionnalité exercé par les juridictions administrativesPetites affiches, n°46, 2009. 

Updated: Feb. 1, 2007 (Initial publication: )

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Référence complète :  Goesel-Le Bihan, V., Le contrôle de proportionnalité exercé par le Conseil constitutionnel, in Dossier « Le contrôle de proportionnalité dans la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel : figures récentes », Revue française de droit constitutionnel, 2007/2 (n° 70), p. 269-295.

____