Nov. 28, 2021
Compliance: at the moment
Oct. 6, 2020
Thesaurus : 05. CJCE - CJUE
Full reference: CJEU, Grand Chamber, 6th of October 2020, Privacy International c/ Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, C-623/17.
Aug. 21, 2020
Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Being obliged by Law to unlock telephone is not equivalent to self-incrimination: Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, Dec. 19, 2019, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 21st of August 2020
Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Summary of the news
The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Judicial Court) made a decision on 19th of December 2019 about a case concerning a refusal to communicate his mobile phone's unlock code to the police while the police found him with a significant quantity of narcotic and a lot of cash and that there was a certain probability that this mobile phone get proofs of culpability of its owner. The individual was indicted not for narcotic trafficking but for not having communicate its unlock code which constitute an offense to article 434-15-2 of code pénal, from the loi du 3 juin 2018 renforçant la lutte contre la criminalité organisée, et le terrorisme et leur financement (law reinforcing organized crime, terrorisme and their financing).
The accused invokes before the court its right to not incriminate oneself. Indeed, the configuration face to policemen was such that if he refused to communicate its unlock code, he will be punished because of this obligation to communicate his code and that if he accepted, he will also be sanctioned because of the proofs contained into the mobile phone. Such a configuration therefore offered him no alternative to confessing, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and to European and national jurisprudence.
Face to such a case, the Cour de Cassation chose to segment the information and proposed the following solution: if the researched information cannot be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness, it is not possible to constraint this person to communicate this information without violating its procedural rights, but if the information can be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness then the individual is obliged to communicate his code. In the current case, as it was possible for policemen to obtain information contained in the phone by technical means, longer but existent, then the refuse of communication of the unlock code by the suspect constitute an obstruction that should be sanctioned.
Such a decision is an exemple of the conciliation by the judge of two fundamental but contradictory "monumental goals" of Compliance Law: transparency of information towards public authorities and very sensible personal data protection.
To go further, read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's working paper: Rethinking the world from the notion of data
July 13, 2016
Par sa décision du Conseil d’
En effet, le 17 décembre 2015, le CSA a agréé la décision de la chaîne LCI à ne plus faire payer l'accès à ses programmes.
Ce passage 'en clair" a été agréé d'une façon non ouverte alors que les textes communautaires visent avant tout le principe de concurrence et sont hiérarchiquement supérieurs au droit français qui organise la régulation du secteur.
On comprend donc que les concurrents de LCI, BFM TV et NextRadio TV aient attaqué cette décision devant le Conseil d’
Référence complète : CE, 13 juillet 2016, Société BFM TV et NextRadio TV, n° 395824 et 399098
Aug. 5, 2014
In France, a decree of 1st August 2014 finally reorganizes the sanction procedure before the French telecommunication Regulator (ARCEP), after the condemnation by the French Constitutional Council for partiality
Aug. 1, 2014
Thesaurus : 03. Décrets, réglements et arrêtés
Decree of 1 August 2014 Décret du 1er août 2014 relatif à la procédure de sanction de l'Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP) -on the procedure for sanction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Posts (ARCEP)
July 27, 2014
phone usage in relation to the planes both air traffic control and telecommunications regulation: it is a case of interregulation .