Food for thoughts

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

The State's traditional view is that it serves the general interest through its public services, either directly (by its administrations, or even by public enterprises), or by delegation (eg through the concession mechanism). Public service is generally defined in a functional way, ie through public service missions that the organization must perform, such as providing public transport or caring for the population whatever (Eg in France by the public firm the SNCF). The liberalization of those public sectors, the primary reference to the market as a means of achieving the general interest, the primary reference to competition and the play of the European Law has destroyed this intimacy between public service, general interest, public enterprise and State.

Today, in a dialectical game, the Regulation keeps this concern for public service missions in balance with the competition, in a competitive context and under the control of a Regulator. The system is more complex and challenging because it creates new difficulties, such as information asymmetry or less easy integration of long-term planning, but it is better suited to an open and globalized economy.

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

The Independent Administrative Authority (IAA) is the legal form that the legislator has most often chosen to build regulatory authorities. The IAA is only its legal form, but French law has attached great importance to it, following the often formalistic tradition of public law. They are thus independent administrative authorities, especially in the legal systems of continental law like France, Germany or Italy.

The essential element is in the last adjective: the "independent" character of the organism. This means that this organ, which is only administrative so has a vocation to be placed in the executive hierarchy, does not obey the Government. In this, regulators have often been presented as free electrons, which posed the problem of their legitimacy, since they could no longer draw upstream in the legitimacy of the Government. This independence also poses the difficulty of their responsibility, the responsibility of the State for their actions, and the accountability of their use of their powers. Moreover, the independence of regulators is sometimes questioned if it is the government that retains the power to appoint the leaders of the regulatory authority. Finally, the budgetary autonomy of the regulator is crucial to ensure its independence, although the authorities having the privilege of benefiting from a budget - which is not included in the LOLF - are very few in number. They are no longer referred to as "independent administrative authorities" but as "Independent Public Authorities", the legislator making a distinction between the two (French Law of 20 January 2017).

The second point concerns the second adjective: that it is an "administrative" body. This corresponds to the traditional idea that regulation is the mechanism by which the State intervenes in the economy, in the image of a kind of deconcentration of ministries, in the Scandinavian model of the agency. If we allow ourselves to be enclosed in this vocabulary, we conclude that this administrative body makes an administrative decision which is the subject of an appeal before a judge. Thus, in the first place, this would be a first instance appeal and not a judgment since the administrative authority is not a court. Secondly, the natural judge of the appeal should be the administrative judge since it is an administrative decision issued by an administrative authority. But in France the Ordinance of 1 December 1986 sur la concurrence et la libéralisation des prix (on competition and price liberalization), because it intended precisely to break the idea of ​​an administered economy in order to impose price freedom on the idea of ​​economic liberalism, required that attacks against the decisions of economic regulators taking the form of IAA are brought before the Court of Appeal of Paris, judicial jurisdiction. Some great authors were even able to conclude that the Paris Court of Appeal had become an administrative court. But today the procedural system has become extremely complex, because according to the IAA and according to the different kinds of decisions adopted, they are subject to an appeal either to the Court of Appeal of Paris or to the Conseil d'État (Council of State) . If one observes the successive laws that modify the system, one finds that after this great position of principle of 1986, the administrative judge gradually takes again its place in the system, in particular in the financial regulation. Is it logical to conclude that we are returning to a spirit of regulation defined as an administrative police and an economy administered by the State?

Finally, the third term is the name itself: "authority". It means in the first place an entity whose power holds before in its "authority". But it marks that it is not a jurisdiction, that it takes unilateral decisions. It was without counting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the judicial judge! Indeed, Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to an impartial tribunal in civil and criminal matters. The notion of "criminal matter" does not coincide with the formal traditional concept of criminal law but refers to the broad and concrete factual concept of repression. Thus, by a reasoning which goes backwards, an organization, whatever the qualification that a State has formally conferred on it, which has an activity of repression, acts "in criminal matters". From this alone, in the European sense, it is a "tribunal". This automatically triggers a series of fundamental procedural guarantees for the benefit of the person who is likely to be the subject of a decision on his part. In France, a series of jurisprudence, both of the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), the Conseil d'État (Council of State) or the Conseil constitutionnel (Constitutional Council) has confirmed this juridictionnalization of the AAI.

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

The notion of "Common Goods" refers to a political conception insofar as it concerns objectively commercial goods such as cultural goods or medical services, but which the community is going to demand that everyone should have access to it even though the individual does not have the ability to pay the exact price. It is then the taxpayer - present or future - or the social partners who bear the cost, or even some companies, through the corporal social social responsibility mechanism.

This protection of Common Goods can be done by the State in the name of the interest of the social group for which it is responsible and whose it expresses the will, particularly through the notion of the general interest. In this now restricted framework which is the State, this reference runs counter to the principle of competition. This is particularly clear in Europe, which is based on a Union built on an autonomous and integrated legal order in the Member States in which competition continues to have a principled value and benefits from the hierarchy of norms. The evolution of European Law has balanced the principle of competition with other principles, such as the management of systemic risks, for example health, financial or environmental risks and the creation of the banking union shows that the principle of competition is no longer an apex in the European system.

But it still remains to an economic and financial conception of Europe, definition that the definition of the Regulatory Law  when it is restricted to the management of the market failures feeds. It is conceivable that Europe will one day evolve towards a more humanistic conception of Regulatory  Law, the same one that the European States practice and defend, notably through the notion of public service. Indeed and traditionally, public services give people access to common goods, such as education, health or culture.

Paradoxically, even though Law is not set up on a global scale, it is at this level that the legal notion of "common goods" has developed.

When one refers to goods that are called "global goods", one then seeks goods that are common to humanity, such as oceans or civilizations. It is at once the heart of Nature and the heart of Human Being, which plunges into the past and the future. Paradoxically, the concept of "global goods" is still more political in substance, but because of a lack of global political governance, effective protection is difficult, as their political consecration can only be effective nationally or simply declaratory internationally. That is why this balance is at present only at national level, which refers to the difficulty of regulating globalization.

Thus, the "common goods" legally exist more under their black face: the "global evils" or "global ills" or "global failures", against which a "Global Law" actually takes place. The notion of "global evils" constitutes a sort of mirror of Common Goods. It is then observed that countries that develop legal discourse to regulate global evils and global goods thus deploy global unilateral national Law. This is the case in the United States, notably in financial regulatory Law or more broadly through the new Compliance Law, which is being born. Companies have a role to play, particularly through Codes of Conduct and Corporate Social Responsibility.

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

Legally, the State is a public law subject defined by territory, people and institutions. It acts in the international space and emits norms. Politically, it has the legitimacy required to express the will of the social body and to exercise the violence of which it deprives the other subjects of law. It is often recognizable by its power: its use of public force, its budgetary power, its jurisdictional power. These three powers, declining or being challenged by private, international and more satisfying mechanisms, some predicted the disappearance of the State, to deplore it or to dance on its corpse.

With such a background, in current theories of Regulation, primarily constructed by economic thought and at first sight one might say that the State is above all the enemy. And this for two main reasons. The first is theoretical and of a negative nature. The advocates of the theory of regulation deny the State the political qualities set out above. The State would not be a "person" but rather a group of individuals, civil servants, elected officials and other concrete human beings, expressing nothing but their particular interests, coming into conflict with other interests, and using their powers to serve the former rather than the latter as everyone else. The Regulation theory, adjoining the theory of the agency, is then aimed at controlling public agents and elected representatives in whom there is no reason to trust a priori.

The second reason is practical and positive. The State would not be a "person" but an organization. Here we find the same perspective as for the concept of enterprise, which classical lawyers conceive as a person or a group of people, while economists who conceive of the world through the market represent it as an organization. The state as an organization should be "efficient" or even "optimal". It is then the pragmatic function of the Regulation Law. When it is governed by traditional law, entangled by that it would be an almost religious illusions of the general interest, or even the social contract, it is suboptimal. The Regulation purpose is about making it more effective.

To this end, as an organization, the State is divided into independent regulatory agencies or independent administrative authorities that manage the subjects as close as possible, which is fortunate in reducing the asymmetry of information and in reviving trust in a direct link. The unitary, distant and arrogant State is abandoned for a flexible and pragmatic conception of a strategic state (without capital ...) that would finally have understood that it is an organization like any other ...

Competition law adopts this conception of the State, which it posed from the beginning that it was an economic operator like any other. This is how this conception which would be  more "neutral" of the world is often presented.

Successive crises, whether sanitary or financial, have produced a pendulum effect.

Now, the notions of general interest or common goods are credited of an autonomous value, and the necessity of surpassing immediate interests and of finding persons to bear superior interests or to take charge of the interests of others, even a non-immediate one, emerged.

Thus, the State or the public authority, reappears in the globalization. The Compliance Law or the Corporal Social Responsibility of the crucial companies are converging towards a consideration of the State, which can not be reduced to a pure and simple organization receptacle of externalities.

 

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

The goal for which a mechanism, a solution an institution or a rule is adopted, instituted or elaborated, is in principle external to them. Knowledge of this goal is a tool to better understand them and is only that.

On the contrary, in Regulation Law, the goal is the heart itself. By definition, Regulation Law is a set of instruments that articulate to take their meaning in relation to a goal. Moreover, these instruments are legitimate to represent a constraint only because they realize a goal which is itself legitimate. The interpretation of Regulation Law is based on the aims pursued: the reasoning is teleological.

This teleological nature explains that efficiency is no longer merely a concern - as for ordinary legal mechanisms, but rather a principle of Regulation Law. It explains the welcome, especially through the European Union Law of the theory of the useful effect. This link between rules, which are only means, and aims, refers to the principle of proportionality, which requires that constraints and exceptions be applied only when they are necessary, proportionality being the form off the classic principle of necessity.

Because the aim is the center, it must be expressed by the author of the Regulation standards, and this is all the more so if they are of a political nature, being not limited to mitigating technical failures of markets. This goal can be varied: the management of systemic risks, but also the consideration of the fundamental rights of people, the preservation of the environment, public health, civilization, education, etc. The silence of the legislature, which limits itself to the making of rules whereas these are merely instruments, without explicating the goal whereas the latter is a political decision, is a fault in the legislative art.

Moreover, in order that the person who applies the Regulation norm, in particular the Regulator and the Judge, has no excessive margin for interpretation and does not substitute for political power, the author of the Regulation norm needs to aim specifically for one goal : in this way, the one who applies the norm will be constrained. Or, if the author targets several purposes, then he must articulate them in relation to each other, by hierarchizing them for example. If he fails to do so, the institution which applies the regulatory standards will itself have to choose the purpose and exercise a power which he does not possess.

This express designation of purpose has been made for the European Banking Union,  this Regulation and Supervision construction, whose primary aim is to prevent systemic risks and resolve crises. Similarly, the purpose of the Regulation of essentiel infrastructures is to provide third parties access to the network. Similarly, in the case of a transitional regulation introduced following liberalization, the aim is to establish competition, the principle of which has been declared by the liberalization law. When this is not clearly stated, there is a lapse in the legislative art.

 

 

Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

Paradoxically, the notion of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of Economic Law only recently in Economic Law, in both Corporate and Public Law. This is due to the philosophy which animates these two branches of Law, very different for each, and which has changed in each.

In fact, and in the first place in Public Law, in the Continental legal systems and especially in French legal tradition, on the side of the State, the one who serves it, by a sort of natural effect,, makes the general interest incarnated by the State pass before its personal interest. There is an opposition of interests, namely the personal interest of this public official who would like to work less and earn more, and the common interest of the population, who would like to pay less taxes and for example benefit trains that always arrive on time and the general interest which would be for example the construction of a European rail network.

But this conflict would be resolved "naturally" because the public official, having "a sense of the general interest" and being animated by the "sense of public service", sacrifices himself to serve the general interes. He stays late at his office and gets the trains on time. This theory of public service was the inheritance of royalty, a system in which the King is at the service of the People, like the aristocracy is in the "service of the King." There could therefore be no conflict of interest, neither in the administration nor in the public enterprises, nor to observe, manage or dissolve. The question does not arise ...

Let us now take the side of the companies, seen by the Company Law. In the classical conception of corporate governance, corporate officers are necessarily shareholders of the company and the profits are mandatorily distributed among all partners: the partnership agreement is a "contract of common interest". Thus, the corporate officer works in the knowledge that the fruits of his efforts will come back to him through the profits he will receive as a partner. Whatever its egoism - and even the agent must be, this mechanism produces the satisfaction of all the other partners who mechanically will also receive the profits. Selfishness is indeed the motor of the system, as in the classical theory of Market and Competition. Thus, in the corporate mechanism, there is never a conflict of interest since the corporate officer is obligatorily associated: he will always work in the interest of the partners since in this he works for himself. As Company Law posits that the loss of the company will also be incurred and suffered by all partners, he will also avoid this prospect. Again, there is no need for any control. The question of a conflict of interest between the mandatary and those who conferred this function does not structurally arise...

These two representations both proved inaccurate. They were based on quite different philosophies - the public official being supposed to have exceeded his own interest, the corporate officer being supposed to serve the common interest or the social interest by concern for his own interest - but this was by  a unique reasoning that these two representations were defeated.

Let us take the first on Public Law: the "sense of the State" is not so common in the administration and the public enterprises, that the people who work there sacrifice themselves for the social group. They are human beings like the others. Researchers in economics and finance, through this elementary reflection of suspicion, have shattered these political and legal representations. In particular, it has been observed that the institutional lifestyle of public enterprises, very close to the government and their leaders, is often not very justified, whereas it is paid by the taxpayer, that is, by the social group which they claimed to serve. Europe, by affirming in the Treaty of Rome the principle of "neutrality of the capital of enterprises", that is to say, indifference to the fact that the enterprise has as its shareholder a private person or a public person, validated this absence of exceeding of his particular interest by the servant of the State, become simple economic agent. This made it possible to reach the conclusion made for Company Law.

Disillusionment was of the same magnitude. It has been observed that the corporate officer, ordinary human being, is not devoted to the company and does not have the only benefit of the profits he will later receive as a partner. He sometimes gets very little, so he can receive very many advantages (financial, pecuniary or in kind, direct or indirect). The other shareholders see their profits decrease accordingly. They are thus in a conflict of interest. Moreover, the corporate officer was elected by the shareholders' meeting, that is to say, in practice, the majority shareholder or the "controlling" shareholder (controlling shareholder) and not by all. He may not even be associated (but a "senior officer").

The very fact that the situation is no longer qualified by lawyers, through the qualifications of classical Company Law, still borrowing from the Civil Contract Law, the qualifications coming more from financial theories, borrowing from the theory of the agency, adically changed the perspective. The assumptions have been reversed: by the same "nature effect", the conflict of interest has been disclosed as structurally existing between the manager and the minority shareholder. Since the minority shareholder does not have the de facto power to dismiss the corporate officer since he does not have the majority of the voting rights, the question does not even arise whether the manager has or has not a corporate status: the minority shareholder has only the power to sell his securities, if the management of the manager is unfavorable (right of exit) or the power to say, protest and make known. This presupposes that he is informed, which will put at the center of a new Company Law information, even transparency.

Thus, this conflict of interests finds a solution in the actual transfer of securities, beyond the legal principle of negotiability. For this reason, if the company is listed, the conflict of interest is translated dialectically into a relationship between the corporate officer and the financial market which, by its liquidity, allows the agent to be sanctioned, and also provides information, Financial market and the minority shareholder becoming identical. The manager could certainly have a "sense of social interest", a sort of equivalent of the state's sense for a civil servant, if he had an ethics, which would feed a self-regulation. Few people believe in the reality of this hypothesis. By pragmatism, it is more readily accepted that the manager will prefer his interest to that of the minority shareholder. Indeed, he can serve his personal interest rather than the interest for which a power has been given to him through the informational rent he has, and the asymmetry of information he enjoys. All the regulation will intervene to reduce this asymmetry of information and to equip the minority shareholder thanks to the regulator who defends the interests of the market against the corporate officers, if necessary through the criminal law. But the belief in managerial volunteerism has recently taken on a new dimension with corporate social responsability, the social responsibility of the company where managers express their concern for others.

The identification of conflicts of interests, their prevention and their management are transforming Financial Regulatory Law and then the Common Law of Regulation, because today it is no longer believed a priori that people exceed their personal interest to serve the interest of others. It is perhaps to regain trust and even sympathy that companies have invested in social responsibility. The latter is elaborated by rules which are at first very flexible but which can also express a concern for the general interest. In this, it can meet Compliance Law and express on behalf of the companies a concern for the general interest, if the companies provide proof of this concern.

To take an example of a conflict of interest that resulted in substantial legal changes, the potentially dangerous situation of credit rating agencies has been pointed out when they are both paid by banks, advising them and designing products, While being the source of the ratings, the main indices from which the investments are made. Banks being the first financial intermediaries, these conflicts of interest are therefore systematically dangerous. That is why in Europe ESMA exercises control over these rating agencies.

The identification of conflicts of interest, which most often involves changing the way we look at a situation - which seemed normal until the point of view changes - the moral and legal perspective being different, Trust one has in this person or another one modifying this look, is today what moves the most in Regulation Law.
This is true of Public and Corporate Law, which are extended by the Regulation Law, here itself transformed by Compliance Law, notably by the launchers of alerts. But this is also true that all political institutions and elected officials.

For a rule emerges: the more central the notion of conflict of interest becomes, the more it must be realized that Trust is no longer given a priori, either to a person, to a function, to a mechanism, to a system. Trust is no longer given only a posteriori in procedures that burden the action, where one must give to see continuously that one has deserved this trust.

Dec. 2, 2020

Teachings : Generall Regulatory law

Au sens juridique, la responsabilité désigne le fait de "répondre", mais au sens commun la responsabilité désigne le fait d'avoir du pouvoir et de l'exercice dan les marges de donner la liberté d'action. Les deux sens doivent converger dans un système libéral.

Les systèmes soumis au Droit de la Régulation prévoient tout d'abord le principe de la responsabilité des régulateurs.  Alors même que certains soutiennent que l'indépendance de ceux-ci impliqueraient qu'on éloigne d'eux le mécanisme de la responsabilité, au contraire leur puissance de choix l'implique. L'État est juridiquement responsable pour eux, tandis que leur irresponsabilité politique comparée à l'ampleur de leurs pouvoirs a souvent était le ferment de leur contestation.

Par ailleurs, le mécanisme général de la responsabilité est utilisé, notamment parce que les mécanismes du Droit de la Régulation sont eux-mêmes défaillants. Cela peut tenir au fait qu'il y a des sortes de "trous noirs régulatoires", dont relève encore le numérique, soit parce que la globalisation rend inadéquates les régulations conçues par territoires. En effet, le mécanisme général de la responsabilité est apte à produire des effets structurels, du fait qu'il peut avoir des effets et donc un objet  disciplinaire, produisant des comportements, et ne plus avoir pour temps pertinent le passé mais plutôt l'avenir que le Droit de la responsabilité construit à construire, d'une façon politique. Le juge devient alors le régulateur de la mondialisation.

Mais cette violence de la responsabilité ainsi conçue ne doit pas s'appliquer à tous les opérateurs économiques. En effet, cette responsabilité "proactive" qui dépasse le mécanisme de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante ne doit s'appliquer qu'aux opérateurs régulés, éventuellement aux "opérateurs cruciaux, pour qu'à travers leur personne, les buts de la régulation soient atteints (mécanisme de compliance). Les opérateurs ordinaires doivent demeurer dans un mécanisme Ex Post, la responsabilité ne devant pas engendrer des "devoirs généraux de prise en charge d'autrui", car l'entreprise ordinaire n'est pas de même nature que l'État.

 

D'une façon spécifique et au besoin :

 

D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :

 

Consulter ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à cette leçon portant sur la Responsabilité et la Régulation:

Updated: Nov. 26, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)

Publications

Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les droits subjectifs, outils premiers et naturels du Droit de la Compliance, document de travail, juillet 2020.

Ce document de travail sert de base à un article à paraître dans l'ouvrage Les outils de la Compliance

____

 

Il fut un temps où les techniques de Régulation n'étaient avant tout des calcul de la meilleure tarification, repris par des entreprises en monopole, tandis que les techniques de Compliance n'étaient qu'obéissance aux règles qui nous régissent. Tout cela pouvait donc n'être affaires de règles à calcul, maniées par des ingénieurs et de réflexes mécaniques de "conformité" à toutes sortes de règles!footnote-1946. Dans une telle perspective mécaniste, il ne serait pas requis d'insérer dans une Régulation et une Compliance bien conçue, c'est-à-dire efficace, des prérogatives pour les personnes, puisque ces prérogatives ne pourraient être que sources d'inefficacité, de coût et de contestation.

Les systèmes ont depuis évolué pour intégrer les droits subjectifs. Cette évolution est-elle vraiment acquise ? En effet, si cela fait désormais longtemps que la Régulation fait l'objet d'une branche du Droit dans laquelle les droits ont pleine place, la présentation de la Compliance comme la "conformité", c'est-à-dire l'assurance avérée de l'obéissance à toutes les règles applicables ne laisse pas d'espace aux prérogatives des personnes, qui apparaissent plutôt comme des résistances à l'obéissance qui est attendue d'elles. Là encore, l'assurance d'un bon rapport de conformité entre des comportements et des prescriptions s'obtient par un "design", l'informatique étant la nouvelle forme du calcul, s'obtient par des outils de précision où l'être humain n'est pas requis. Sa faillibilité de celui-ci et le peu de confiance que l'on peut lui faire conduit même à l'exclure. Cela serait donc à regret, et sans doute parce que quelques juridictions constitutionnelles y attachent encore quelque prix à des droits fondamentaux que les systèmes de conformité des comportements aux règles font quelques places aux prérogatives des personnes, à leurs droits subjectifs fondamentaux. Cela serait comme par un "forçage" que les droits subjectifs existeraient dans les systèmes de compliance, une sorte de prix que l'efficacité de la Compliance doit verser en tribut à l'Etat de Droit.

Si l'on admettait dans une définition pauvre que la Compliance ne soit que la "conformité", débouchant sur un paysage dans lequel les comportements des personnages s'ajustent aux règles gouvernant les situations, la Compliance n'étant que la façon la plus "efficace" d'assurer l'application des règles, dans une perspective mécanique du Droit, alors il faudrait réduire les prérogatives des personnes à une part congrue, une sorte de surcoût produit par les exigences constitutionnelles. Dans la bataille qui s'annonce entre l'efficacité d'application des règles et le souci des prérogatives juridiques des personnes qui devraient avant tout obéir et non pas revendiquer leurs droits, l'efficacité de l'efficacité ne pourrait que, par la puissance même de cette tautologie, l'emporter... La défaite ne serait pourtant pas totale, la collaboration est encore possible et active entre des personnes se prévalant de leurs droits subjectifs et le Droit de la Compliance. En effet, par de nombreux aspects, si les droits subjectifs ont été reconnus dans les systèmes de Compliance, c'est non seulement parce que le Droit de la Compliance, comme toute branche du Droit, ne peut se déployer que dans le respect des droits fondamentaux gardés par les textes juridiques fondamentaux, mais aussi en raison de l'efficacité des droits subjectifs comme "outils de de Compliance".

En effet, c'est parce qu'ils constituent un "outil" d'une grande efficacité pour assurer le fonctionnement entier d'un système dont les buts sont si difficiles à atteindre. Parce qu'il faut faire feu de tout bois pour concrétiser ces buts, les Autorités publiques non seulement s'appuient sur la puissance des opérateurs cruciaux, mais encore distribuent des prérogatives aux personnes qui, ainsi incitées, activent le système de Compliance et participent à la réalisation du "but monumental". Les droits subjectifs peuvent s'avérer les outils les plus efficaces pour atteindre effectivement les buts fixés, à tel point qu'on peut les considérer comme des "outils premiers" (I). Mais il convient d'avoir plus de prétention. En effet parce que tous les Buts Monumentaux par lesquels le Droit de la Compliance se définit peuvent se ramener à la protection des personnes, c'est-à-dire à l'effectivité de leurs prérogatives, par un effet de miroir entre les droits subjectifs donnés par le Droit aux personnes et les droits subjectifs qui constituent le but même de tout le Droit de la Compliance, notamment la protection de tous les êtres humains, même s'ils sont en situation de grande faiblesse, les droits subjectifs deviennent un "outil naturel" du Droit de la Compliance (II).

1

Contre cela, la critique radicale, savante et fondée d'Alain Supiot, dans l'ensemble de son oeuvre et plus particulièrement dans La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015. 

Nov. 25, 2020

Teachings : Generall Regulatory law

Le Droit économique classique repose peu sur les droits subjectifs. Le droit de propriété est le seul droit subjectif nécessaire pour une économie de marché. En effet, la notion de "personne", c'est-à-dire l'aptitude à être titulaire de droits et d'obligations, est un préalable souvent mis de côté au profit de la notion d' "agent" ou d' "institution", et les autres  notions juridiques relèvent davantage des "libertés", tandis que la propriété est plutôt définie par les économistes présente la propriété plutôt comme le fait de maîtrise. Cette discrétion des droits subjectifs s'observe aussi bien en Droit de la concurrence qu'en Droit de la Régulation. 

Mais l'évolution du Droit de la Régulation se marque d'une part par l'explosion des droits subjectifs de toutes sortes, notamment processuels, et d'autre part par la reconnaissance du maniement de la propriété pour permettre à l'Etat de réguler un secteur, voire au-delà d'un secteur, notamment parce que la propriété du capital d'une société lui donne une puissance que le Droit public ne lui conférerait pas. C'est alors la puissance politique que le droit subjectif de propriété confère à travers la branche du Droit des Sociétés que l'Etat va utiliser, notamment à travers la constitution nouvelle et efficace de Groupe Public Unifié. C'est alors le Droit des sociétés, sur la base duquel il convient de revenir, qui donne à l'Etat un pouvoir de poursuivre un intérêt général, là où le Droit de la concurrence le lui conteste. En effet, basé sur le principe de la "neutralité du capital", la jurisprudence veut contraindre l'Etat à se comporter comme un investisseur normalement diligent..

Il demeure que la propriété privée, parce qu'elle n'exclut pas la qualification d'une entreprise comme "entreprise publique" peut être un moyen "efficace" de régulation. Il en est ainsi de la mutualisation des infrastructures et de la mutualisation des garanties. Dans une époque où l'Etat exprime de moins en moins sa souveraineté sous un mode budgétaire, c'est sans doute de cette façon que la Régulation peut exprimer le Politique.

Le Droit va lui-même accroître cette part politique que l'Etat peut exercer grâce au droit de propriété à travers le statut d'actionnaire ainsi conservé mais aussi à la technique de l'action spécifique. Ce pouvoir de bloquer les cessions dans les "opérateurs cruciaux" aura vocation à se développer d'autant plus que se dégagera la notion juridique d'Europe souveraine. De la même façon les buts d'intérêts collectifs ou d'intérêt général qui caractérisaient l'entreprise publique sont aujourd'hui partagées avec les entreprises à mission, telles que la loi dite PACTE de 2019 les a insérées en Droit français à travers la notion de raison d'être. 

 

D'une façon spécifique et au besoin :

 

D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :

 

 

Voir ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à la leçon sur Droit de propriété privée et Régulation.

Nov. 25, 2020

Thesaurus : 02. Cour de cassation

Full reference: Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 25th of November 2020 (18-86.955), Decision n°2333, société Iron mountain France SAS

Read the decision (in French)

Read the press release from the Cour de Cassation (in French)

​Read the explication note from the Cour de Cassation (in French)

 

Summary of the decision

In this decision constituting a case law reversal, the Chambre criminelle of the Cour de Cassation decides that the firm which absorbs the one to which are imputable facts which can receive a penal qualification leading to penalties of fines has the aptitude to answer penally.

The decision precises that this reversal is applicable only to future cases, to respect the principle of predicability, except if this merging was operated only to escape from criminal responsibility of moral persons. 

This case is an example of the use of Criminal Liability Law as an incentive. 


 


 

Nov. 16, 2020

Thesaurus : Soft Law

Full reference: US Securities and Exchanges Commission, Whistleblower Program. 2020 Annual Report to Congress, 16th of November 2020

Read the report

 

Read, to go further on the question of whistleblowers:

 

Oct. 22, 2020

Interviews

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Health Data Hub est un coup de maître du Conseil d'Etat", interview realized by Olivia Dufour for Actu-juridiques, Lextenso, 22nd of October 2020

Read the news of 19th of October 2020 of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation on which relies this interview: Conditions for the legality of a platform managed by an American company hosting European health data​: French Conseil d'Etat decision 

To go further, on the question of Compliance Law concerning Health Data Protection, read the news of 25th of August 2020: The always in expansion "Right to be Forgotten"​: a legitimate Oxymore in Compliance Law built on Information. Example of​ Cancer Survivors Protection 

Oct. 19, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Conditions for the legality of a platform managed by an American company hosting European health data​: French Conseil d'Etat decisionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 19th of October 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

___

 

News Summary: In its ordinance of 13th of October 2020, Conseil national du logiciel libre (called Health Data Hub), the Conseil d'Etat (French Administrative Supreme Court) has determined the legal rules governing the possibility to give the management of sensitive data on a platform to a non-europeans firm, through the specific case of the decree and of the contract by which the management of the platform centralizing health data to fight against Covid-19 has been given to the Irish subsidiary of an American firm, Microsoft. 

The Conseil d'Etat used firstly CJEU case law, especially the decision of 16th of July 2020, called Schrems 2, in the light of which it was interpreted and French Law and the contract linking GIP and

The Conseil d'Etat concluded that it was not possible to transfer this data to United-Sates, that the contract could be only interpreted like this and that decree and contract's modifications secured this. But it observed that the risk of obtention by American public authorities was remaining. 

Because public order requires the maintenance of this platform and that it does not exist for the moment other technical solution, the Conseil d'Etat maintained the principle of its management by Microsoft, until a European operator is found. During this, the control by the CNIL (French Data Regulator), whose the observations has been taken into consideration, will be operated. 

We can retain three lessons from this great decision:

  • There is a perfect continuum between Ex Ante and Ex Post, because by a referred, the Conseil d'Etat succeed in obtaining an update of the decree, a modification of the contractual clauses by Microsoft and of the words of the Minister in order to, as soon as possible, the platform is managed by an European operator. Thus, because it is Compliance Law, the relevant time of the judge is the future. 
  • The Conseil d'Etat put the protection of people at the heart of its reasoning, what is compliant to the definition of Compliance Law. It succeeded to solve the dilemma: either protecting people thanks to the person to fight against the virus, or protecting people by preventing the centralization of data and their captation by American public authorities. Through a "political" decision, that is an action for the future, the Conseil found a provisional solution to protect people against the disease and against the dispossession of their data, requiring that an European solution is found. 
  • The Conseil d'Etat emphasized the Court of Justice of The European Union as the alpha and omega of Compliance Law. By interpreting the contract between a GIP (Public interest Group) and an Irish subsidy of an American group only with regards to the case law of the Court of Justice of European Union, the Conseil d'Etat shows that sovereign Europe of Data can be built. And that courts are at the heart of this. 

___________

 

Read the interview given on this Ordinance Health Data Hub

 

To go further about the question of Compliance Law concerning health data protection, read the news of 25th of August 2020: The always in expansion "Right to be Forgotten"​: a legitimate Oxymore in Compliance Law built on Information. Example of​ Cancer Survivors Protection 

 

Oct. 15, 2020

Thesaurus : Soft Law

Full reference: Serious Fraud Office, Operational Handbook about Deferred Prosecution Agreements, October 2020

Read the Operational Handbook

Oct. 1, 2020

Thesaurus : Soft Law

Full reference: Baer, B., Proposals to Strengthen the Antitrust Laws and Restore Competition Online, Testimony before the United-States House of Representatives, Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, 1st of October 2020

Read the testimony

Read Bill Baer's presentation by Brookings Institution of which he is a member

Sept. 29, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Sept. 28, 2020

Thesaurus : Soft Law

Full reference: Giuliani-Viallard, A., The Europe of Compliance, at the heart of tomorrow's world. For a transformation of our European businesses and the upturn in their international competitiveness, European Issue, n°572, policy paper from the Robert Schuman Foundation, 28th of September 2020, 3 p.

Read the policy paper

Sept. 24, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Economic Impact of Law: a new report about it. And what about Regulation & Compliance? 3 lessonsNewsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation, Compliance, 24th of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation, Compliance

Sept. 21, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Regulation, Compliance & Cinema: learning about Internet Regulation with the series "Criminals"​Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 21st of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Sept. 16, 2020

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Se tenir bien dans l'espace numérique, in Penser le droit de la pensée. Mélanges en l'honneur de Michel Vivant, Lexis Nexis and Dalloz, 2020, pp. 155-168

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)

Read the working paper, written in English, on which this article is based, enriched with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

 

Summary of the article: 

The digital space is one of the scarce spaces not framed by a specific branch of Law, Freedom also offering opportunity to its actors to not "behave well", that is to express and diffuse broadly and immediately hateful thoughts through Hate speechs, which remained before in private or limited circles. The intimacy of Law and of the legal notion of Person is broken: Digital permits to individuals or organizations to act as demultiplied and anonymous characters, digital depersonalized actors who carry behaviors that are hurtful to other's dignity. 

Against that, Compliance Law offers an appropriate solution: internalizing in digital crucial operators the mission to disciplinary and substantially hold the digital space. The digital space has been structured by powerful firms able to maintain order. Because Law must not reduce digital space to be only a neutral market of digital prestations, these crucial operators, like social networks or search engines, must be forced to substantially control behaviors. It could be about an obligation of internet users to act with their face uncover, "real identity" policy controlled by firms, and to respect others' rights, privacy rights, dignity, intellectual property rights. In their Regulatory function, digital crucial firms must be supervised by public authorities. 

Thus, Compliance law substantially defined is the protector of the person as "subject of law" in the digital space, by the respect that others must have, this space passing from the status of free space to the one of civilized space, in which everyone is obliged to behave well. 

______

 

Read to go further: 

Sept. 7, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Conflict of interests & "revolving doors"​: what the European Ombudsman said in May 2020, the European Banking Authority agreed in August.Three lessonsNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 7th of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Sept. 4, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., A recent book about Legal Solutions in European and French Law responding to digital issues: "Quels droits face aux innovations numériques ?"​, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 4th of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Sept. 2, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance & Regulatory Soft Law, legal Certainty and Cooperation: example of the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network new Guidelines on AML/FTNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 2nd of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Aug. 31, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance by Design, a new weapon? Opinion of Facebook about Apple new technical dispositions on Personal Data protectionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 31st of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Aug. 27, 2020

Publications : Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Interregulation"​ between Payments System and Personal Data Protection: how to organize this "interplay"​?Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 27th of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation