Food for thoughts

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

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 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 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

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.

Nov. 1, 2021

Publications

March 31, 2021

Conferences

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance et arbitrage: un adossement (Compliance and arbitration: a backing), Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in Frison-Roche, M.-A. and Racine, J.-B., Compliance et Arbitrage (Compliance and Arbitration), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Centre de recherches sur la Justice et le Règlement des Conflits (CRJ) of Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Paris, 31st of March 2021

 

Read the program of this colloquium 

See Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French)

Read the bilingual working paper on which this conclusion is based 

___

This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Juridictionnlization.  

This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Juridictionnalization, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant.

An equivalent book in French, La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-edited by the JoRC and Dalloz. 

Feb. 10, 2021

Teachings : Banking and Financial Regulatory Law - Semester 2021

Résumé de la leçon : Dans une conception classique et du Droit et du "libre marché", le principe est la liberté d'action de la personne. Même si l'exercice de cette liberté, voire d'un droit subjectif peut causer un dommage, par exemple un dommage concurrentiel, c'est en quelque sorte le prix légitime d'une société libre et concurrentielle. Ainsi dans une conception  libérale, seul l'abus est sanctionné, c'est-à-dire l'exercice fautif que l'on fait de sa liberté ou de son droit, allant parfois jusqu'à l'exigence d'une faute qualifiée.

Mais les secteurs bancaires et financiers ne sont pas gouvernés par le principe de libre concurrence. Ils sont gouvernés par le principe de régulation, le principe de concurrence n'y a qu'un rôle adjacent. Cela ne pourra qu'engendrer de graves difficultés lorsque le Droit de la concurrence et le Droit bancaire et financier font s'appliquer d'une façon cumulée ou confrontée sur une même situation.

Les marchés financiers sont construits sur le principe de régulation qui pose le principe de transparence et de partage d'une information exacte : c'est ainsi que l'intégrité des marchés financiers est assurée, l'Autorité des Marchés financiers en étant le gardien.

La prévention et la sanction des "abus" de marché est donc non pas une part résiduelle du Droit financier, mais un pilier de celui-ci, contrairement au Droit des marchés ordinaires concurrentiels, sur lesquels l'opacité et le non-partage des informations est la règle. 

Cela explique l'état du droit des "abus de marché", dont l'effectivité de la prohibition est essentielle pour le bon fonctionnement ordinaire des marchés financiers. Leur prohibition nationale a été harmonisée par le Droit de l'Union européenne, à travers des textes dont les signes reprennent  l'appellation anglaise : Market abuses (ainsi le nouveau Règlement communautaire sur les abus de marché est dit Règlement MAR (Market Abuses Regulation) et la directive qui l'accompagne MAD (Market Abuses Directive) .

Il sanctionne un certain nombre de comportements, qui portent atteinte à l'intégrité des marchés, 

Mais il n'exprime plus des exceptions par rapport à un principe : des fautes par rapport à des libertés ou à des droits. Il exprime des moyens par rapport à des principes dont la sanction des abus ne constitue que la concrétisation de principes dont ils sont la continuité même : l'efficacité du marché, son intégrité, sa transparence, l'information de l'investisseur.

C'est pourquoi la sanction des abus de marché ne sont pas du tout un phénomène périphérique par rapport à la Régulation des marchés financiers et à l'activité et au fonctionnement des bancaires, comme l'est le Droit pénal : elle est au contraire à la fois ordinaire et centrale. Cette différence des deux ordres publics va se retrouver dans la question lancinante de la sanction pénale et de la sanction administrative des mêmes abus de marché (par exemple "manquement d'initié" et "délit d'initié", qui ont tendance à se cumuler dans des techniques de répression qui seront l'objet de la prochaine leçon. 

_____

 

 

 

Revenir à la présentation générale du cours 

Se reporter au plan général du cours 

 

Utiliser les matériaux ci-dessous pour aller plus loin et pour préparer votre conférence de méthode:

Feb. 8, 2021

Publications

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'invention de la vigilance : un terme nouveau pour une Responsabilité en Ex Ante, Document de travail, février 2021. 

Ce document de travail sert de base à une conférence donnée à Oslo le 9 février 2021.

Il 

Résumé du document de travail : 

Feb. 3, 2021

Teachings : Banking and Financial Regulatory Law - Semester 2021

Résumé de la leçon : L'Europe est avant tout et pour l'instant encore une construction juridique. Elle fut pendant longtemps avant tout la construction d'un marché, conçu politiquement comme un espace de libre circulation (des personnes, des marchandises, des capitaux). C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Concurrence est son ADN et demeure le coeur de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, qui tient désormais l'équilibre entre les diverses institutions, par exemple la Banque Centrale Européenne, dont les décisions peuvent être attaquées devant elle. Mais aujourd'hui le Droit de l'Union européenne se tourne vers d'autres buts que la "liberté", laquelle s'exprime dans l'immédiat, notamment la "stabilité", laquelle se développe dans le temps. C'est pourquoi la Banque y prend un si grande importance. 

En outre, face aux "libertés" les "droits" montent en puissance : c'est par les institutions juridiques que l'Europe trouve de plus en plus son unité, l'Europe économique et financière (l'Union européenne) et l'Europe des droits humains (le Conseil de l'Europe au sein duquel s'est déployée la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme) exprimant les mêmes principes. C'est bien à travers une décision prenant appui sur le Droit de la concurrence que la Commission européenne le 18 juillet 2018 a obligé Google à concrétiser le "droit d'accès" à des entreprises innovantes, apte à faire vivre l'écosystème numérique, tandis que le Régulateur financier doit respecter les "droits de la défense" des personnes qu'il sanctionne.

Aujourd'hui à côté de l'Europe économique se développe en même temps par des textes une Europe bancaire et financière (on ne sait pas si par le Droit - par exemple le droit de la propriété intellectuelle - existera une Europe industrielle).La crise a fait naître l'Europe bancaire et financière. L'Union bancaire est issue de Règlements communautaires du 23 novembre 2010 établissant des sortes de "régulateurs européens" (ESMA, EBA, EIOPA) qui donnent une certaine unité aux marchés financiers qui demeurent nationaux, tandis que les entreprises de marché, entreprises privées en charge d'une mission de régulation, continuent leur déploiement selon des techniques de droit privé. L'Union bancaire est née d'une façon plus institutionnelle encore, par trois piliers qui assurent un continuum européen entre la prévention des crises, la résolution des crises et la garantie des dépôts. En cela, l'Europe bancaire est devenue fédérale. 

Sur les marchés de capitaux, des instruments financiers et des titres, l'Union européenne a utilisé le pouvoir que lui confère depuis la jurisprudence Costa et grâce au processus Lamfallussy d'une sorte de "création continuée" pour injecter en permanence de nouvelles règles perfectionnant et unifiant les marchés nationaux. C'est désormais au niveau européen qu'est conçu la répression des abus de marché mais aussi l'information des investisseurs, comme le montre la réforme en cours dite "Prospectus 3". A l'initiative de la Commission Européenne, les textes sont produits en "paquet" car ils correspondent à des "plan d'action " . Cette façon de légiférer est désormais emprunté en droit français, par exemple par la loi dite PACTE du 29 avril 2019. Cette loi vise - en se contredisant parfois - à produire plus de concurrence, d'innovation, à attirer l'argent sur des marchés dont l'objectif est aussi la sécurité, notion d'égale importance que la liberté, jadis seul pilier du Droit économique. Conçue par les but, La loi est définitivement un "instrument", et un instrument parmi d'autres, la Cour de Justice tenant l'équilibre entre les buts, les instruments et les institutions.

La question du "régulateur" devient plus incertaine : la BCE est plus un "superviseur" qu'un "régulateur" ; le plan d'action pour une Europe des marchés de capitaux ne prévoit pas de régulateur, visant un capitalisme traditionnelle pour les petites entreprises (sorte de small businesses Act européen)

 

 

 

Revenir à la présentation générale du cours

Se reporter au plan général du cours

Utiliser les matériaux ci-dessous pour aller plus loin et préparer votre conférence de méthode.

Jan. 15, 2021

Editorial responsibilities : Direction of the collection "Cours-Série Droit privé", Editions Dalloz (33)

Référence complète :Pellier, J.D, Droit de la consommation, 3e éd., Coll. "Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé", Dalloz, , 2021, 463 p.

 

Le Droit de la consommation est récent mais nous le vivons chaque jour. Il a été refondu en 2016. Il exprime aussi une nouvelle façon de concevoir le droit civil, le droit commercial, le droit pénal et le droit public. Voilà bien des raisons d'apprendre et de comprendre le "Droit de la consommation" grâce à ce manuel clair et à jour.

 

 

Lire la quatrième de couverture.

Lire la table des matières.

Voir l'ensemble de la collection "Cours - droit privé".

Jan. 11, 2021

Interviews

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Let's Use the Power of GAFAMs in the Service of General Interest!" ("Utilisons la puissance des GAFAMs au service de l'intérêt général!"), interview done by Olivia Dufour, Actu-juridiques Lextenso, 11st of January 2021

Read the interview (in French)

To read the article translated in English by us, read the working paper on which this interview is based

 

Summary of the interview by Olivia Dufour:

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulation and Compliance Law, reported to the government in 2019 about Internet governance. For this expert, giving a disciplinary power to GAFAMs is the only effective solution. And the suppression of Donald Trump's account is not likely to call this analysis into question.

 

The three questions (translated in English here by ourselves) asked by Olivia Dufour are: 

  • The deletion of Donald Trump's Twitter account arouses strong emotions on social networks, and not only among his supporters. What do you think about this ?
  • However, this incident does raise concern. Are we not giving too much power to these private companies? This raises the question in France of the relevance of the Avia system ...
  • Should we therefore resolve by default to give our freedoms to private and opaque mastodons?

 

Read the answers to these three questions (in French)

 

To go further, especially about the logics that guide the Avia system, see:

Dec. 31, 2020

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Full reference: Zittrain, J. L., "Gaining Power, Losing Control", Clare Hall Tanner Lecture 2020, 2020

See the intervention

Read the intervention's report

 

This intervention is divided in two parts: 

  • Between Abdication and Suffocation: Three Eras of Governing Digital Platforms 
  • With Great Power Comes Great Ignorance: What’s Wrong When Machine Learning Gets It Right 

Dec. 10, 2020

Thesaurus : 03. Conseil d'Etat

Référence complète : CE, 10 déc. 2010, CDiscount
 
 
 
"Dispense lorsque les intérêts légitimes du responsable du traitement prévalent sur ceux des personnes concernées (f de l'art. 6 du RGPD) - 1) Modalités d'appréciation - 2) Espèce.

Il résulte clairement de l'article 6 du règlement (UE) n° 2016/679 du 27 avril 2016 (dit " RGPD ") qu'un traitement de données à caractère personnel ne satisfait aux exigences du règlement, dès lors qu'il n'est nécessaire ni au respect d'une obligation légale à laquelle le responsable du traitement est soumis, ni à l'exécution d'une mission d'intérêt public ou relevant de l'exercice de l'autorité publique dont est investi le responsable du traitement, ni à la sauvegarde des intérêts vitaux de la personne concernée ou d'une autre personne physique, que si la personne concernée a consenti au traitement de ses données, sauf à ce que le traitement soit nécessaire à l'exécution d'un contrat auquel la personne concernée est partie ou à l'exécution de mesures précontractuelles prises à la demande de celle-ci, ou à ce qu'il soit nécessaire aux fins des intérêts légitimes poursuivis par le responsable du traitement ou par un tiers, à la condition, dans ce dernier cas, que ces intérêts légitimes puissent être regardés comme prévalant sur les intérêts des personnes concernées ou sur leurs libertés et droits fondamentaux.
 
1) Pour apprécier si les intérêts légitimes du responsable du traitement prévalent sur ceux des personnes concernées, il y a lieu de mettre en balance, d'une part, l'intérêt légitime poursuivi par le responsable du traitement et, d'autre part, l'intérêt ou les libertés et droits fondamentaux des personnes concernées, eu égard notamment à la nature des données traitées, à la finalité et aux modalités du traitement ainsi qu'aux attentes que ces personnes peuvent raisonnablement avoir quant à l'absence de traitement ultérieur des données collectées.
 
2) Délibération de la Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) indiquant que les données relatives à la carte de paiement en matière de vente de biens ou de fourniture de services à distance ne peuvent être collectées et traitées par une société vendant des biens ou des services à distance que pour permettre la réalisation d'une transaction dans le cadre de l'exécution d'un contrat et que la conservation de ces données afin de faciliter d'éventuels paiements ultérieurs n'est possible que si les personnes auxquelles ces données se rapportent ont donné préalablement et explicitement leur consentement, à moins qu'elles aient souscrit un abonnement donnant accès à des services additionnels, traduisant leur inscription dans une relation commerciale régulière. Si la société soutient que la conservation du numéro de carte bancaire du client qui a procédé à un achat en ligne est nécessaire aux fins de l'intérêt légitime consistant à faciliter des paiements ultérieurs en dispensant le client de le saisir à chacun de ses achats, notamment dans le cadre d'une fonctionnalité d'achat rapide - dite " en un clic " - cet intérêt ne saurait prévaloir sur l'intérêt des clients de protéger ces données, compte tenu de la sensibilité de ces informations bancaires et des préjudices susceptibles de résulter pour eux de leur captation et d'une utilisation détournée, et alors que de nombreux clients qui utilisent des sites de commerce en ligne en vue de réaliser des achats ponctuels ne peuvent raisonnablement s'attendre à ce que les entreprises concernées conservent de telles données sans leur consentement. Par suite, la CNIL a pu à bon droit estimer que, de façon générale, devait être soumise au consentement explicite de la personne concernée la conservation des numéros de cartes bancaires des clients des sites de commerce en ligne pour faciliter des achats ultérieurs.".
 
C'est pourquoi le recours de CDiscount contre la décision de sanction de la CNIL est rejeté. 


s légales____ookie

Dec. 9, 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'exercer dans les marges que donne la liberté d'action. Les deux sens doivent converger dans un système libéral.

Puisqu'il a été montré que les Régulateurs sont les maîtres des secteurs, ils seraient donc logiques qu'ils sont responsables. Mais, c'est encore un point commun qu'ils ont avec les juges, parce qu'ils sont consubstantiellement indépendants, ils ne peuvent pas voir leur responsabilité engagées. Cependant le droit positif a posé le principe de la Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait de leur Autorités de Régulation, 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. En effet, comme l'a montré Alain Supiot, l'on peut "prendre la responsabilité au sérieux" et, si l'on applique cette perspective plus particulièrement à l'espace numérique, cela permettra de pallier les défaillances de la Régulation publique elle-même. En effet, il existe des sortes de  "trous noirs régulatoires", dont relève encore notamment le numérique.

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:

Dec. 7, 2020

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Full reference: Vergnolle, S., L'effectivité de la protection des personnes par le droit des données à caractère personnel (The effectiveness of the protection of people by personal data Law (our translation)), Passa, J. (dir.), thesis, Law, Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), 2020, 531 p.

 

Read the thesis (in French)

Read directly and only the table of contents (in French)

 

 

To go further about regulation of personal data, read: 

Updated: Dec. 3, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)

Publications

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July  2020.

This Working paper is the basis for an article to be published in the collective book  Compliance Tools .

____

There was a time when Regulatory techniques  were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them!footnote-1946. In the perspective of a Regulation and Compliance thus conceived, that is to say effective, it would not be necessary to insert prerogatives for people, since these could only be sources of inefficiency, of cost. and protest, where the order would come from figures set in advance and controlled processes.

Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ....!footnote-1986 . But the modern reluctance to define the enterprise (and the company) as a group of people and the preference given to a definition of the company (and the enterprise) as an "asset", a "good" of which investors would be the owners, maybe explains the sidelining of rights not only in Regulatory Law but also in Compliance Law even though it is being deployed in the space of the enterprise!footnote-1987.

In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required!footnote-1989. His fallibility and the little confidence which one can place in him leads even to exclude the people and to conceive Compliance system between machines, not only to alert of the failures, but also to manufacture the "regulations" and to connect those. here, in a "regulatory fabric" without a jump stitch, entirely enveloping human beings!footnote-1990.

It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle!footnote-1991.

If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail!footnote-1988... 

The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools".

Indeed, because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve, because every effort must be made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools"  (I).

But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II).

Rights are the Compliance Law future. 

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. 

2

Sur la définition de l'entreprise comme un groupe de personnes qui se réunissent pour entreprise, v. le travail de référence d'Alain Supiot, par exemple son article d'introduction "L'entreprise...", dans l'ouvrage qu'il a dirigé L'entreprise dans la mondialisation ...., 2015 ...

3

Si l'entreprise pouvait renaître comme idée de cristallisation d'une idée commune entre des personnes, naturellement titulaires de droits subjectifs, exerçant ensemble leur liberté d'entreprendre pour réaliser un projet commun, ce qui correspond à la définition classique du contrat d'entreprise donnée à l'article 1832 du Code civil, cela renforcerait considérablement la présence des droits subjectifs dans le Droit de la Compliance et conforterait la nature humaniste de celui-ci.

En outre, dans une telle définition la loi de la majorité, qui n'est qu'une loi de fonctionnement d'une catégorie de sociétés que sont les sociétés de capitaux, deviendrait moins puissante, au profit des "droits propres" de tout associé (au-delà du cercle des sociétés de personnes), sans qu'il soit besoin d'aller chercher au-delà du cercle des associés ou titulaires de titres émis par la société ou l'entreprise (dit shareholders) et d'aller donner le "droit à la parole" à des personnes qui, parce qu'elles sont "concernées" (les "parties prenantes", les skateholders) ont désormais de plus en plus le "droit à la parole". 

4

La Compliance by Design reflète ces tensions. Elles sont particulièrement bien décrites par Cécile Granier. V. ....

5

Contre cette conception de la légalité, qui prévoit tout et à laquelle il faudrait prouver par avance et que l'on se "conforme" entièrement, ce qui est contraire aux principes mêmes du libéralisme dont le principe est la liberté d'agir et non pas l'obéissance, Carbonnier affirme que les règles sont faites ne pas s'appliquer et qu'elles ne sont que le "mince vernis" des choses, qu'il convenait de se méfier de la "passion du Droit". V. not. son dernier ouvrage Droit et passion du droit sous la Vième République, 1995. Carbonnier est considéré comme le plus grand juriste français du XXième siècle. Il rédigea les lois qui réformèrent en profondeur le Code civil et publia des ouvrages sur "l'art législatif". 

6

Au contraire, l'Etat de Droit n'est pas un coût extérieur au système de Compliance efficace, que celui-ci doit internaliser. Il est le fondement même du Droit de la Compliance. Voir dans ce sens la démonstration faite par le président de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne, Koen Laearnt, ..., in Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019. 

7

Sur la démonstration comme quoi la Constitution, en ce qu'elle contient de l'incalculable, est broyée dans cette façon de faire, v. Alain Supiot, Intervention 2019

Dec. 1, 2020

Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., New SEC Report to Congress about Whistleblower Program: what is common between American and European conceptionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of December 2020

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

 

Summary of the news

Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process.

If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing). 

However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future. 

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)

Read Julie Gallois' comment

 

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. 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. 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

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