Food for thoughts

In principle, the very mechanism of the market is governed by freedom, the freedoms of the agents themselves - the freedom to undertake and contract - and the competitive freedom that marks the market itself, the convergence of these freedoms allowing the self-regulated functioning of The "market law", namely the massive encounter of offers and demands that generates the right price ("fair price").

Sont ici répertoriés les sujets proposés chaque année, soit au titre du travail à faire en parallèle du cours, à remettre à la fin du semestre (le jour de l'examen étant la date limite de remise), soit les sujets à traiter sur table, sans documentation extérieure et sous surveillance le jour de l'examen final. 

A partir de 2019, en raison du règlement administratif de la scolarité, l'examen final ne peut plus se dérouler en dehors du cours.

Les étudiants cessent donc de bénéficier d'une durée de 4 heures pour réaliser l'examen.

Le contrôle final est donc nécessairement réalisé pendant la durée de 2 heures du dernier cours de l'enseignement, supprimé pour être remplacé par ce contrôle sur table. Les sujets sont désormais choisis en considération de ce format. 

Retourner sur la description générale du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation, comprenant notamment des fiches méthodologiques. 

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.

The telecommunications sector was the first sector to be liberalized in Europe, not so much by political will but because technological progress had in fact already brought competition into the sector and it was better to organize it rather than to To allow competition to settle in disorder.

"Compliance" is the typical example of a translation problem.

Indeed and for example, the term "Compliance" is most often translated by the French term "Conformité". But to read the texts, notably in Financial Law, "Conformité" is aimed rather at professional obligations, mainly aimed at the ethics and conduct of market professionals, especially service providers of investment. It is both a clearer definition in its contours (and in this more certain) and less ambitious than that expressed by the "Compliance". It is therefore, for the moment, more prudent to retain, even in French, the expression "Compliance".

The definition of Compliance is both contentious and highly variable, since according to the authors, it goes solely from the professional obligations of financial market participants to the obligation to comply with laws and regulations. In this latter sense, that is, the general obligation that we all have to respect the Law. To admit that, Compliance would be Law itself.

Viewed from the point of view of Law, Compliance is a set of principles, rules, institutions and general or individual decisions, corpus of which the primary concern is efficiency, in space and in time. The purpose is to put into practice general interest goal targeted by these gathered techniques.

The list of these goals, whether negative ("fighting": corruption, terrorism, embezzlement of public funds, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, organ trafficking, trafficking in poisonous and contagious goods - medicines, financial products, etc.) or positive ("fighting for": access to essential goods for everyone, preservation of the environment, fundamental human rights, education, peace , transmission of the planet to future generations) shows that these are political goals.

These goals correspond to the political definition of the Regulatory Law.

These political goals require means which exceed the forces of the States, which are also confined within their borders.

These monumental goals have therefore been internalized by public authorities in global operators. The Compliance Law corresponds to a new structuring of these global operators. This explains why the new laws put in place not only objective but structural repressions, as in France the "Sapin 2 Law" (2016) or the "obligation of vigilance Law" (2017) .

This internationalization of the Regulatory Law  in companies implies that the public authorities now supervise the latter, even if they do not belong to a supervised sector, or even to a regulated sector, but participate, for example, in international trade.

The Law of Compliance thus expresses a global political will relayed by this violent new Law, most often repressive, on companies.

But it can also express on the part of the operators, in particular the "crucial operators" a desire to have themselves concern for these monumental global goals, whether of a negative or a positive nature. This ethical dimension, expressed in particular by the Corporate Social Responsibility, is the continuation of the spirit of the public service and the concern for the general interest, raised world-wide.

Référence complète : Lagarde, Ch., A regulatory Approch to FinTech, mai 2018. 

Lire l'article. 

Complete reference : Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD), Droit et économie, tome 37, ed. Sirey, 1992, 426 p. 

Read the table of contents.

Read the summaries of the articles in english. 

See the presentation of others volumes of Archives de Philosophie du Droit.

Référence complète : Response to the Study on Directors’ Duties and Sustainable Corporate Governance by Nordic Company Law Scholars, octobre 2020.

Lire le rapport

The term "breach" is new in Law. In the legal order, the term "fault" is that which is retained to designate the behavior of a person who deviates from a rule and must be sanctioned, because by this act he has manifested a fraudulent intention which may is reproached to him. But the legal notion of fault, which was central in the classic Law of civil liability and was essential in criminal liability Law has the major drawback of calling for proof: that of the intention to "do wrong". This seems all the less adequate when it comes to assessing the behavior of organizations, such as companies, whose behavior and power must be controlled more than the faulty behavior of their leaders sanctioned.

This is why both to lighten the burden of proof concerning natural persons, in particular those with the power and the function of deciding for others (managers, "senior executives") and to better correspond to the distribution of the power of The action, which is now held by organizations, in particular companies, are "failures" and no longer faults or negligence which constitute the triggering events triggering their liability or justifying repression.

It is more particularly an administrative repression, the end of which is not to sanction misconduct but to effectively protect the regulated sectors. The sanction for breaches is therefore both easier, because it is always necessary to prove the intention, and more violent, because the sanctions attached can relate to a share of the profits withdrawn, to a share of the turnover. business of the operator or can take the form of commitments by the operator for the future, a very restrictive and new form of sanction that the compliance technique has inserted into the law.

Thus the breach can be defined as a behavior, even an organization which is away from the behavior or the situation that the author of a text has posed as being that which he posits as adequate. This definition, which is at the same time broad, abstract, teleological and prescription, which makes it possible to apprehend not only behaviors but also structures, makes the sanction of breaches a daily tool of Regulatory Law.

In an ordinary market of goods and services, access to the market is open to everyone, whether it is the one who offers the good or service (potential supplier) or who wants to own it (potential applicant ). Freedom of competition presupposes that these new entrants can, at their will, become effective agents on the market, the potential supplier if its entrepreneurial dynamism drives him there, and the potential applicant if he has the desire and the tools to do it(money, Information and proximity, in particular ; but first of all, money). The absence of barriers to entry is presumed; a barrier resulting from anti-competitive behavior will be penalized ex post by the competition authority.

The barrier is therefore what undermines the principle of access to the market. This is why the World Trade Organization (WTO), in that it fights against barriers to ensure global free trade, can be regarded as a forerunner of a sort of World Competition Authority.

But it may happen that it is necessary to organize by the force of Law the market access in a first situation, when there has been a liberalization decision of a previously monopolistic sector, access can not be exercised solely by the strength of demand and the power of potential new entrants, notably prevented by the de facto power of the formerly monopolistic enterprises. The Regulatory Authority will build access to sectoral markets whose sole principle of Competition has been declared by Law. Secondly this necessity can also result from phenomena that definitely impede this ideal competitive functioning of the sector, such as natural monopolies or asymmetries of information: Law will make this access concrete by distributing rights of access to the interested operators.

This is the case in network industries for operators' access rights to essential infrastructure networks. Even if this act is carried out by contract, this contract merely crystallizes a right of access conferred by the Legislator to the operator in order this one can penetrate the market. This is particularly true in the energy and telecommunications sectors.

In a more political way and not directly related to a desire to set up competition or to compensate for a market failure, this access organization may still be required because there is a political decision to provide everyone with access to common goods. The decision then goes hand in hand with the notion of a "fundamental right", such as the fundamental right of access to the healthcare system or vital medicines, or the fundamental right of access to the digital system, which the Regulator becomes the guardian in Ex Ante but also in Ex Post.

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 :

• Consulter les slides servant de support à la leçon.
• Se reporter au plan de la leçon.

D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :

• Accéder au plan général du Cours de Droit Commun de la Régulation.
• Se reporter à la présentation générale du Cours de Droit Commun de la Régulation.

• Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue de Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.
• Consulter la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

​

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

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 :

• Se reporter le plan de la leçon
• Consulter les slides de la leçon

D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :

• Consulter le plan général du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation
• Consulter la bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation

• Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue de Droit de la Régulation et de Droit de la Compliance
• Consulter la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

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

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law, an adequate legal framework for GAIA-X, in "The World with GAIA-X", Pan-European GAIA - X Summit November 2020, 18 November 2020.

See the general presentation of the Summit.

Summary  of the intervention  in the Round-Table with professors Jacques Crémer and Achim Wambach:

Europe may offer an adequate legal framework for the GAIA-X project through Compliance Law. Compliance Law is a new forme a Regulatory Law, driven by "Monumental Goals", negative Monumental Goals, for instance prevention of systemic failures, and positive Monumental Goals, for instance innovation or stability. This very new branch of Law works on these Monumental Goals, which must be explicit and internalized in Crucial Enterprises. These Crucial Enterprises concretize these Goals, supervised by public Authorities. 

European Compliance Law already works, for instance about Personal Data protection (case law and GDPR) or prevention banking systemic failures (Banking Union), Compliance Tools being in balance with Competition principle. European Union Law is moving from the Ex Post Competition Law to the Ex Ante Compliance Law, internalizing Monumental Goals in Crucial Enterprises. 

There is a perfect adequacy between European Compliance Law and GAIA-X. This project built by Crucial Enterprises must be supervised by public authority, maybe a specific or the European Commission. The governance of GAIA-X must be transparent and accountable. This private organization must use it powers in respect of the proportionality principle, controlled by the public supervisory body. The legal framework is required but it is sufficient. 

___

See the slides, basis of this intervention.

See the video of this intervention. 

Full reference: CJEU, 1st chamber, 18th of November 2020, decision C‑519/19, Ryanair DAC vs DelayFix

Read the decision

Summary of the decision

This decision of the CJEU of 18th of November 2020 is about the jurisdiction clause for any dispute in air transport contracts, here those of Ryanair. This decision is especially interesting about the question to know whether the professional assignee (collection company) of a debt whose holder was a consumer may or may not avail itself of the consumer protection provisions, canceling the scope of this type of clause. 

The Court takes back the criteria and the solution already used in 2019 about a credit contract: the protection applies by the criterion of the parties to the contract and not of the parties to the disputes. Such a clause is effective only if the integrality of the contract is transferred to the professional, and not only some of the stipulations.

This Regulatory decision, through "private enforcement", incentivizes consumers to transfer their compensation claim (around 250 euros) to collection companies which, in turn, discipline airlines to stay on schedule.

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:

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., The impossible unicity of the legal category of whistleblowers, working paper, 2019

Référence : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Building by Law the unity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals"", Working Paper 2020. 

This Working Paper has been the basis for an article in the collective book Compliance Tools, 2020

___

Working Paper summary: The "tools of Compliance" do not stack on top of each other. They form a system, thanks to a unity drawn from the goals that all these multiple and different tools serve: the "Monumental Goals" by which Compliance Law is defined.

All these tools are configured by these goals and in order to master all these techniques, it is essential to put them all in perspective of what Compliance Law is, which is designed teleologically with regard to its goals. Extension of Regulatory Law and as, Compliance Law is built on a balance between the principle of competition and other concerns that public authorities claim to take care of. Compliance Law has moreover more "pretensions" in this respect, for example in environmental matters. All the means are then good, the violence of the tools marrying without difficulty with the voluntary commitments since it is the goals which govern this branch of Law.

As adopted legal solutions show, a common method of interpretation and common levels of constraint for all Compliance Tools result from this definition. Starting from the goals (in which legal normativity is housed), the interpretation of the different tools is thus unified, without the necessity of a legislation including all these Compliance tools. Moreover, the different degrees of constraint do not operate according to the consideration of sources (traditional legal criterion) but by the goals, according to the legal distinction between obligations of means and obligations of results which result from the articulation between tools, of which the establishment is an obligation of result, and the goals, of which the achievement is only an obligation of means.

Résumé de la quatrième leçon MAFR de Droit commun de la Régulation sur Place et rôle de chacun dans les systèmes de Régulation.

Jadis, la Régulation fonctionnait selon un système qui avait le mérite d'être simple, puisqu'il était construit sur une hiérarchie. Dans le système désormais en place, le jeu est moins simple. On peut le présenter comme se jouant à trois, entre l'Etat, les Régulateurs et les entreprises, sans que l'on ne puisse plus dire lesquels sont au haut de ce l'on désigne parfois comme la pyramide des normes. Mais ce sont toujours devant les juridictions que les questions finissent par être formulées et les nouveaux principes de Régulation tendent aujourd'hui à être formulés par les Cours, l'opposition parfois faite entre Civil Law et Common Law n'étant donc pas pertinente, notamment quand on observe le rôle premier en Europe de la Cour de justice, de la CEDH ou des Cours constitutionnelles.

Dans le premier rapport institué entre l'Etat et les Autorités de régulation, le jeu est devenu juridiquement plus complexe ; les pouvoirs s'ajustant entre les institutions politiques et les régulateurs. Mais les juges sont omniprésents, non seulement comme instruments de contrôle mais encore, voire surtout, comme modèles. En outre, et dès lors, les entreprises ont du mal à trouver leur place. Elles semblent aux deux extrêmes. Ayant quitté la position d'assujetti, elles briguent grâce à l'autorégulation puisque les secteurs dépassent les frontières étatiques et que les juges sont placés en Ex Post. Mais est en train d'émerger une nouvelle branche du Droit, le Droit de la Compliance , qui prolonge et renouvelle le Droit de la Régulation, via notamment la technique de la supervision, et met au cœur des systèmes économiques mondiaux des mécanismes contraignants où les entreprises sont à la fois débitrices et garantes de l'effectivité des règles de régulation.

Se reporter à la présentation générale du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation

Accéder au plan général du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation

Consulter la bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit de la Régulation

Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance

Consulter la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Accéder au plan de la leçon relative à la place et au rôle de chacun dans le Droit de la Régulation

Consulter les slides servant de support à la leçon relative à la place et au rôle de chacun dans le Droit de la Régulation

Consulter la bibliographie ci-dessous, spécifique à cette Leçon relative à la place et au rôle de chacun dans le Droit de la Régulation

Résumé de la leçon n°3 : Le Droit de la Régulation, comme Equilibre entre la Concurrence et d'autres Soucis

Par rapport à la Concurrence et au Droit qui la prend comme pivot (le "Droit de la Concurrence"), la Régulation peut avoir trois statuts. Dans les deux premiers, la Régulation peut simplement entre la voie par laquelle une concurrence décrétée est effectivement installée ou bien être le moyen par lequel de l'efficacité est injectée. Dans une troisième conception, la Régulation établit et tient la balance dans le temps entre le principe de la concurrence et d'autres principes. 

Dans cette conception de la Régulation, sur laquelle l'Europe s'était initialement construite (traité CECA) et sur laquelle elle est en train de se reconstruire, le Droit de la Régulation "reconcrétise" le Droit face à l'abstraction qu'en avait opérée le Droit de la concurrence. Ce caractère "concret" du Droit de la Régulation, ancré dans l'objet technique mais aussi dans les "buts" politiques que le Politique insère dans celui-ci, excluant de limiter la Régulation à n'être qu'un palliatif aux défaillances de marché, permet de répondre non seulement aux besoins de "durée" mais aussi à répondre aux "dangers" (par des mécanismes Ex Ante) et à produire des "liens" (ce que la Concurrence exclue par principe). 

Il en résulte alors une Régulation qui cesse d'être pensée comme "temporaire" pour devenir par principe "permanente", instituée par les Régulateurs définitifs. Plus encore, l'unicité du Droit de la Régulation se pensant dans le temps et son temps privilégié étant le futur, la notion centrale devient le "risque" qui n'est plus positif (la prise de risque comme moteur du bénéfice concurrentiel) mais négatif (la possible destruction de tous de tous par le risque pris par un seul ou par un risque objectif). Face au risque et à l'incertitude, l'essentiel devient la confiance que le Régulateur doit créer par son existence et son action, chaque Régulateur devenait "fiduciaire". 

Dès lors la Régulation bancaire, jusqu'ici conçue comme dérogatoire à tous les principes, devient au contraire le modèle pour les principes communs à tous. C'est sur son modèle que se construit non plus la segmentation secteur par secteur mais au contraire une nouvelle notion-clé : "l'interrégulation". 

Les Autorités de Régulation deviennent transparentes pour "mériter" la confiance, se rapprochant du modèle juridictionnel (leçon suivante) et la dimension politique de la Régulation s'accroit, ce qui diminue la "globalisation" des règles.

Les "autres soucis" qui sont alors mis en équilibre avec le Principe de Concurrence, équilibre que le Régulateur doit construire, puis maintenir dans le temps sont successivement, mais aussi cumulativement, la sécurité (des produits, des personnes et des systèmes) et la protection des êtres humains, voire la protection de l'ensemble de la planète. Conçu ainsi, le Droit de la Régulation supporte plus d'ambitions que toutes les autres branches du Droit....

Pour y satisfaire, cette branche du Droit développe non seulement des pouvoirs nouveaux et cumulés entre les mains des Régulateurs mais crée des droits subjectifs, comme de multiples "droit d'accès" (aux réseaux, à l'information, etc.) pour que soit effectif le système de régulation. Pour le fonctionnement de celui-ci, vont intervenir le Régulateur, mais aussi l'Etat et plus la Régulation sera politique plus il sera légitime à le faire "en ce qui le concerne", les opérateurs via l'internationalisation en leur sein du Droit de la Régulation par le "Droit de la Compliance" et, peut-être avant tous les autres, le juge (leçon suivante). 

______

• Consulter les slides servant de support à la leçon 3 du Cours MAFR - Droit Commun de la Régulation, relatif à la définition du Droit de la Régulation comme Equilibre entre le Principe de Concurrence et d'autres Soucis. 

• Accéder au Plan général du Cours MAFR 2020 - Droit commun de la Régulation.

• Se reporter à la présentation générale du Cours MAFR 2020 - Droit commun de la Régulation.

_____

• Voir ci-dessous les consultations proposées dans le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance et dans la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

​

• Voir la bibliographie générale du cours MAFR - Droit commun de la Régulation

​

• Voir ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à cette leçon et à la définition du Droit de la Régulation comme Equilibre entre le Principe de Concurrence et d'autres soucis 

Résumé de la leçon.

Le "Droit de la Compliance" est encore si incertain dans ses bases que, suivant que l'on parle de tel ou tel sujet, on a tendance à le faire débuter à telle ou telle époque, signe que l'on ne le maîtrise encore pas dans son ensemble. Ainsi, lorsqu'on parle de corruption l'on le fera commencer souvent en 1977 par le FCPA américain, lorsqu'on parle en droit des sociétés l'on visera la loi Sarbanes-Oxley, lorsqu'on vise la protection des marchés financiers l'on vise la loi américaine de 1933, lorsqu'on vis le droit de la concurrence l'on vise plutôt les textes des années 1990 en Europe. Lorsqu'on vise la question des données, l'on vise l'arrêt Google Spain rendu par la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne rendu en 2014. Quant à l'environnement, l'on a encore tendance à se projeter dans l'avenir ... Le fait qu'on vise tantôt les Etats-Unis et tantôt l'Europe, tantôt des lois et tantôt des jugements, montre que pour l'instant l'on ne dispose pas d'une vision globale.

Mais une notion est souvent présente, quelque soit le secteur ou le domaine (puisque par exemple le Droit du commerce international n'est pas sectoriel), est celle de "données". En même temps qu'est apparue la notion juridique de "donnée" est apparu la thématique de la "Compliance". La difficulté première vient du fait que si l'on reprend cette perspective des "données", l'on mesure assez rapidement que nous ne maîtrisons pas la définition juridique de la "donnée", soit information appropriée, ce qui suppose qu'elle soit un bien, soit information inappropriable, "bien public" propre au marché (comme en matière financière), soit une information qui implique un effet incompatible avec la notion de "bien", à savoir son caractère indétachable des êtres humains : les "données à caractère personnel".

Pour essayer de comprendre l'évolution future du Droit de la Compliance en matière de données, il faut reprendre l'historique, c'est-à-dire la jurisprudence européenne, qui utilse l'outil du Droit de la Compliance en bâtissant un Réglement, désormais mondialement célèbre, construit sur un droit subjectif inventé par la Cour de Justice, le "droit à l'oubli", lequel est lui-même la trace des législations françaises et allemandes qui elles-mêmes avaient souci de l'efficacité des "fichiers". La Seconde Guerre mondiale était présente dans les esprits et le but était de limite l'efficacité et non de l'accroître. Ce but d'inefficacité, qui est commun à la procédure pénale classique, rend difficile l'insertion de ce Droit de la Compliance-là avec le Droit général de la Compliance dont le but est l'efficacité. 

Se reporter à la Présentation générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance.

Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.

Consulter la Bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance

Consulter la bibliographie ci-dessous, spécifique à cette Leçon au Droit de la Compliance relatif aux "données"

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Due process and Personal Data Compliance Law: same rules, one Goal (CJEU, Order, October 29, 2020, Facebook Ireland Ltd v/ E.C.), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of November 2020

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

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's interview in Actu-juridiques about this decision (in French)

Summary of the news: 

As part of a procedure initiated for anti-competitive behaviors, the European Commission has three times requested, between the 13th of March and the 11th of November 2019, from Facebook the communication of information, reitarated in a decision in May 2020.  

Facebook contests it alleging that the requested documents would contain sensitive personal information that a transmission to the Commission would make accessible to a too broad number of observers, while "the documents requested under the contested decision were identified on the basis of wideranging search terms, (...) there is strong likelihood that many of those documents will not be necessary for the purposes of the Commission’s investigation". 

The contestation therefore evokes the violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality but also of due process because these probatory elements are collected without any protection and used afterwards. Moreover, Facebook invokes what would be the violation of a right to the respect of personal data of its employees whose the emails are transferred. 

The court reminds that the office of the judge is here constraint by the condition of emergency to adopt a temporary measure, acceptable by the way only if there is an imminent and irreversible damage. It underlines that public authorities benefit of a presumption of legality when they act and can obtain and use personal data since this is necessary to their function of public interest. Many allegations of Facebook are rejected as being hypothetical. 

But the Court analyzes the integrality of the evoked principles with regards with the very concrete case. But, crossing these principles and rights in question, the Court estimates that the European Commission did not respect the principle of necessity and proportionality concerning employees' very sensitive data, these demands broadening the circle of information without necessity and in a disproportionate way, since the information is very sensitive (like employees' health, political opinions of third parties, etc.). 

It is therefore appropriate to distinguish among the mass of required documents, for which the same guarantee must be given in a technique of communication than in a technic of inspection, those which are transferable without additional precaution and those which must be subject to an "alternative procedure" because of their nature of very sensitive personal data. 

This "alternative procedure" will take the shape of an examination of documents considered by Facebook as very sensitive and that it will communicate on a separate electronic support, by European Commission's agents, that we cannot a priori suspect to hijack law. This examination will take place in a "virtual data room" with Facebook's attorneys. In case of disagreement between Facebook and the investigators, the dispute could be solved by the director of information, communication and medias of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission. 

___

We can draw three lessons from this ordinance: 

1. This decision shows that Procedural Law and Compliance Law are not opposed. Some often say that Compliance guarantees the efficacy and that Procedure guarantees fundamental rights, the protection of the one must result in the diminution of the guarantee of the other. It is false. As this decision shows it, through the key notion of sensitive personal data protection (heart of Compliance Law) and the care for procedure (equivalence between communication and inspection procedures; contradictory organization of the examination of sensitive personal data), we see once again that two branches of Law express the same care, have the same objective: protecting people. 
2. The judge is able to immediately find an operational solution, proposing "an alternative procedure" axed around the principle of contradictory and conciliating Commision's and Facebook's interests has shown that it was able to bring alternative solutions to the one it suspends the execution, appropriate solution to the situation and which equilibrate the interest of both parties. 
3. The best Ex Ante is the one which anticipate the Ex Post by the pre-constitution of evidence. Thus the firm must be able to prove later the concern that it had for human rights, here of employees, to not being exposed to sanctioning pubic authorities. This Ex Ante probatory culture is required not only from firms but also from public authorities which also have to give justification of their action. 

__________

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., From Competition Law to Compliance Law: example of French Competition Authority decision on central purchasing body in Mass Distribution, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 27th of October 2020

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

_____

Summary of the news: Through its decision of 22nd of October 2020, the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) accepted the commitments proposed by retail sector's firms Casino, Auchan, Metro and Schiever so that their agreement by which a common body centralizes purchases from numerous retailers, allowing each to offer these products under private label, is admissible with regard to competitive requirements. 

In this particular case, the Authority had self-sized in July 2018, estimating that such a purchase center could harm competition, opening immediately a large consultation on the terms of the contract. In October 2018, the law Egalim permitted to the Authority to take temporary measures to suspend such a contract, what the Authority did from September. 

The convention parties' firms committed on the one hand to update their contract limiting the power on suppliers, especially small and very small suppliers, excluding totally of the field of the contract some kind of products, especially food products and reducing the share of bought products volume dedicated to their transformation in distributor brand. 

The Autorité de la concurrence accepts this proposal of commitments, congratulates itself of the protection of small suppliers operating like that and observe the similarity with the contract consisting in a purchase center between Carrefour and Tesco, which will be examined soon. 

_____

We can draw three lessons of this innovating decision, which could be a model for after: 

1. The technique of Compliance Law permits to the Autorité de la concurrence to find a reasonable solution for the future. 

• Indeed, rather than punishing much later by a simple fine or to annihilate the performing mechanism of the purchase center, the Authority obtains contract modifications. 
• The contract is structured and the obtained modifications are also structural. 
• The commitments are an Ex Ante technique, imposed to operators, for the future, in an equilibrium between competition, operators and consumers protection and the efficacy of the coordination between powerful operators. 
• The nomination of a monitor permits to build the future of the sector, thanks to the Ex Ante nature of Compliance Law. 

2. The retail sector finally regulated by Compliance technics.

• "Distribution law" always struggle to find its place, between Competition law and Contract Law, especially because we cannot consider it as a common "sector". 
• The Conseil constitutionnel (French constitutional court) refused a structural injunction power to the authority because it was contrary to business freedom and without any doubt ethics of business is not sufficient to the equilibrium of the sector.
• Through commitments given against a stop of pursuits relying on structuring contracts, it is by Compliance law that a Regulation law free of the condition of existence of a sector could leave.

3. The political nature of Compliance law in the retail sector

• As for digital space, which is not a sector, Compliance law can directly impose to actors imperatives that are strangers to them. 
• In the digital space, the care for fighting against Hate and for protecting private life; here the care for small and very small suppliers. 

___________

See in counterpoints the pursuit of a contentious procedure against Sony, whose the proposals of commitments, made after a public consultation, were not found satisfying.

To go further, on the question of Compliance law permitting through indirect way the rewriting by the Conseil of a structuring contract (linking a platform created by the State to centralize health data with an American firm subsidy to manage them).

Full reference: Coeurquetin, R., Comparaison mécanique des versions 2017 et 2020 des recommendations de l'Agence Française Anti-corruption sur la cartographie des risques de corruption, October 2020, 9 p. 

Read the mechanical comparison (in French)

To go further on the question of risk mapping, read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's working papers: Drawing up Risk Maps a an Obligation and the Paradoxe of "Compliance Risks" and Anchor Points of the Risk Mapping in the Legal System

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 

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., participation à la manifestation La Compliance, outil de l'Etat de Droit européen, EuropaNova, 20 octobre 2020, Paris.

Lire la présentation de la manifestation.

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 decision, Newsletter 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