About

February 17, 2015, as the previous "Contrat de Régulation Économique" (Economie Regulatory Contract), the firm Aéroport de Paris (ADP)  has made available on its site to all "for consultation" the draft  "Contrat de Régulation Economique ("Economic Regulatory Contract)  for the period 2016 -2020. Published in the wake of the meeting of the Board of ADP, the text is presented as a tool "for the Paris place", especially for air transport. This shows that the document is primarily intended for investors and financial markets, the document being placed on the company website in the section for the "investors". This illustrates the evolution from the traditional "contrats de plan" (plan contracts). But then, who are the parties to these types of contract? Indeed, the very term "Regulatory contract"  is new in public Law. It appears as a sort of  modernization of "plan contract." The Conseil d'État (French State Council) finally admitted the contractual nature of these planning contracts. In these contracts, are parties were the State and the company in charge of a public service. Because here the contract is an instrument of "economic regulation" the open public consultation draft rather expresses a global conception of  ADP, the company which manages the Paris airports,  for the future of the development of critical infrastructure that is the airport as the heart of global development of air transport. The enterprise manager of the airport in the heart of the contract (rather than the State) in setting objectives for the coming four years is the letter and spirit of the French law of 20 April 2005 about Airports, which put the apparatus of this "Contrat de Régulation Economique" in place. In this, the infrastructure manager is set by law as a "regulator of second degree", as can be a financial market enterprise. The company that manages and develops the Paris airports undoubtedly belongs to the category of " critical firms", as well it manages the future of the sector and helps to keep France a place in the world. More, A.D.P. behaves like a Regulator, since it is carrying out the "public consultation", the consultation paper prepared by it,  being placed on its site and developing its ambitions for the sector and for France. But A.D.P. also expressed as a financial and economic actor, emphasizing the competitive environment,  demanding in passing more stability and clarity in the regulation in which it moves … That is why the consultation mechanism provided by the law must be more complex. Indeed, ADP can not be judge and jury. Therefore if the project raises observations, they must be formuled not to ADP but to the Ministries of Aviation and Economy, within a month. They shall communicate theiir content to ADP . Then the Commission consultative aéroportaire (French Airport Consultative Committee) will be consulted. At the end of this process, the "Contrat de Régulation Economique" will be signed. Seing the end of the process, it remains in line with the plan contracts, since it remains the Economic Regulatory Contract is signed between the State and the essential infrastructure manager. But the consultation process shows firstly investors are the first recipients of the statements made by a privatized company presenting its draft primarily in terms of competitive context and international development and secondly the airlines that use daily services of the airports are also directly involved by theses questions of tarification. Airlines protest against the increase in the money that will be asked. This will be imposed, since it is tarification and princing public policy. We are in unilateral rules. But it is indeed a "price" they feel to pay, they also heard a speech referring to competition in what the mechanism is presented as a "contract". But then, does it take to admit that these "contracts for economic regulation" are not between two parties that are the state and the regulator of second degree that is the infrastructure manager but must be three, the State, the infrastructure manager and "stakeholders" that are mainly airlines? This practical difficulty is much to the fact that the qualification of "contract" is difficult to justify in proceeding in which prevail unilateral mechanisms.

 Bank and Competition do not mix. It is not so much that the banks would act as repeat offenders on which the competition authorities should raise the tone by increasingly heavy penalties so that the competitive lesson is finally heard. It is rather two orders confronting each other, two incomprehensions face to face. Indeed, the banks find it appropriate to agree in order for the banking system to function. Moreover, governments demand them political behavior by financing the economy when the economy does not rely on financial markets. Hence, how would they themselves behave in a market consisting of selfish behavior and aggression towards their counterparts? If we plunge into this melting pot of incomprehension that engenders the violent clash between the banks, which evoke their mission, even their duty, and the competition authorities which avail themselves of theirs, we run into the pitfall of the definition even of what a bank is. It can be estimated that a bank is a provider of various services, operating in competing markets. In this perspective, the law ensures the proper functioning, the authorities that keep the efficiency of the markets seizing the banks that carry out their activities. But if we choose to insist that banks are what make the economy work and strengthen the social bond, then they are an integral part of their own system: the banking system. Moreover, the latter is an essential element of society, a perspective in which competition is merely contiguous. The more Europe manages to build banking Europe, the more it elaborates a mechanism for resolving difficulties, the more the bank is above all a matter of State and not of financial markets. In what is the political course of the history of peoples, competition ceases to be its first measure. It is therefore necessary to start from the undisputed existence of banking markets and the competitive mechanism which the law correlates with (I)). But the scale of the resistance reveals that it seems to have intentionally or not to have passed on the elementary and the essential: the very definition of what is a bank II. If it is accepted that the bank is the operator of the banking system, which fuels the economy as a whole, then competition law has only an adjacent role and can not constitute its backbone (III). The European Banking Union is demonstrating this.  

I. THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PAST: THE CONSIDERATION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMPANY THROUGH THE CONTINENTAL LAW A. OBSTACLE BORN […]

I propose to reflect on how the legal system requires companies to take into account the interests of those who aren't shareholders, for example the interests of employees and even the interests of those who don't yet exist, for example the interests of future generations, or interests that are traceable to group interests, for example the interests of "minorities" or interest that can't be attached to anyone in particular, such as interest of the Planet. It's like in the fairy tales. Dream or nightmare. The future will tell. The evolution of the law can be presented in three parts as souvenirs or wishes Christmas, which remain under each other like so many open roads choices and decisions for legislators and judges. Let slip into the clothes of the legendary usurer and talk about the first ghost of the three Christmas that made him famous: "Christmas past." At a time when the company built on the partnership agreement served the interests of the shareholders, the French judicial courts had  taken into account the interests of employees and the interest of the environment by Tort Law. The generality of this branch of law has allowed such judicial policy. It was much easier to build than Procedural Law opened the doors of the courthouse, for example by allowing works commitees to access the court for an expert analyse, to make their voices heard in moments of transformation of the company. The evolution of Law in favor of stakeholders has therefore taken form Ex post but in an imperative way. The "Christmas Present" comes from Financial Law. Influenced by economic thinking. A French author could say he prefers no translate "skateholders" because French Corporate Law is influenced directly be this economic theory now¹Trebulle, F.-G., Stakeholders Theory et droit des sociétés, 2006. He wrote that the French translation of "stakeholders" by "parties prenantes" is not convincing and prefers to keep the original term..  Laws require listed companies they and they alone to inform the market about what they have done and will do spontaneously in favor of employees, "minorities", diversity policy or the environment, and probably more generally in favor of the social group and the planet. These recent laws aren't prescriptive : they oblige to inform. By an feedback effect, they are an incentive for responsible investors, responsible shareholders, Legislator hoping that the company is rationally selfishness for "well" performing towards stakeholders at the end of the day. There are no legal sanctions, the European Commission referring to self-regulation. Calculation or ethical share the causal role, an issue to which the law doesn't lend relevance.   The "Christmas yet to come" is already showing its premises. An author writes Corporate Social Responsibity is "irresistible"²Malecki, C., L'irrésistible montée en puissance de la RSE : les impulsions européennes et françaises de l'année 2013,  2013.This article begins by : "Toujours plus ! (Always more!)".… It will be to turn these legal standards of information into legal norms with binding effect: laws require companies, not just listed companies but everyone to take into account the interests of employees, "minorities", environmental issues and future generations. Not only to inform what is done, but to oblige to do.This is the challenge, for example, the composition of the boards, or more radically the rewriting of Article 1833 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Like any future, such rewriting promises possible changes, which converge to an increased power of the judge The question for the future is: "who will decide the consistency of these interests and will make the balance?". At less, it might be a "coregulation³Berns, T., Docquir, P.-F., Frydman, B., Hennebel, L and Lewkowicz, G., Responsabilités des entreprises et corégulation, 2007." between State and companies. At the end, it might be a transformation of companies into new legislators through soft law. Fairy tale or nightmare ?  

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Généralités sur le principe du contradictoire. Étude de droit processuel, coll. "Anthologie du Droit", Lextenso – LGDJ éditions, 2014, 221 p. - Republished from Généralités sur le principe du contradictoire », Étude de droit processuel, Th. Paris II, 1988.  This book is the publication of a thèse d'Etat (French official thesis) written under the direction of Jean Foyer and defended in the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II) face to a jury made up among others of François Terré, René Chapus, Gérard Cornu, Geneviève Viney.  The main idea is to defend that the principle of contradictory is a simple and fundamental principle, without which there is no Law. It is the reason it is obvious to study it as in civil procedure as in criminal, administrative or arbitrary procedures, to take back a "Procedural Law" perspective conceived by Motulsky. Indeed, without a judge listening without having already decided the facts and Law versions that presents who's the situation will be affected by the decision that the judge will make, there is no rule of Law.  The main beneficiary of the principle of contradictory, it is not really the person, and it is in this that the contradictory is detached from the rights of the defense, it is the judge. Indeed, emphasizing contradictory versions of Law and facts which collide in front of him or her, the judge perceives more exactly and more fairly the world and the use of Law that he or she should favor. Thus, Law is better used. In this, we can consider that the principle of contradictory is consubstantial to Law. Read the summary (in French) Read the introduction (in French) Read the table of contents (in French)

If one admits that Regulation is identified by the balancing of the principle of competition with another principle, a-competitive or anti-competitive, then peace is destined to slip into this technical definition of Regulation . So, it is possible to conceive relagulating of trade in terms of peace. Indeed, if we consider that liberalism has links with competition, we can instead consider economic mechanisms which are "colored" by the concern for social justice, equitable distribution of wealth. For example the construction of infrastructure for the future common good can be interpreted as being relied on the concept of peace, conceived as Kantian project. Organized in this sensee, the regulation belongs to the public international law. But we can design a system in a more economic perspective, more for the right business. Thus, the example "oil against food" program that you can just read it as a regulation of commerce, shows this sort of trade regulation is built to engender peace negatively  preventing build up war chests and allowing the citizens to be transformed in consumers.Furthermore, when the limitation of the rights of creditors had been done ​​by CERDI , it had been on behalf of the right of States to exercise a power expressly to "regulate" its money in disfavor th creditors but to bring peace through devaluation so that citizens can remain consumers. Can we go further? Can we go beyond casuistry?

We sometimes believe Law is the new rules decided by the binding power of the State, rules which are only "positive law". This is false. Because current Law is the result of History (I), it is easy to see it through French institutions built in historical periods and conserved (II). But if it is true, how to really build Europe ? (III). I. Current Law is the result of History. Thus, the French law that governs us is the result of the history of French law, which itself was "polished" by the History of France. It cannot  be understood if one ignores everything that happened before, because history is still alive in the present legal rules. The Roman law, that medieval law, the law of the Old Regime, the "intermediate law" of the French Revolution are all present. Therefore, the strong influences of the North American law after the Second World War and European integration can cause some problems. Certainly, the law as it is an autonomous normative system raised its neutrality with respect to historical facts, especialy with cases on Nazis' behavior or genocides, but it is not a simple question. II. This impregnation of the law by its History says that all French institutional organization is marked by its history, including politics, the primary role of the executive, the place given to Parliament, the little regard for the Constitution, and aggressive ignorance of the judge is rooted in the French history. The French judicial organization itself is the result of the history of France, by the duality of orders of courts, as are the judicial courts in the relationship between the seat and the floor. III. Today, we tend to undermine the relationship between Law and History. If we don't, how do we build Europe between such different Nations? Whereas Europe includes Common Law countries and countries of Civil Law? If we don't separate Law and History, then Europe should only be a market area, except in finding a common core to all European histories, that could be the respects of human beings.                

In a positivist conception of law or in in how it is taught , we tend to think that the history of law is an "auxiliary science". But if it happens that past events remain in the current law, so it is ignoring the current law to know nothing of the history of law. If we take the example of the French Revolution, a major divide in the French history, is there still something in the French law? If not, then let the knowledge of the Revolution to historians. If so, then the practical handling of the current French law requires knowledge and understanding of the French Revolution and its ideas, which are still working through today's law, for example through then texts still preserved in its letter and in its spirit.

It is therefore necessary to take the statement for granted: the law expresses "the spirit of a people." We want to believe, since Savigny stated it Following the great author does not avoid explaining the meaning of such a statement. Expressing the historical conception of law means that all legal events are the result of a culture of a "people", which has been built over the centuries. Thus, because a French "people" are, there is a French law that reflects this. If this is true, then the implications of this fact are considerable. First, in order for a law to be effective, coherent and applied, it must correspond to the "spirit" of the people to whom it applies. The legislature and the courts must make it part of their art, not to rush a historical movement, do not ignore it,but to  adopt the pace. Therefore, foreign legal techniques cannot be welcome. The most important sources of law are the most spontaneous, that is to say, those in which people forge through the centuries of usage and customs. The law written on a white sheet of paper is a mistake, unless it is itself covered by a long period after. The legislator and the judge should have taken to the method of knowing the spirit of their society in which they move: the sociology and history cease to be ancillary to become positive law. In this, the common law rooted in its "stare decisis" better expresses this conception than does the system of Civil Law. But more importantly, there has to be a "people" whose mind law would collect. As rightly pointed out by the German Constitutional Court in 2009, there is no "European people". So how can we build Europe? While the French, British, German, Italian, Spanish, peoples etc. have such a different mind, and that expansion now brings us to the Slavic soul?

Introduction au droit.  The book of Muriel Fabre-Magnan is out. This is great. The law holds the attention of everyone all the time. Because daily life is full of law and there is the awareness of this. Because world live has a turn increasingly legal. Thus, the interest in the law is new, or at least has grown. But the law is off-putting for anyone who didn't study, who doesn't practice. This mass, which is enormous and as inert, seems belch through dramatic cases or convictions shattering. Thus, the desire to discover and to understand law seems meet a sort of end of inadmissibility, seems to be hampered by the legal matter itself. That is why everyone must buy Introduction au droit (Introduction to Law), the book (written in French) in the collection "Que sais-je ?" ("What can I know?"), by Muriel Fabre-Magnan. By reading this book of 124 pages, one can understand what may represent the law, not only for every day but also the law in society in a civilized world. The law is the key to a civilized system. But in a world which seems to be governed by the game of forces, the law is absent or just facade. Thus, reading, you'd think that the law is in fact very little … Read a presentation of the new edition of the Muriel Fabre-Magnan book : Introduction au droit.

The "pinnacle" means the culmination of a successful issue. Here, the Code civil (French Civil Code) would be the point of perfection of French law. For many this qualification is required with evidence before this masterpiece of concision, practice and use of language. This implies a critique of the current French law, including a legislator that would had fallen very low. But the question nevertheless arises. Since before the Civil Code, there was a law that was not as unworthy. Moreover, after some general principles, all the civil law takes place into the Civil Code, family law, contract law, tort law, and so on. But the criminal law or public law aren't inserted in the book. Thus, it is rather the form, the art of writing the law that can be given to this term apogee Civil Code, not the substance that can bring so much praise to the Code civil because he never embraced the french law in its entirety. In addition, it is true that the form is the pinnacle of French law, but a French law that put the law should only be expressed through writing through codification rather than practices or casebased rules. We must therefore bow to bin assumptions before proclaiming that the Civil Code is the pinnacle of French law. Admitting it is rather the culmination of a certain conception of the law, a non indiscutable conception, he was a perfect and sublime event.

► Full Reference : Ch. Lefort, Procédure civile (Civil Procedure), 1st ed. 2005 – 5th ed., 2014, Dalloz, “Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé” Series, 539 p. - ► General presentation of the book (written in French) : This « Course », whose 5th edition has just been published, shows to what extent civil procedure is a major discipline of private law insofar as it contributes to the effective realisation of the rights of persons. Procedure is the law of the civil trial, which it organises. This textbook sets out, in a first part, the principles governing the subjective right granted to a litigant to have access to a judge. In a second part, it details the main mechanisms governing the conduct of the civil trial. Designed mainly for undergraduate and Master students, this book will also be of interest to all those wishing to know and understand the course of the civil trial. - 📕Read the back cover (in French) - 📕Read the table of contents (in French) - 📚See the entire collection in which the book is published. -

The regulatory authority of the North American telecommunications (Federal Communications Commission – FCC) adopted a position 5 August 2014 to admit that the service providers charge users for the service of priority access to content. For some commentators, allowing this monetization, the FCC has "killed" the "net neutrality". Immediately, President Barack Obama is strongly opposed to this position on behalf of the principle known as "net neutrality." The Washington Post, in its presentation of this reaction of the President, described it as "populist". Basically, it comes to choosing whether you prefer to favor companies that produce content and containing or to favor search engines. It is true that the search engines, whose business model relies heavily on the legal principle of "net neutrality" are American firms, like Google. On the other hand, many companies that carry the content and can therefore monetize the service of access to a priority basis are divided to more evenly around the world, including being located in Europe.

In its judgment of 23 July 2014, MM. B., A. et C., the Conseil d'État (French Council of State) shall transmit a  Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité – QPC (Priority Question of Constitutionality) to the Conseil constitutionnel  (French Constitutional Council) about the compliance of the procedural organization of the Cour de discipline budgétaire et financière – CDBF (French Court of fiscal and financial discipline) in terms of constitutional principle impartiality. Indeed, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council has incorporated in the constitutional corpus the principle of impartiality, objectively designed   as judicial jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights have done and have imposed the organs exercising power sanction must give to see their impartiality (definition of the "objective impartiality") to third parties who must have confidence in this body which has power to impose sanctions.