All news

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.

Political power has often difficulties, or takes a long time to admit the principles of law, such as express the judges. So it was quite certain that the penalty proceedings held before the Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et de la Poste -ARCEP  (French Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Post, as the investigation body and the judgment body were not sufficiently distinct crumpled the constitutional principle of impartiality. It was acquired about 15 years. Yet the organization has continued. It has been enough that an operator has been sanctioned. He used the procedure of Question Prioritairre de Constitutionnalité -Q.P.C.  Priority Question of Constitutionality) and Numéricable July 5, 2013 decision by the Constitutional Council came to declare that any sanction proceedings before ARCEP unconstitutional, because of objective procedural partialité, thus causing difficulty to the regulator. It took until the 0rdonnance of March 12, 2014 and finally the decree of 1st August 2014 to organize an efficient sanctions procedure, making this time an intern wall within the ARCEP between the services responsible for the instruction and those which are responsible for judging. The great judge Pierre Drai used to say: "Ne pas respecter le droit coûte cher (Do not respect the law is expensive)". We see here that this is true also for the Government which writes laws and regulations. So, for months, the regulator has been without power, to the delight of the operators, who often are tacticians or turbulent.

The family is built on one basic idea which is so powerful that legal rules are organised around it as spontanely. But if the paradigm is changing, then all the rules change with the strength of the evidence. However, in the 1970s, we changed paradigm. Previously, for millennia, the basic idea was the family as a group. Depending on the time or period, the group has varied in its contours, squares and powers granted to individual members, but the idea of group was acquired. Family was a group which was a part of the social group, kept by the State. From the 1970s, the family becomes the developed project done by a free and independent person. This project designed by a person wishing to build family that suits him or her will result in the fact that the individual meets other individuals whose family project crosses his or her. Contract becomes the perfect tool for these home-made families This desires adjustment corresponds to the market model. Concretely, market of ideal family provides services for satisfaction of various projects, all legitimate as expression of desir. The sufficient link between individuals  is affection and will, the center is the child. The market offers new perspectives, such as ideal partner and even more perfect child, becoming jewel. The idea of ​​Market has triumphed.

Go back to the General Summary   Go back to the Summary specific to Economic Law, Regulatory Law and Compliance Law

Member of the expert group on online disinformation of the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) (French Broadcasting Authority), since 2019

Publisher, Director and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), since 2010; Member of the scientific board of […]

21. Member of the Réseau Français des Instituts d’Études Avancées (RFIEA) (French Network of Institutes for Advanced Study), 2013-2016; 20. […]

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche mafr@mafr.fr   http://www.facebook.com/marieanne.frisonroche https://twitter.com/mafrisonroche Marie-Anne Roche-Frison-Roche Conseil 96, rue Saint-Dominique 75007 PARIS – FRANCE http://mafr.com phone: 00.33.1.53.59.98.31   […]

To read the decree, in French . To read the modifications of the Code des postes et des communications électroniques.[ French […]

At first glance, only areas are regulated and the State doesn't enter private enterprises. But the imperative is reversed when a company absorbs the entire area, or when a firm has the project to absorb the area, such as Google has. The firm becomes "crucial" and the State must enter the company and intervene.  It is necessary to give the definition of a "crucial firm". A firm is "crucial", in a negative sense, when its failures could cause the collapse of the system; a firm is positively "crucial" if through it the industry is facing the purpose to serve the future of the social group. The State is then legitimate to enter the company to make its voice heard, sometimes to exercise its decision-making powers. The competitive dynamism and power of property don't exclude the superimposition of the common concern for the future, which some call the general interest.

Read the Conseil d'État decision. The ruling sends the Conseil constitutionnel  (French Constitutional Council) the question of whether the proceedings […]

One of the reasons why the law has a bad reputation is that it would be "arbitrary". It would be composed of rules, imposing to do this or not to to do that, without strong reasons. Ultimately, what we do does not matter, as long as we all behave in a similar way. No matter the substance in the legal rule which is adopted, the law, is primarily question of order. And a frequent example is the rule to drive on the left or to drive on the right on the roads.. Because it is a legal rule. It is often said that the law is "like that" and it is made just for the sole purpose of ensuring that everyone does the same, so there is no accident . But is that such an arbitrary rule ? Do the British, driving on the left, have no more reason to do so  that French who drive on the right ? If we can show that British legal rule has a more rational basis, then we must end up suspecting that no rule of law is established "without reason."