All news

Full reference: Petit, N., Droit européen de la concurrence, 3rd edition, Collection "Précis Domat Droit Public/Droit privé", Lextenso – LGDJ, 2020   Read the forth of cover (in French) Read the table of contents (in French)

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A.,Attorney's Professional Secret & Filter mechanism in balance with fighting Money Laundering: constitutional analysis in favor of Attorney's Secret, Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, October 9, 2020.   Summary: By its judgment of September 24, 2020, the Constitutional Court of Belgium released an essential judgment which considers: – Compliance Law which imposes obligations on entities to fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism is legal requirements which must be analyzed on the basis of these goals – the national transposition law is "broader" than the transposed European texts since it is anchored in the Constitution – the provisions of the law imposing the declaration of suspicion on an employee of the Attorney or on a Compliance Officer concerning information covered by the professional secrecy of the Attorney, the basis of Democracy, must therefore be canceled. This reasoning is remarkable and very solid. It is not unique to Belgium.   Lire par abonnement gratuit les autres News dans la Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Financial Stability Board, The Use of Supervisory and Regulatory Technology by Authorities and Regulated Institutions. Market Developments and Stability Implications, Report of 9th of October 2020, 36 p.  Read the report Read the presentation of the report by the Financial Stability Board To go further on the question of the use of new technologies in regulatory processes, read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's working paper: Analysis of blockchains with regards with the uses they can fulfill and the functions that the ministerial officers must ensure  

Full reference: Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 9th of October 2020, Ordonnance de référé, Veolia/Suez, N° RG 20/56077   Read the ordonnance de référé (in French)

Full reference: CJEU, Grand Chamber, 6th of October 2020, Privacy International c/ Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, C-623/17. Read the judgment  Read the summary of the judgment (in French) Read the opinion of the Advocate General  Read the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal – London (United Kingdom)

Full reference: Baer, B., Proposals to Strengthen the Antitrust Laws and Restore Competition Online, Testimony before the United-States House of Representatives, Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, 1st of October 2020 Read the testimony Read Bill Baer's presentation by Brookings Institution of which he is a member

Full reference of the guidelines: Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), Délibération n°2020-091 du 17 septembre 2020 portant adoption de lignes directrices relatives à l'application de l'article 82 de la loi du 6 janvier 1978 modifiée aux opérations de lecture et écriture dans le terminal d'un utilisateur (notamment aux "cookies et autres traceurs") et abrogeant la délibération n°2019-093 du 4 juillet 2019  Full reference of the recommendation: Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), Délibération n°2020-092 du 17 septembre 2020 portant adoption d'une recommandation proposant des modalités pratiques de mise en conformité en cas de recours aux "cookies et autres traceurs".  Read the guidelines (in French) Read the recommendation (in French) Read the presentation of these guilines and of this recommendation by the CNIL (in French)  Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's comment about this in the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation & Compliance of 1st of October 2020

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Judge between Platform and Regulator: current example of Uber case in U.K., Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, 29th of September 2020 Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation   Summary of the news: On 22nd of September 2017, Transport of London (TFL), London Transport Regulator, refused to renew the licence, granted on 31st of May 2012 for 5 years, authorizing Uber to transport people because of criminal offenses committed by Uber's drivers. On 26th of June 2018, The Westminster Court prolonged Uber's licence for 15 months under the condition that the platform prevent the reproachable behaviors of its drivers. After these 15 months, the TFL refused once again to prolonge Uber's licence because of the persistence of aggressions against passengers. Uber, once again, contest this decision before the Westminster Court.  In a decision of 28th of September 2020, the Court observes that during the 15 months, the platform implemented many measures to prevent aggressions, that the level of maturity of these measures has improved over time and that the number of offenses was reduced over the period (passing from 55 in 2018 to 4 in 2020). The Court estimated the the implementation of this actions is sufficient to grant a new licence to Uber.  We can learn three lessons from this decision:  The Compliance obligation is not a result obligation but a mean obligation, which means that it is not reasonable to expect from a crucial operator (Uber, for instance) that it prevent every cases of agression but that it is salient to judge it on the effort it deploys to try to be closer to this ideal situation. Moreover, the crucial operator must be proactive, that is going away from the figure of passive subject of Law who apply measures enacted by the regulator in terms of fighting against aggressions to be an actor of the research of the best way to fight abusive behaviors, internalizing this "monumental goal.  The judge appreciates the violation committed by those whose the firm is responsible "in context", that is evaluates the concrete situation in a reasonable way.  It is the judge who decides in last resort and like the crucial operator, it must be reasonable.    Read to go further: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Firm, Regulator and Judge: thinking Compliance through these three characters, 2018 The report of the Assemblée nationale (French Parliament chamber) on the question 

Full reference: Westminster Magistrates' Court, 28th of September 2020, Uber London Limited v. Transport for London  Read the decision Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's commentary in the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation & Compliance 

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

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'aventure du Droit de la Compliance ("The Adventure of Compliance Law"), Chronique de Droit de la Compliance ("Chronicles MAFR – Compliance Law"), Recueil Dalloz, September 24, 2020. Read the Chronicle (in French) This Chronicle of Compliance Law is based on a bilingual working document with additional developments, technical references and hypertext links. Read the Working Paper (written in English).   - Chronicle Summary: Compliance Law is an "adventure" in that it is a new branch of Law, anchored in Regulatory Law, which has freed itself from it while retaining the major principles to which it gives a new breath. In the same way that I entered Sciences Po in 2000 to create a Master de Droit économique centered around Regulation Law, this new branch of Law, a Forum de la Régulation and a Chaire Régulation, now "20 ans après" and as in any adventure, the objective is to give solid, coherent and substantial bases to this Compliance Law which is practiced intensely without being fully conceived. Compliance should not be reduced to a procedure of effectiveness and efficiency of other rules, such as Competition Law or Criminal Law, a sort of enforcement process going from the Ex Post to the Ex Ante, because that would be both too little (simply processes) and too much (the power of Compliance Law in the service of all rules, the violence of Compliance being able to serve in very violent Substantial Law itself, which one can observe in some legal systems). It is necessary to anchor all this new branch of Law in goals, this Law being teleological in nature as is the Law of Regulation. These goals are "monumental", by which the public authorities express still, and more now than in the past, "pretensions", such as the protection of the environment or of people even if they are distant from the territory on which they have traditionally taken. All these "monumental goals" converge towards a goal that encompasses them all: the protection of the person, which justifies the unusual power of legal Compliance mechanisms and the new relationship between States and "crucial operators". In this, Europe is exemplary of what could be this new branch of Law of which it bears the model.   -  

Full reference: Constitutional Court of Belgium, 24th of September 2020, Décision concernant le recours en annulation partielle de la loi du 18 septembre 2017 relative à la prévention du blanchiment de capitaux et du financement du terrorisme et à la limitation de l'utilisation des espèces (decision concerning the partial annulment appeal of the law of 18th of September 2017 related to money laundering and terrorism financing prevention and to the restriction of the use of cash), n°114/2020 Read the decision (in French) Read the law of 18th of September 2017 (in French)

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Economic Impact of Law: a new report about it. And what about Regulation & Compliance? 3 lessons, Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation, Compliance, 24th of September 2020 Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation, Compliance   Summary of the news:  On 18th of September 2020, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) published a report about the impact of Rule of Law on Economic Growth.  The EESC defines the Rule of Law as the obligation to "all public powers act within the constraints laid down by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts". According to the Committee, the Rule of Law thus defined is favorable and even necessary to a durable economic growth especially because instability of regulations, absence of guarantee of labor and property rights, discrimination or non-application of contracts poorly favors or are detrimental for investments and economic agents' productive activities. The EESC observes by the way that countries which respect the Rule of Law grow more rapidly than those which do not respect it. The Committee also insists on the destructive effect of corruption which destroys public services, public action, public institutions on the long run and confidence, increasing inequalities.  Although EESC approves the actions of European Commission to advance Rule of Law in the Union, it however invites the Commission to continue its efforts by giving a more important place to jurisdictions and by protecting better media freedom in a context of rising autocratic forces in Eastern Europe.  We can learn three lessons from this report: The common interest of European Union States to guarantee the Rule of Law. Indeed, Rule of Law is not only written in article 2 of TFEU and has been consecrated by CJEU case law, it is also a condition of economic progress.  The fight against corruption must be the object of a redoubled effort. In this perspective, Compliance Law is able to offer appropriate innovating legal tools. To a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law as a simple process of application of mechanical legal rules, it is necessary to substitute a definition of Regulation and Compliance Law based on the notion of "monumental goals" and people protection. In this perspective, these branches of Law would prove to be powerful tools in the service of the advancement of the rule of law in the European space.