Publications

The cost issue of regulation is a recurring issue. One can complain specifically, when companies are protesting about the "cost of regulation" or when the topic is taken as an object of study, through the cost / benefit calculation. A practical question of importance is whether there is a "legal question" or not. The "juridicity" of a question is defined by the fact that discussing about this question has an effect on the outcome of a case before a judge. This concrete definition, leaving the judge's power, binding nature of the rule (here the balance between cost and benefit) the effectiveness of its decision before the judge, its consideration by him in the decision he makes, has been proposed in France by Carbonnier. It is opposed to a definition of Law by the source, the author of the rule, which identifies law for example through Parliament Acts, because the text is adopted by the legislator, listed source of law. The first definition, more sociological, more flexible, giving the spotlight on judge better corresponds to a legal system which gives more room for ex post and for the judge. It is logical that we find more demonstrations of this conception in the common law systems. However, the issue of cost / benefit is being debated before the Supreme Court of the United States, about the latest environmental regulations, adopted by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). It is a question of law. It is under the empire of the judge. For it is in this light that President Barack Obama in November 2014 asked a very costly regulation, and it was under his leadership that the Environmental Protection Agency has developed texts. Indeed, pollution of certain plants are the cause of asthma and laid in public health imperative to fight a regulation that results in a direct cost on firms. Indeed, some plants pollution is the cause of asthma and President Obama has asked public health imperative to combat by a regulation that results in a direct cost on the industry. The regulations adopted in 2012 they cost a $ 9 million, some claiming that future ones could result in billions of costs directly related to business The President emphasized by stating that the health of children was priceless. By challenging those of 2012 before the Supreme Court, in the case Michigan v. EPA, this is the other texts that conservative states and companies have in mind because it is the principle that is posed: : does A regulator have the right to take regulations very "expensive" when the advantage, however legitimate it is, is small-scale in terms of costs? The Supreme Court, having chosen to handle the case, listened to March 25, 2015, the arguments of each other and discussed the case. The question is the integration or not into the constitutional notion of "necessity of the law" of the "cost / benefit" calculation. This is a crucial point because the concept of "necessity of the law" is a common notion to the constitutions of many countries. However, not only the so-called judges "conservatives" as Justice Antonio Scalia, took position felt it was crazy not "consider" the cost of new regulations from the expected health benefits, but also Justice Stephen Breyer called "progressive," said "irrational" the environmental regulator has not taken in consideration such an imbalance between cost and benefit. It is true that Justice Breyer was formerly professor of competition law at Harvard. Judgment will be given in June.

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 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."