Right to property

► Full Reference: L. Rapp, "Conformité, proportionnalité et normativité" ("Compliance, proportionality and normativity"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, pp. 177-198. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): Proportionality is to the exercise of powers what subsidiarity is to the exercise of competences: an indicator as well as a limit. It determines the scope and allows for control at the same time. It sets the standard, before being a standard itself. This may explain why, in principle, it is part of the judge's office and his methods of assessment. But a study of its recent evolution shows that it is gradually moving from the ex-post to the ex-ante, which makes it possible to anticipate that it will soon become an effective tool of compliance policies and a useful normative reference. The article developments demonstrate this, by explaining how one slides from the principle of proportionality to proportionality control, from proportionality control to proportional reasoning, from proportional reasoning to compliance control, and finally, in a last desirable evolution, from compliance control to the necessary proportionality of control.  -

This working document serves as a basis for a contribution to the Grands Arrêts de la Propriété intellectuelle (major cases in Intellectual Property), published under the direction of Michel Vivant, in the new section devoted to Regulatory perspective. Conceived as a "regulatory tool", intellectual property is then used by the State as an "incentive for innovation". Public authorities adopt solutions that stem from sectoral concerns that permeate intellectual property. Because the economic sectors become prime, the systemic perspective then prevails in the solutions retained in the judgments passed by the courts.   One can see it through three French court decisions:    ► Civ., 1ière, 28 février 2006, named Mulholland Drive ; ► Paris, 11 décembre 2012, Sanofi-Aventis ; ► Civ., 1ière, 6 juillet 2017, SFR, Orange, Free, Bouygues télécom et autres.   Summary: Intellectual property, derived from the State and inserted in a public policy, can be conceived, not to reward a posteriori the creator but to incite others to innovate. It is then an Ex Ante tool of Regulation, alternative to subsidies. If private copying is an exception, it is not in relation to the principle of competition but in an insertion in a system of incentives, starting from the costs borne by the author of the first innovation: the owner of the rights is then protected , not only according to a balance of interests, but in order not to discourage innovative potentials and the sector itself. (1st decision). The sectoral policy then pervades the intellectual property used to regulate a sector, for example that of the drug. While it is true that a laboratory wishing to market a generic medicine did not wait for the patent expiry of the original medicine to do so, it is not relevant to sanction this anticipation of a few days because investments made by the holder of the intellectual property right have been made profitable by it and because the public authorities favor generics for the sake of public health (2nd decision). The systemic interest provides and that is why Internet service providers have to bear the costs of access blocking while they are irresponsible because of the texts. This obligation to pay is internalized by Compliance because they are in the digital system best able to put an end to the violation of intellectual property rights that the ecosystem requires to be effective. (3rd decision).     It is necessary to underline the paradox represented by the infatuation of the theoreticians of Regulation with intellectual property, whose legal nature it transforms by an exogenous reasoning(I). Influenced, the case law uses reasoning based on incentives, investments, returns and costs, so that the State obtains the operators expected behaviors (II). As a natural result, there is a sectoral segmentation, for example  in telecommunications or pharmacy, which ends up calling into question the uniqueness of intellectual property, according to the technologies and public policies that affect them  (III). There are still imputations of new obligations on operators just because they are in the technical position of implementing intellectual property rights: the transition from Regulation to Compliance is thus taking place (IV).

Full reference: CJCE, 4th of June 2002, Decision C-483/99, Commission v/ France (Total) Read the decision