Jurisprudence

Full reference: AFA, Commission des sanctions (sanctions commission), Société I. SA, Decision n°19-2, July 7, 2021 Read the decision (in French)

Full reference: CJEU, Grand chamber, Judgment Facebook Ireland e.a. v. Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit, C-645-19, June 15, 2021 Read the judgment Read the abstract of the judgment done by the Court Read the press release    

► Full reference: ECHR, 3rd sect., 11 May 2021, Halet c. Luxembourg, n° 21884/18. - ► Read the judgment - ► See the judgment of the Grand chamber of the 14th February 2023 which overrules this decision. -

► Full Reference: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Deutsch Federal Constitutional Court), Order of the First Senate, March 24, 2021 (published on April 29, 2021), Nos. 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20 - 🏛️read the decision (in English) - 🏛️read the press release (in English) -

Full reference: Tribunal administratif de Paris (Paris administrative court), 4th section, 1st Chamber, Oxfam France, Notre Affaire à tous, Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme et Greenpeace France, 3rd of February 2021, n°1904967, 1904968, 1904972, 1904976/4-1   Read the judgment (in French) Read the press release from Tribunal administratif de Paris (in French)

Full reference: Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (French Banking Regulator), Commission des sanctions (Commission of sanctions), 24th of February 2021, ING Bank France, procedure n°2020-02   Read the decision (in French)   In this decision, the ACPR Sanctions Commission condemns IGN Bank France to a reprimand and a financial penalty of 3 million euros because of the inadequacy of its measures to fight corruption, money laundering and financing of terrorism.   Extract from the decision summarizing ING France's breaches of its Compliance obligations to fight against corruption, money laundering and financing of terrorism: "At the time of the on-site check, ING France's risk classification was incomplete and ineffective (grievance 1) and its system for monitoring its business relations (complaint 2) and their operations (grievance 4) presented serious deficiencies, as well as its organization and procedures for fund transfers (grievance 3). The updating of customer knowledge was insufficient (grievance 5), as were the detection of PEPs and the implementation of measures due diligence for this category of clientele (grievance 6). For the implementation of its due diligence obligations, numerous shortcomings were noted, whether these were breaches of the obligation to carry out a reinforced examination (grievance 7) or breaches of the obligation to send Tracfin a DS, initial (grievance 8) or additional (grievance 9). Finally, the detection of persons subject to an asset freezing measure was not fully effective (grievance 10) " (our translation of the decision which is only available in French).

Full reference: CJEU, 2nd of February 2021, DB v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), case C‑481/19 Read the decision Read the opinion of advocate general   Summary of the decision by CJEU:  "Natural persons who are subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing have the right to remain silent when their answers might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability".    To go further, read: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolve the contradiction between "incentive" and "sanction" under the fire of Compliance Law, 2021 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance tools, 2021

► Full Reference: Supreme Court of Norway, 22 December 2020, People v Artic Oil. - 🏛️Read the judgment (in English, unofficial translation) -

Full reference: Gallois, J., Responsabilité pénale de la société absorbante pour des faits commis par la société absorbée (Criminal liability of the acquiring company for acts committed by the absorbed company), Dalloz Actualités, 10th of December 2020 Read the article (in French) Read the decision of the Cour de Cassation commented in this article

Full reference: Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 25th of November 2020 (18-86.955), Decision n°2333, société Iron mountain France SAS Read the decision (in French) Read the press release from the Cour de Cassation (in French) ​Read the explication note from the Cour de Cassation (in French) Read Julie Gallois' comment   Summary of the decision In this decision constituting a case law reversal, the Chambre criminelle of the Cour de Cassation decides that the firm which absorbs the one to which are imputable facts which can receive a penal qualification leading to penalties of fines has the aptitude to answer penally. The decision precises that this reversal is applicable only to future cases, to respect the principle of predicability, except if this merging was operated only to escape from criminal responsibility of moral persons.  This case is an example of the use of Criminal Liability Law as an incentive.     

► Full Reference: Conseil d'État (French Council of State), 6th and 5th chambers reunited, 19 November 2020, n° 427301, Commune de Grande-Synthe (so-called Grande-Synthe I). - 🏛️read the decision (in French) -

Full reference: CJEU, 1st chamber, 18th of November 2020, decision C‑519/19, Ryanair DAC vs DelayFix Read the decision   Summary of the decision This decision of the CJEU of 18th of November 2020 is about the jurisdiction clause for any dispute in air transport contracts, here those of Ryanair. This decision is especially interesting about the question to know whether the professional assignee (collection company) of a debt whose holder was a consumer may or may not avail itself of the consumer protection provisions, canceling the scope of this type of clause.  The Court takes back the criteria and the solution already used in 2019 about a credit contract: the protection applies by the criterion of the parties to the contract and not of the parties to the disputes. Such a clause is effective only if the integrality of the contract is transferred to the professional, and not only some of the stipulations. This Regulatory decision, through "private enforcement", incentivizes consumers to transfer their compensation claim (around 250 euros) to collection companies which, in turn, discipline airlines to stay on schedule.

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: 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: 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 : CJEU, Vivendi S.A. / Autorita per la garanzie nelle Communicazioni, C-719/18, 3 décembre 2020.   Read the decision   Read the Court's press release presenting the judgment   Read the Court's press release presenting the Advocate General's conclusions   Read the Advocate General's conclusions

Full Reference: Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) , Administrative Decision of 16 March 2020, Banque Internationale du Luxembourg (BIL).  Read the Decision presentation (in French and in English)

Full reference: CA Paris, i7, Iliad, 4th of June 2020, n° 19/11454 Read the judgment (in French)

Full reference: Cour de Cassation, Chambre commerciale, Arrêt n° 319 du 1er juillet 2020 (18-21.487) Read the decision