À la suite de scandales financiers notoires, et au vu de l’évolution des marchés financiers et des nouvelles technologies, l’Union européenne vient renforcer le cadre législatif européen des abus de marché, au nom de l’intégrité des marchés. Loin de constituer un simple regroupement d’infractions boursières, le concept d’abus de marché pourrait être analysé comme une véritable notion juridique. Dès lors, l’essai d’une définition générique de l’abus de marché permettrait d’en clarifier le domaine et d’en guider sa mise en œuvre. L’étude du sens de la notion d’abus de marché permettrait d’éviter les révisions successives de la norme nationale et européenne afin de conférer à l’abus de marché des règles propices à l’intégrité et à l’efficience du marché. Une fois la notion d’abus de marché définie avec précision, sa lutte préventive ou répressive ne pourra être que renforcée. Pour autant, la nouvelle coexistence de la répression administrative et de la répression criminelle de l’abus de marché en droit financier européen conduit à s’interroger sur l’application du principe non bis in idem en la matière. Afin de rendre effective cette refonte, il est ainsi primordial que le droit de la responsabilité civile vienne soutenir le droit de la répression de l’abus de marché. Finalement, pour maintenir la place financière européenne comme une place concurrentielle, il est essentiel que la refonte de l’abus de marché ne se fasse pas de manière déséquilibrée en faveur de l’impératif d’intégrité et au détriment de l’efficience du marché. On ne doit pas omettre que le droit des abus de marché est un droit économique au service de l’efficience du marché. / Following notorious financial scandals, and looking at the evolution of the financial markets and the new technologies, the European Union has reinforced the market abuse's European legal framework in the name of markets integrity. Far from being a mere grouping of financial offenses, the concept of market abuse could be analyzed as a real legal construct. Henceforth, testing a generic definition of the market abuse would allow clarifying its scope and guiding its implementation. Studying the meaning of the market abuse notion would avoid the successive revision of the national and European norm in order to provide the market abuse rules suitable to the market integrity and efficiency. Once the market abuse notion precisely defined, its preventive or repressive fighting could only be reinforced. However, the new coexistence of the administrative and criminal repressions of the market abuse in European financial law leads to some interrogations regarding the non bis idem principle application. In order to make the recast efficient, it is mandatory for the civil responsibility law to sustain the market abuse repressive law. Eventually, in order to maintain the European financial market competitiveness, it is essential that the market abuse recast is not unbalanced in favor of the integrity requirement and against the market efficiency. We shall not forget that the market abuse law is an economic law serving the market efficiency.

The aim of this thesis is to present the phenomenon of posting workers within the EU in the context of the freedom to provide services. The author introduces the de lege lata legal framework in a complex and chronological manner, taking into consideration the motives and political pressure behind key modifications. Accordingly, the thesis examines relevant Treaty provisions, case law and its evolution, key secondary acts, as well as the relation of such sources to legal acts which address posting workers in an indirect manner. The author focuses on the analysis of existing key provisions, their practical impact and insufficiencies. However, she also approaches the topic from the de lege ferenda perspective by presenting the ongoing revision of the current legal framework and by considering other potential changes which could improve the regulation of posted workers in the future. Furthermore, the thesis demonstrates the complexity of posting workers by drawing attention to the colliding interests of involved member states and parties, showing the sensitivity of the subject. This underlines the fact that the phenomenon cannot be separated from its political context and is condemned to a constant balancing of two colliding interests - the freedom to provide services and social protection of posted...

Les interférences nées de la coexistence des systèmes constitutionnel et européens de protection des droits fondamentaux peuvent, sous certaines conditions, être bénéfiques aux titulaires de ces derniers. Elles comportent cependant une part de risques devant d’autant plus être prise au sérieux que le recours au traditionnel principe hiérarchique est aporétique. Quelle est la gestion faite de ces risques ? Qu’elle soit neutralisée ou, de manière plus aboutie, concurrencée dans ses principales fonctions, la hiérarchie est en tous cas, sinon évitée, du moins relativisée au profit de méthodes de plus en plus perfectionnées s’inscrivant dans une perspective durable et construite d’émergence de principes de régulation des rapports entre les systèmes axés autour des idées maîtresses de coopération et de conciliation. L’hypothèse de la mise en place d’un système de rapports doit toutefois être aussitôt éclairée par le constat de son caractère inabouti, du fait notamment de phénomènes de résurgence de hiérarchie. C’est finalement toute la dialectique de la coopération des systèmes de protection qui se fait jour et révèle le tournant à l’aune duquel se trouvent les rapports étudiés : la limite de la satisfaction paraît avoir été atteinte et des défis d’un genre nouveau apparaissent. Il est primordial que le système d’ensemble parvienne à préserver l’équilibre progressivement construit. Au-delà, c’est également un mouvement de redynamisation qu’il convient d’encourager afin que, dépassant le stade actuel, le défi de l’achèvement et de l’amélioration soit relevé / The interferences between constitutional and European fundamental Rights protection systems can help the subject of fundamental Rights under certain conditions. But they also provide some risks that should be taken seriously, given that the traditional hierarchical principle does not appear to give an appropriate solution. How do the principal actors of the fundamental Rights protection in Europe deal with that? The hierarchy, simply neutralized or challenged in its main functions, is avoid or at least reduced in favor of more sophisticated methods. Those appear to be maintained over time and to give pace to regulation principles within systems, based on cooperation and conciliation ideas. However, the theory of a new system of relations emergence is still incomplete. The perfect normative harmony hasn’t been reached yet, due to several factors, including phenomena of resurgence of hierarchy. In the end, the whole dialectic of system of protection’s cooperation is revealed and highlights a turning point where the studied relations now find themselves: the limitation to the satisfaction appears to be reached as new challenges are emerging. It is crucial that the global system remains in capacity to keep a progressively built balance. Above all, a stimulating impulsion should be encouraged in order to complete and improve what has been started

Le droit de la concurrence est régi, principalement, par le droit de l’Union européenne. Le "public enforcement" garantit le respect de ce dernier. Le droit de l’Union européenne ne prévoyait pas jusqu’alors de régime juridique permettant aux victimes de pratiques anticoncurrentielles d’obtenir réparation de leur préjudice, malgré une reconnaissance jurisprudentielle. Le droit national, quant à lui, n’avait pas de régime spécifique et les victimes de pratiques anticoncurrentielles se voyaient appliquer le régime commun de la responsabilité délictuelle sur le fondement de l’article 1382 ancien du Code civil. Vu la complexité du contentieux, cette situation entraînait de grandes difficultés pour les victimes d’obtenir réparation des dommages subis. La directive n°2014/104/UE a créé un régime juridique nouveau et a harmonisé le "private enforcement". Elle a été transposée en droit français par l’ordonnance n°2017-303. Cette réforme très attendue est en demi-teinte. Certes, il existe des avancées non négligeables. La directive facilite la preuve de la faute et organise la communication et la production de pièces pendant l’instance. Elle consacre une présomption de dommage et encadre l’évaluation du préjudice. En revanche, la réforme est plutôt timorée sur d’autres éléments, tels que la faute, l’imputation de la faute, ou encore le financement des actions. Cette étude a pour objectif d’analyser ces nouvelles dispositions afin de vérifier si la directive facilite effectivement les actions en dommages et intérêts pour les infractions au droit de la concurrence. / Competition law is mainly governed by European Union law. Public enforcement ensures fulfilment of EU law. Until recently, and despite recognition in case-law, EU law did not provide for a legal regime enabling victims of anti-competitive practices to obtain compensation of their damage. National law did not have a specific legal regime and victims of anti-competitive practices could apply the common civil liability regime on the basis of ex-Article 1382 of the Civil Code. Given the complexity of litigation, this situation lead to great difficulties for victims to obtain compensation for their damages. EU directive n°2014/104 creates a new legal regime and harmonizes the private enforcement. It has been transposed into French law under ordonnance n°2017-303. This much-awaited reform is subdued. Certainly, there are significant progresses. The directive facilitates the proof of fault, and organizes the communication and production of documents during the proceedings. It establishes a presumption of loss and provides a framework to assess the harm. On the other hand, the reform is rather timid on other elements, such as the fault, its attribution, or the financing of the actions. The purpose of this study is to analyze these new rules to ascertain whether it effectively facilitates actions for damages for infringements of competition law.

Access to big data under the "refusal to supply" case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU Abstract This thesis deals with the topic of access to the so-called big data from the perspective of EU competition law. The thesis deals with the question whether and if so, to what extent it is possible to use the so-called "refusal to supply" case-law created by the Court of Justice of the EU to gain access to big data held by a dominant undertaking. The thesis finds that, under certain conditions, it is possible for all necessary steps to be fulfilled to allow one undertaking to request access from a dominant undertaking to big data under the control of that undertaking. This thesis therefore firstly discusses what factors affect the so-called online platforms, which can often find themselves in the position of dominant undertakings in terms of access to big data. The thesis analyses the effects of the so-called network effects, the impact of data analysis on their efficiency and the issue of the so-called multi-sided markets in connection with the position of online platforms. Subsequently, an assessment of the individual steps which, in summary, lead to the classification of the behavior of a dominant undertaking as an abuse of its dominant position by refusing access to big data is conducted. From the point...

No / EU law is not a subject enjoyed by most students but it really does not have to be difficult. Every EU law question is likely to ask you to apply your knowledge of the law to a particular context – either a practical one, as in problem questions, or a more theoretical one, as in essay questions. For both you need to remember that EU law does not exist in isolation but is inextricably linked with the national legal systems of the Member States. The interaction between European law and these systems is crucial to understanding how EU law works. EU law is often considered in a political context and this has become very apparent in the UK following the referendum in June 2016 and the vote for ‘Brexit’. At te time of writing Brexit negotiations are continuing and for now EU law applies as it always has in the UK. Recognising that your political stance is likely to influence your views on EU law is valuable and something which can make your answers stronger, particularly in relation to questions on historical, constitutional or institutional issues.

L’objet de ce travail vise à déterminer si le transport aérien en Europe relève d’une compétence partagée entre l’Union européenne (UE) et les États membres, ou s’il s’agit plutôt d’une occupation du terrain par l’UE dans cette matière ? Ainsi, nous verrons en quoi consiste le cadre règlementaire communautaire portant sur le transport aérien en Europe. Dans un premier temps, nous porterons notre attention sur des aspects généraux entourant l’aviation en Europe, comme par exemple la mise en place d’un marché unique de l’aviation ainsi que les ententes « ciel ouvert ». Puis, dans un second temps nous procéderons à l’analyse du cadre règlementaire spécifique portant sur des aspects tels que l’environnement, les droits des passagers aériens, la sécurité et la sûreté. / The purpose of this study is to determine whether air transport in Europe is a shared competence between European Union (EU) and the Member States, or whether it is an a field under the jurisdiction of the EU in this specific area. We will review the EU regulatory framework on air transport in Europe. Initially, we will focus on issues concerning aviation in general in Europe, such as the establishment of a single market for aviation and "open skies" agreements. Then, we will analyze the specific regulatory framework such as the environment, protection of air passengers, the security and safety.

Les ressortissants de pays tiers sont devenus au fur et à mesure de la construction européenne des véritables sujets du droit de l'Union européenne. Toutefois, leur protection est fragmentée en raison d'une « catégorisation » croissante de leurs statuts, en fonction de la situation de fait ou de droit qui les caractérise. L'émergence d'un socle commun de garantie de droits sociaux fondamentaux à partir des normes européennes peut être néanmoins constatée. La coordination des régimes nationaux de sécurité sociale s'applique en effet explicitement aux ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour régulier. De même, les normes sociales européennes dont les destinataires ne sont pas déterminés en fonction de la nationalité peuvent leur être adressées. Pareil constat s'applique également aux normes relatives au principe de non-discrimination.Ce socle commun pourrait alors servir de base pour l'élaboration d'un statut social, entendu comme un attribut de la citoyenneté sociale, concrétisée par la participation sociale à la vie de la cité. Ce statut social pourrait être lui-même le fondement de l'élaboration d'un véritable statut européen consacré aux ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour régulier. Il contribuerait à la réalisation de l'objectif mis en avant par le Conseil européen de Tampere des 15 et 16 octobre 1999 consistant à donner un traitement équitable à cette catégorie de ressortissants. Il concourrait aussi au renforcement de leur intégration au sein des sociétés des Etats membres d'accueil. Il s'agirait d'une intégration par le bénéfice et l'exercice des droits sociaux fondamentaux, consistant dans le financement des systèmes de sécurité sociale, l'exercice d'une activité professionnelle, ou encore la participation aux activités syndicales et de représentation collective. / Third-country nationals have become veritable subjects of the EU Law. Nevertheless, their protection is fragmented by the increasing categorization of their status, in consequence of their fact and juridical situation. The emergence of a common standard of protection of fundamental social rights based on the EU regulations and policies may be however noted. Thus the coordination of social security systems applies explicitly to the regular staying third-country nationals. EU social regulations and directives also apply to those persons when the nationality condition is not specified. The same situation is also considered on the non-discrimination principle field. Then, this common standard of protection can offers a base to the development of a social status that is an attribute of the social citizenship, materialized by the social participation in the community. This social status could come itself the foundation of the construction of a truly European status dedicated to the regular staying third-country nationals. It could contribute to the realization of the European Council Tampere's objective to give a fair treatment to those persons. It could also contribute to the reinforcement of their integration at the member States community. It consists in a social integration, by the practice of fundamental social rights like working, funding social security, or getting involved with trade unions representation.

Internet intermediaries facilitate a wide range of conduct using services supplied over the layered architecture of modern communications networks. Members of this class include search engines, social networks, internet service providers, website operators, hosts, and payment gateways, which together exert a critical and growing influence upon national and global economies, governments and cultures. This research examines who should face legal responsibility when wrongdoers utilise these services tortiously to cause harm to others. It has three parts. Part 1 seeks to understand the nature of an intermediary and how its liability differs from the liability of primary defendants. It classifies intermediaries according to a new layered, functional taxonomy and argues that many instances of secondary liability in English private law reflect shared features and underlying policies, including optimal loss-avoidance and derivative liability premised on an assumption of responsibility. Part 2 analyses intermediaries’ monetary liability for secondary wrongdoing in two areas of English law: defamation and copyright. It traces the historical evolution of these doctrines at successive junctures in communications technology, before identifying and defending limits on that liability which derive from three main sources: (i) in-built limits contained in definitions of secondary wrongdoing; (ii) European safe harbours and general limits on remedies; and (iii) statutory defences and exceptions. Part 3 examines intermediaries’ non-monetary liability, in particular their obligations to disclose information about alleged primary wrongdoers and to cease facilitating wrongdoing where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It proposes a new suite of non-facilitation remedies designed to restrict access to tortious internet materials, remove such materials from search engines, and reduce the profitability of wrongdoing. It concludes with several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and proportionality of remedies by reference to considerations of architecture, anonymity, efficient procedures, and fundamental rights.

La notion d’identité constitutionnelle permet de qualifier le positionnement respectif des ordres juridiques irlandais et français face à la primauté du droit de l’Union européenne. Comparé à la jurisprudence européenne, leurs régimes constitutionnels relatifs à ce droit externe n’offrent qu’une immunité et affirme in fine la suprématie de la Constitution en tant qu’expression de la souveraineté nationale. Pourtant, les juridictions des deux pays montrent une attitude conciliante fondée sur une relation de contenu entre normes constitutionnelles et européennes. Plutôt qu’un essentialisme, la notion d’identité constitutionnelle représente un discours portant sur la Constitution suivant lequel une qualité identitaire est reconnue aux normes constitutionnelles susceptibles de mettre en échec les dispositions dédiées à la primauté des normes européennes au terme d’une interprétation les mettant en balance.Malgré des affirmations différentes de leur souveraineté nationale, l’accroissement du contrôle de l’application du droit européen est un objectif commun dans la jurisprudence des deux pays. La dynamique institutionnelle qui caractérise le processus interprétatif qu’implique la notion d’identité constitutionnelle privilégie les juridictions et mène à une forme singulière de dialogue avec la Cour européenne de justice conciliant primauté du droit européen et suprématie de la Constitution. Les monologues menant à une exclusion de l’application du droit européen au nom de l’identité constitutionnelle sont une invitation faite à la juridiction européenne pour établir une coexistence pacifique entre les ordres juridiques définie par une union de mots dans une diversité de sens. / Comparing the Irish and French legal orders leads to describe the appraisal of the primacy of European Union law by the notion constitutional identity. In contrast to the claims of the European Court of Justice, the constitutional regime regarding European rules, both in Irish and French law, only provides for immunity and ultimately affirms the supremacy of the Constitution as the norm expressing national sovereignty. Still, Irish and French courts display a conciliatory attitude focused on aligning the material content of domestic and European norms. Rather than essentialism, the notion of constitutional identity represents a discourse on the Constitution whereby the identity status qualifies those constitutional norms which can defeat constitutional provisions dedicated to the prevalence of European rules as a result of an interpretative balancing process.While manifesting different affirmations of national sovereignty, the common objective of Irish and French courts is attaining increased control of the application of European Union rules. The institutional dynamics distinguishing the notion of constitutional identity as an interpretative process involve both an empowerment of the judiciary and a specific form of dialogue with the European Court of Justice regarding the conciliation between the primacy of European Union law and the supremacy of the Constitution. Judicial monologues protecting constitutional identity mean possible exclusions of the domestic application of European law and constitute an invitation to the European Court of Justice to agree to a peaceful co-existence of the two legal orders defined as a unity of words with a diversity of meanings.