| Descrizione |
It follows from the clear and precise provisions of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC and Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (the MAR regulation) that, where the dissemination of information is made for the purposes of journalism, the infringement involving the dissemination of false or misleading information as provided for in Article 12(1)(c) of that Regulation must be assessed by taking into account the rules relating to the freedom of press and freedom of expression in other media and the rules or codes governing the journalist profession, unless the persons concerned or persons closely associated with them derive, directly or indirectly, an advantage or profits from the dissemination of the information or if such dissemination was carried out with the intention of misleading the market. (2) The fact that the infringement involving the dissemination of false or misleading information provided for in Article 12, paragraph 1, subsection c) of the MAR regulation may, pursuant to Article L. 621-15 of the Monetary and Financial Code, be the subject of a financial penalty of a maximum amount of one hundred million euros does not constitute interference in the exercise of freedom of expression that is not necessary in a democratic society, once a balance has been made between, on the one hand, the public policy objective of protecting financial markets and investors and combating market abuse and, on the other, the freedom of the press and expression, and that the maximum amount is therefore proportionate to the objective pursued. (3) From the findings and assessments of the ruling, it follows that Bloomberg did not act in accordance with the rules and codes governing its profession, as provided in Article 21 of the MAR Regulation, and that the failure to fulfil its obligations resulted in significant financial losses for investors and undermined the integrity of the capital markets and the confidence of investors in those markets, whereas Bloomberg, whose most recent account statements are not public, did not wish to disclose its total turnover, as provided in Article L. 621-15 of the Monetary and Financial Code, for the purpose of applying the penalty, and did not argue that the penalty imposed on it compromised its existence or the continuation of its journalistic activities, the cour d'appel (Court of Appeal) exactly deduced that a penalty of three million euros constituted an interference with Bloomberg's right to freedom of expression that was both necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objectives pursued.
|
(il documento PDF si apre in una nuova scheda)
