Share
Ecouter

Past Colloques

  • Property acquisition 2.0
    6 April, 2021
  • The sustainability of the enterprise.
    2 April, 2021
  • Law, Health and Religion, Hippocrates challenged by Faith.
    4 February, 2021
    Study Day organized by the Master II in Health Law
  • Having convictions, what impact on heritage management today?
    13 March, 2020
    Colloquium organized by the Master of Law and Heritage. A publication of the colloquium is expected in the first half of 2021
    On March 13, 2020, students from Tours University’s Heritage Law Master’s degree were pleased to see that the colloquium they had been organizing for a year (Supervisor: Fabienne Labelle), actually took place. The theme chosen was premonitory in terms of discussions that will soon be taking place to rebuild the world economy after the health crisis linked to Covid-19. The subject of the colloquium was an invitation to question the impact of convictions on heritage management today.
    Managing one’s patrimony consists in arbitrating choices in order to achieve various objectives. So, any patrimonial strategy has one or more goals. The needs expressed by individuals do not only reflect strictly individualistic concerns. The social and environmental questions they now put to their advisors reveal the role played by convictions in the exercise of their choices. Conviction can therefore lead to profound change in practices.
    At a time when the role of the company is evolving under the aegis of RSE (Responsabilité Sociétale des Entreprises/Corporate Social Responsibility) and the Pacte law, when the Court of Auditors is calling for better supervision of the sponsorship system, and when the amount of sustainable funds offered to French savers has almost doubled in one year, investors’ convictions could lead to changes in asset management. The purpose of this colloquium was to look at the issue of conviction-based investments through a number of themes. With Professor Claude Ophèle in the chair, this colloquium allowed researchers, professionals and experts in this field to express their points of view. On the one hand, it confronted patrimonial asset management with the desire to contribute to entrepreneurial innovation (F. Labelle, F. Juredieu, T. Guerraud, B. Bréhin) and on the other safeguarding common property (C. Dreveau, M. Bailly, S. Taphinaud, C. Anger) with supporting social and environmental changes (A. Le Ruyet, T. Girard, A. F. Kerouedan). To close the event, a round table moderated by Marie-Laure Gely provided an opportunity to debate the challenging question of managing one’s legacy with one’s heart (M. de Rostolan, D. Malherbe, A. Hardy).
    The contributions were very rich and there was a good response from the audience.
  • The principle of fraternity: promising future or illusory hopes?
    6 March, 2020
    With the participation of Samy BENZINA, Professor of Public Law, University of Poitiers, Pierre BOISSEAU, Senior Lecturer in Public Law, Marie-Laure GÉLY, Senior Lecturer in Public Law and Kévin PARTHENAY, Professor of Political Science, University of Tours.
  • The hospital crisis: the hospital is dead, long live to the hospital!
    13 February, 2020
    Study Day organized by the Master II in Health Law.
    Publication of the acts http://gestions-hospitalieres.fr/la-crise-hospitaliere/
  • How should public officials be held accountable for their actions?
    28-29 November, 2019
    A conference organized by Christian Garbar (professor emeritus), Mathilde Collin (Associate Prof.), Pierre Mouzet (Associate Prof.), Véronique Tellier-Cayrol (Associate Prof.) and Corinne Touret (Associate Prof.), Anne Jeannot (Senior Lecturer).
  • Looking back on the colloquia : 25-26 November, 2019 - Ho Chi Minh Colloquium, Ho Chi Minh Law University ; 28-29 November, 2019 - Chiang Mai Colloquium, Chiang Mai University
    Partnerships of economic powers in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the aegis of French and Japanese Lawyers Network in Tours (Nihon-Europa) and the Multidisciplinary Network “New External Partnership Dynamics of the EU in the Asia-Pacific region” (NODYPEX) of Rennes.
    This event follows on from those already initiated by the two networks, in Hanoi, Tours and Rennes.
    The European Union has concluded or will conclude several political and economic partnership agreements with Asia-Pacific countries (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico). Political or strategic partnership agreements have already been signed with all these countries except Mexico and Chile, which are contracting parties to a single agreement, and economic partnership agreements have been finalised with South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Vietnam.
    This dense network of agreements, constituting the EU-Asia-Pacific hub, cannot be understood without linking it to the many agreements concluded or to be concluded between the various partners in this same region, first and foremost the agreements concluded between the ASEAN countries and between ASEAN and its third-party partners in the area. Alongside the EU-Asia-Pacific and ASEAN clusters, a third cluster is emerging which is divided into three overlapping groups: one group, led by Japan and Canada, with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), another group led by China, with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and a group around the United States, with the recent Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). The whole issue is to know how these different, emerging poles, which account for more than 80% of the world economy, are organized. More specifically, are the Euro-Asian agreements as well as those with the American Pacific countries (CETA with Canada, revised global agreement with Mexico, future revised association agreement with Chile) built according to the same model as those of the other regional partnerships of the EU and third countries? Are they specific in terms of content? How can these partnerships be organized in the form of “Olympic rings”, given that the European Union and several Asian-Pacific states are in several rings at the same time?
    The distribution of the themes envisaged in the two colloquia responds more to organisational needs than to legal coherence.
    You will find below a link showing the outcome of the Ho Chi Minh meeting: http://web.hcmulaw.edu.vn/nodypexnews/index.php/fr/
    Michel TROCHU and Abdelkhaleq BERRAMDANE, Emeritus Professors of the University of Tours & Legal experts at the European Parliament.
  • Environmental and health damage: legal approaches and transdisciplinary issues
    21-22 November, 2019
    Symposium under the scientific direction of Farida Arhab-Girardin (Associate Professor), Christel Cournil (Professor), Fabienne Labelle (Senior Lecturer) and Damien Thierry (Associate Professor). The publication of the Acts is in the special issue of the Revue Juridique de l’Environnement 2020.( https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-juridique-de-l-environnement-2020-HS20.htm )
    The relationship between environment and health is legally recognised. By stating that “everyone has the right to live in a balanced and healthy environment”, Article 1 of the Environmental Charter enshrines the close relationship between environment and health. Current events provide many examples of questions about the effects of certain substances and processes on human health. These cases reveal a number of challenges in collecting and processing information which demonstrate a causal link between pollution and health. They highlight the antagonism of certain interests: transparency versus business secrecy, precautionary principle versus economic development, freedom of trade and industry, agricultural policies. The challenge is scientific, political, economic but also judicial.
    Speakers first discussed the rights to a healthy environment before considering the knowledge and identification of health risks related to the environment.
    Lastly, the jurisdictional processing of the issue was examined. The papers were rich in terms of analyses and proposals and the exchanges with the public were very interesting.
  • Transmission of wineries
    14-15 November, 2019
    Symposium organized Abdelkhaleq Berramdane (Professor emeritus), Alexandre Deroche (Professor) and Fabienne Labelle (Senior Lecturer). Research Focus: Territory, Town Planning, Real Estate. Publication of the conference at LexisNexis. https://www.lgdj.fr/la-transmission-des-exploitations-viti-vinicoles-9782711034697.html On 15 November 2019, a colloquium was held at the Law Faculty on the transfer of winegrowing estates. This colloquium corresponds to the main judicial component of the interdisciplinary and multi-year research program entitled Sepage, funded by the Region and led by our sociologist colleagues Françoise Sitnikoff and Hélène Chazal.
    Based on field surveys of some forty winegrowers, this programme examines the issue of the transmission of winegrowing estates in the Centre Val-de-Loire region. The IRJI is associated with it and the colloquium was organized in three parts.
    First, Fabienne Labelle and Alexandre Deroche provided an initial analysis drawn from their interviews with regional winegrowers involved in the programme. This survey provided a better understanding of the heritage, land and organizational profile of the farms with a view to their transmission. This was followed by a number of academic presentations by University colleagues, most of them legal experts, which provided an insight into the general issue of the transfer of winegrowing estates in all its aspects: heritage law (Hubert Bosse-Platière), tax law (Sabrina Le Normand), contract law (Raphaëlle-Jeanne Aubin-Brouté), administrative law (François Robbe), wine law (Ronan Raffray) and environmental aspects (Michel Pech). Finally, during two round tables presided over by Frédéric Rocheteau and Samuel Crevel, practitioners were invited to share their complementary points of view on the transfer of farms in our region: notary (Séverine Taphinaud), lawyer (Marie Mandeville), banker (Samuel Brennetot), chartered accountant (Xavier Auriault), SAFER (Yannick Turpin), territorial administration (Luc Tessier), farmers’ union (François Cazin) and Agricultural Chamber (Jean-Christophe Mandard). The colloquium brought together a large and diverse audience, which produced fruitful exchanges with the speakers.
  • Colloquium, The Constitution in the face of time - Franco-Japanese Cross Perspectives
    4  October, 2019
    French National Assembly. Symposium of the Nihon-EuropA network, under the scientific direction of Emmanuel Aubin and Loïc Levoyer, Vice-Presidents of the University of Poitiers The purpose of this international Franco-Japanese colloquium, organized under the aegis of Nihon-Europa and with the support of the Japanese Embassy in France, was to compare the constitutional revision processes underway in the two countries by including a comparison of the relationship at the time of the Constitutions of 1946 in Japan and 1958 in France. The colloquium was fully in line with the IRJI’s Democracy and Freedoms research group because of the link between the renewal of democratic life and the guarantee of freedoms in both countries. The originality of the colloquium was in the comparative input of academics and parliamentarians from France (including the president of the law commission, Mrs Yaël Braun-Pivet) and Japan (presentation of the draft constitutional revision by Mrs Shiori Yamao, MP). This interaction between actors of constitutional revision and constitutional experts brought a very high added value to the proceedings.
    The strengths and weaknesses of the French and Japanese Constitutions, the limits and limitations of constitutional revision in both countries, the scope of possible changes to the content of the laws and the guarantees of fundamental rights were all subject to cross-examination. This made it possible to analyse, from the point of view of comparative law, the Franco-Japanese convergences and divergences in the plans to revise the Constitutions for the first time in Japan and for the 25th time in France.
  • How to maintain the quality of life of elderly people in France and Japan? Franco-Japanese perspectives
    20 September, 2019
    Tokyo Colloquium, University of Tokyo. Symposium of the Nihon-EuropA network
    The ageing of the population (900 million elderly people in the world in 2019) is a major challenge for French and Japanese societies facing a demographic shock with unprecedented legal, social and economic consequences. In France, people aged 75 and over represented 6.6% of the population in 1990, nearly 9.5% in 2019 with a projection of more than 15% in 2040. In Japan, the proportion of people over 65 years of age represented 28% of the population in 2019 (more than 35 million people). In Japan, as in France, the future of the social model (financing of pensions, social assistance and action relating to the elderly) is impacted by an ageing society. By comparing the legal and social issues, particularly those arising from ageing in these two countries, this colloquium follows on from the one organized on 22-23 March 2018 at the University of Poitiers. The aim of this colloquium is to draw up a diagnosis of the situation today by questioning the solidarity and protection for the elderly in France and Japan, particularly in terms of their employability and vulnerability, before beginning an analysis of, on the one hand, the places where people age (respective roles of the State, local authorities, social and medico-social institutions) and on the other, support for the elderly with the essential role of the family and carers and the growing importance of innovations.
    This colloquium, organized as a part of the NihonEuropA programme, was conceived and financed within the framework of a Hubert Curien (Sakura) programme by Emmanuel AUBIN, Vice-President in charge of Social Relations, Legal Affairs and Ethics at the University of Poitiers, Professor of Public Law at the University of Poitiers (IDP, EA n° 2623) and French head of the PHC SAKURA ERASCLA (Emerging Risk in an Ageing Society: Comparative Law Analysis).
    Eri KASAGI, CNRS research fellow, COMPTRASEC laboratory (UMR n° 5114), University of Bordeaux. Loïc LEVOYER, 1st Vice-President of the University of Poitiers, Associate Professor in Public Law, IDP (EA 2623), laureate of an exploratory program on Japan. Tetsushi SAITO, Assistant Professor of Civil Law at the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Tokyo, Japanese leader of the PHC SAKURA ERASCLA with the JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science).
  • Media, discourse and transparency
    4 April, 2019
    Interdisciplinary Study Day organized by Audrey DAMIENS (Senior Lecturer), Nathalie LEVY (Senior Lecturer) and Jimmy BORDARIE (Senior Lecturer). The publication of the proceedings is forthcoming in a special issue of the journal SociologieS.( https://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/14931)
    The discourses on transparency refer, by chiaroscuro contrast, to the notion of opacity. To speak of transparency is to claim or demand clarity, that nothing is concealed. And yet if we speak of transparency, it is a priori because something is unclear. Transparency exists alongside opacity and discourses on transparency can reduce, suppress, conceal, or sometimes make opacity more obscure than it already is. Thus, these discourses speak to us in half-words about the intentions of those who produce them. These actors, whether in the public or private sector, have a target when they talk about transparency. From an interdisciplinary perspective, participants told us about these discourses related to transparency and offered us an analysis of both their construction and their meaning. Any discourse raises the question of the role of the media, understood here in the broad sense, i.e. in the sense of communication media. For example, for lawyers, it may focus on court orders and decisions; for economists, balance sheets and activity reports; for psychologists and sociologists, it may refer to interviews or data from questionnaires. All these communication vehicles constitute media in the same way as media in the more traditional sense - such as institutional communication, mass media, or social networks. Through all this, we wanted to understand the intentions of the actors when they talk about transparency. We then sought to understand on the one hand, the issues related to the process of argument in speeches dealing with the notion of transparency of different public and/or private social actors. On the other hand, we were interested in the media used to disseminate these speeches, reports, decrees, interviews, etc. This was, for example, the case of legal news related to the European regulation on the protection of personal data, which was the subject of an important presentation. This study day was an opportunity to question these elements thanks to disciplinary approaches as diverse as linguistics, law, information-communication sciences, economics, sociology or psychology.
  • What legal status for effective animal protection?
    4 April 2019
    Colloquium organized by Hémisphère Droit and the IRJI François-Rabelais.
  • The tax on real estate wealth
    22 March, 2019
    Colloquium organized by the Master 2 Heritage law-Heritage engineering and the IRJI François-Rabelais.
  • Business secrecy. From the law of 30 July 2018 on the protection of business secrecy to business secrecy
    22 March, 2019
    Colloquium organized by the Master 2 Business Lawyer and the IRJI François-Rabelais.
  • Medical Liability and Medical Accident Compensation Review and outlook
    15 March, 2019
    Colloquium organized by par Farida ARHAB-GIRARDIN (Associate Prof.).
    The Kouchner Act of 4 March 2002 on patients’ rights and the quality of the health system represents an undeniable step forward in the compensation of bodily injury. Indeed, it creates an innovative compensation scheme for medical damage in various ways. First of all, it redefines and unifies the rules of medical liability by giving fault a major role. Secondly, for reasons of national solidarity, it enshrines a right to compensation for medical accidents that are not seen as faults (“the therapeutic hazard”), although this is subject to a condition of seriousness. Finally, it sets up a system of conciliation and compensation commissions for the amicable settlement of culpable and non-culpable medical damage in order, in particular, to divert disputes in this area but also to simplify and speed up the procedure. More than fifteen years after coming into force, have the aims pursued by the legislator been achieved? Are the rights of victims better preserved? In order to answer these questions, the speakers first looked at the latest developments in medical liability. The introduction of a unitary system of administrative and civil liability presupposed an identical interpretation of the legislative provisions. Has such harmonization and stabilization of the rules been achieved? What about the criminal liability of health professionals? The focus of the debates, for many years, on compensation of damages cannot hide the existence of criminal litigation. Secondly, it was a question of assessing the system of compensation for non-culpable medical accidents through national solidarity and of the various compensation procedures. The speakers wondered about the interpretation of the conditions of compensation for therapeutic risks. Is it really favorable to the victims or on the contrary too restrictive? The discussion then moved on to the choice of compensation procedure. By introducing a procedure for the amicable settlement of medical damages, the legislator intended to improve the situation of victims. Yet, its attractiveness has been called into question. However, the system introduced in 2002 was a considerable step forward that has inspired other European legislation. In this context, and with reference to the Franco-Polish program on medical liability of the Universities of Tours and Lödz, a Polish perspective was presented on the compensation of medical accidents. Finally, the discussions focused on compensation for personal injury as well as the impact of the civil liability reform project on this issue.