The recent news
Oct. 17, 2025
Compliance: at the moment
🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation au deuxième Conseil de justice économique de la Cour d'appel de Paris, L'intelligence artificielle au service d'une justice économique plus efficiente : l'usage de l'IA dans les missions judiciaire , 17 octobre 2025.
Je siège dans ce Conseil constitué pour le rayonnement du Droit économique par sa Justice dans une perspective d'attractivité de la Place de Paris en tant qu'universitaire, procédant notamment à la synthèse des travaux et des discussions qui s'y tiennent.
____
🌐Consulter le compte-rendu fait par la Cour d'appel de cette séance du Conseil de justice économique
____
Cette deuxième réunion du Conseil de justice économique de la Cour d'appel de Paris était présidée par Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour et Thierry Ramonatxo, Premier Avocat générale près la Cour
🪑🪑🪑Autres participants au Conseil de Justice économique ayant participé à la discussion autour de l'usage de l'IA dans les missions judiciaires dont la Cour d'appel de Paris et les juridictions de son ressort sont en charge :
🪑 Carine Chevrier, secrétaire générale du ministère de la justice,
🪑 Thomas Courbe, directeur général des entreprises au ministère de l'Economie et des Finances
🪑 Patrick Sayer, président du Tribunal des activités économiques de Paris
🪑 Benoît Coeuré, président de l'Autorité de la concurrence
🪑 Maxime Delorme, représentant Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, présidente de l'Autorité des marchés financiers
🪑 Alexandra Bonhonne, représentant Emmanuelle Wargon, présidente de la Commission de régulation de l'Energie
🪑 Thierry Gontard, représentant Pierre Hoffman, bâtonnier de l'Ordre des avocats de Paris
🪑 Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, première présidente de chambre direant le pôle "droit économique" de la Cour d'appel de Paris
🪑 Laure Aldebert, première vice-présidente du Tribunal judiciaire de Parisen en charge du pôle économique
Oct. 16, 2025
Publications
🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang
🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art
____
► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "De l'obligation de compliance à l'obligation de vigilance : le rôle du juge (From the obligation of compliance to the obligation of vigilance: the role of the judge)", in Round table De la compliance au devoir de vigilance. Une nouvelle responsabilité des entreprises (From Compliance to the Vigilance duty. A new responsibility for businesses," Lettre des juristes d'affaires, Oct. 2025.
____
📝read the article reproducing the entire discussion (in French)
____
► Summary of my contribution: In this debate, the terms of which have been reproduced in the journal, I was asked to explain how the legal system had evolved, first by establishing Compliance Law, built on systemic ambitions to prevent sectoral disasters (banking, finance, energy), ambitions that constitute "Monumental Negative Goals", and then evolving on the one hand "Monumental Positive Goals", namely the protection of human beings involved willingly or unwillingly in these systems, on the other hand, outside even sectors with clearly defined boundaries, such as environmental or digital ambitions. The duty of vigilance extends this regulatory law and gives concrete form to the "compliance obligation" to which companies are subject. It is important to maintain a sense of proportion in the conception of the responsibility attached to it so as not to lose everything. Companies are bound by the goals but must remain free in their choice of means, and in particular be encouraged to use contractual techniques. This measure is entrusted to the judge because, due to the Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, it is at the heart of this new branch of Law, which is developing independently of fluctuations in the regulations.
During the discussion, I was asked for my opinion on the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeal on 17 June 2025, known as La Poste case. I pointed out that the comments had often focused only on the developments regarding risk mapping, whereas this ruling first establishes the principle that the vigilance plan is the work of the company's decision-making bodies and is not co-constructed, as consultation is a process of discussion and taking in consideration, which is not the same thing, with the judge himself pointing out that they must not interfere in management.
In the discussion, I emphasised that if we were to highlight the essence of what would be a "new responsibility", it would primarily concern a new probative dimension that the company must implement in Ex Ante. The implementation of the CSRD, even if it has been excessively standardised, is in line with this, and this probative culture must be developed.
____
⛏️Further reading on the subject :
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2026
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Vigilance, the front line and integral part of the compliance obligation, 2025
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in Order and keep the sense of Reason, 2025
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024
________
____
____
► Article summary : The
________
Oct. 14, 2025
Conferences
🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐subscribe to the VideoNews MAFR Surplomb
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art
____
► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Adéquation et inadéquation de la sanction comme outil de régulation financière et sa transformation par la Compliance" (Adequacy and inadequacy of sanctions as a tool of Financial Regulation and its transformation through Compliance)", contribution to the round-table discussion on"Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System)", Annual conference of the Commission des sanctions (Enforcement Committee) of the Autorité des marchés financiers - AMF (French Financial Markets Authority), Paris, 14 October 2025.
____
► see the general programme of this manifestation (in French)
The event comprises two round tables. The theme of the first round table is: La preuve des abus de marché entre l’AMF et le juge pénal : vers une convergence ? (Proof of market abuse between the AMF and the criminal courts: towards convergence?)
🪑🪑🪑AutresOther participants in this 2nd round table, moderated by Sophie Schiller, member of the Enforcement Committe on the topic: Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System?)
🕴🏻Sébastien Raspiller, Secretary General of the AMF
🕴🏻Martine Samuelian, Partner, Jeantet Law Firm
🕴🏻Vincent Villette, Secretary General of the CNIL (French Personal Data Regulatory Body)
____
► Summary of this intervention : In the round-table discussion on the role of sanctions, a number of contributions will be made, depending on the nature of the discussion itself. They will be brief in nature and will be aimed at an audience with a good knowledge of financial regulation.
It is the occasion for me to insist on 2 things, the first naturely and probably for ever attached to the role of sanctions in all Regulatory Systems, the secund very new. The first is the indissociability between Criminal Law and Sanction, even if sanctions is defined as a regulatory tools. The secund is the conception and the use of sanctions through Compliance Law.
Therefore, in the first idea, my first intervention, aimed more at establishing the subject and describing the Intangible, is on the very idea that sanctions have a role to play in financial regulation. By its very nature. But this does not make it any less difficult. It is not obvious, because if penalties are seen as a 'regulatory tool', then it is the regulatory perspective that predominates and 'colours' the tool that is the penalty. Regulation, of which the texts on the basis which sanctions are issued are only one tool and which is not the set of applicable rules, Regulation which is an apparatus of institutions, rules and decisions aimed at establishing the equilibrium of a sector and maintaining this equilibrium, which is by nature unstable, over time, which the sector could not do by its own efforts alone (Regulatory Law, which is Ex Ante Law, thus distinguishing itself from Competition Law, which is Ex Post Law).
From the perspective of Financial Regulatory System, as in other sectoral regulatory systems, and in the general Regulatory Law, sanctions are a tool (and a tool like any other, simply more powerful than the others.
This is the pragmatic perspective adopted by the State and the Regulatory body itself, which will use it in conjunction with other tools, such as an Information, Education and Incentive mechanism. Moreover, it shall use sanction as informative tool, as educational tool, as incentive tool.
However, the principle of the autonomy of Criminal Law, and the European concept of "Criminal Matters" mean that the sanction can be seen in terms of the autonomous criteria of the seriousness of the act imputed and the sanction imposed on the legal person. In this respect, the penalty is inseparable from the way in which it is imposed (Criminal Law is constitutionally inseparable from Criminal Procedure).
In this respect, the sanction is not a tool coloured by the overall objective served by the Financial Markets Regulatory Body: the sustainability of the financial system. The Enforcement Committee is not the AMF's "armed wing"; it is a "court", as the Oury ruling reminded us.
Therefore, the question is and I would like to ask it directly to the Enforcement Committed: Can you be both?
As they say, could you be both carp and rabbit? Depending on whether you are viewed from one angle or another, you will be seen as the body that makes financial markets effective (a tool among the tools) or as the body that punishes misconduct (a court among the courts).
It is possible, and in practice it is often true.
But if we are honest, we will admit that regulation feeds on information and that the procedure before a criminal court is built on secrecy and the weapons of those who, innocent or guilty, are at risk because they are, or will be, prosecuted.
We've never got out of this difficulty. We always try to strike a balance between the fact that it is in itself a repressive sanction for a person who will suffer and the fact that it is also a systemic tool: there is a 'balance' between the search for systemic benefit (which reduces the protection of individuals for the benefit of the system) and the concern for the people involved (which reduces the present and future protection of the system). The balance goes more or less in one direction. It is often public opinion, the place, the legislator and, even above all, the civil appeal judge (vertical dialogue) and those in dialogue, between the regulator and the criminal judge (horizontal dialogue) which cause the scales of diverse technical solutions.
It is also the way in which the Enforcement Committee, in defining itself as the armed wing of the AMF (carp) or as a repressive court (rabbit), chooses in its procedural behaviour the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System, more or less instrumentalised (carp) or jurisdictionalised (rabbit).
____
The second point, if there is to be one, concerns the development of the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System .
On the basis of these fundamentals, an evolution in the role of sanctions in financial regulatory system (an evolution that can be observed in all sectoral regulatory systems) consists of internalising sanctions (in their conception by the texts, their elaboration by the Sanctions Committees, their application) in the economic operators sanctioned, in the economic sectors concerned, in the opinion concerned (the figure of Peelmanian circles of the audiences applying).
This internalisation transforms Regulatory mission of the administrative body (which deals with market structures) into Rupervision (which deals directly with market operators) since the sanction penetrates the operator, the operator adopting commitments. This concept corresponds to the new branch of Law known as Compliance Law.
Compliance Law uses sanctions as an "incentive like any other", and (we must be careful on this point), because it is systemic in nature, the concern for the system being internalised in the operator, it is relatively insensitive to procedural rights. With the emphasis on information, it is the principle of adversarial debate (which provides information) rather than the rights of the defence that is valued. The cooperation of the person being prosecuted is highly valued, and non-cooperation becomes incomprehensible.
The internalisation of sanctions by operators has led to two major changes. Firstly, these economic operators themselves must sanction, detect and prevent market abuse. The number of special obligations of vigilance is increasing. The obligation of vigilance of operators themselves is becoming a pillar of Regulation, transformed in Supervision.
The other development is the liberalisation of regulatory system in relation to territory, thank to Compliance Law. As operators are less dependent on borders than are regulators and authors of legal texts (but soft law is spreading, including repression), market abuses can be apprehended in several jurisdictions at the same time, notably through global compliance programmes.
________
Oct. 5, 2025
Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Juge modeste" ou "check and balance" :alternative aux Etats-Unis, alternative en France" ("modest judge" or "check and balance": alternative in the United States, alternative in France), Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 6 October 2025..
____
📧Read by free subscription other news from the MAFR Newsletter - Law, Compliance, Regulation
____
► Summary of this article: Recent, if not forthcoming, decisions by the US Supreme Court show that the American political system that was based on the unwritten principle of Check and Balance, requiring the Justices to constitute one Power facing the other two could be replaced by a political system based on the principle of a "modest Justice" enforcing decisions made by the Federal Executive. They would then have a new Constitution.
In Western Europe and especially in France, it is possible that the letter of the Constitution, which states that judges are not an autonomous power vis-à-vis the other two powers, will be abandoned and that, in the name of an unwritten principle, the Rule of Law, its transformation into an autonomous Power facing the executive in its own right will be adopted. The path would be exactly the opposite. We would then have changed the Constitution.
That's conceivable, and there are many arguments in favour of it.
We have to say so. And draw all the consequences.
____
📧read below the article published the 6 October dans the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation ⤵️
Oct. 2, 2025
Hearings by a Committee or Public organisation
🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Audition par le collège thématique "RSE" de l'Observatoire des litiges judiciaires de la Cour de cassation, " Points de contact entre le Droit de la Compliance et la RSE", Cour de cassation, 2 octobre 2025.
____
► Résumé de la présentation : La présentation dure une demie-heure. Elle est construite en deux temps, tout d'abord une présentation générale sur les "points de contact entre Droit de la compliance et RSE", en ce qu'ils dépendent de la conception que l'on a en pratique du Droit de la compliance, puis, dans la mesure où cette perspective intéresse plus particulièrement le collège thématique, un approfondissement sur les conséquences processuelles qu'il convient d'en tirer.
PREALABLE. DISTINGUER NETTEMENT LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE DE LA RSE, SEULE VOIE POUR LES ARTICULER
1. ne pas confondre la morale, source d'inspiration du Droit, et le Droit.
Le Droit a des sources multiples, économiques, sociales, morales et religieuses. Les impératifs moraux inspirent le Droit, guident ceux qui adoptent des règles juridiques, guident les comportements. Mais ce sont deux ordres différents. Kelsen a construit sa "théorie pure" du Droit pour protéger le système juridique afin qu'il ne soit qu'inspiré par des valeurs qui sont dans une Norme fondamentale hors du système juridique. Ce que l'on appelle RSE est une norme qui inspire de nombreux blocs de compliance, par exemple Sapin 2, la loi Vigilance, la CSRD, la CS3D, etc. mais, de la même façon que la responsabilité juridique ne transforme pas le Deutéronome en Droit, ces textes ne transforment pas la RSE en Droit. Le Droit demeure autonome, n'est pas l'agent d'efficacité de l'éthique, qui trouverait enfin la puissance du Droit à son service.
De la même façon que le Droit économique n'est pas la façon dont des "lois économiques" trouvent une plus grande efficacité. Cela serait une erreur de pénétration entre deux ordres, et une vassalisation pour le Droit qui deviendrait l'agent d'effectivité d'une norme qui lui est hétéronome. Les économistes ne veulent pourtant au bénéfice de ce qui serait la loi économique. Carl Schmitt le voulait au bénéfice de ce qui serait la loi politique. Il est impératif dans un Etat de Droit que le Droit garde son autonomie par rapport à l'économie, à la politique et à l'éthique (ESG, RSE).
2. la loi peut, pour des motifs moraux, imposer à l'entreprise des obligations juridiques légales
Le Droit l'a toujours fait.
3. la responsabilité morale et la responsabilité juridique sont distinctes : la première n'entraîne pas ipso facto la seconde
4 l'entreprise peut par sa volonté s'imposer des obligations qui expriment des choix moraux, dès l'instant qu'ils ne contredisent pas la loi : elle juridicise sa responsabilité morale, les deux obligations se superposant
🔴mafr, 📝"Obligation sur obligation vaut", 2025
I. CE QU'EST EN PRATIQUE LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE, BATI SUR L'OBLIGATION DE COMPLIANCE A LAQUELLE L'ENTREPRISE EST ASSUJETTIE
1. définition faible et définition forte de la compliance : ne pas réduire le Droit à une peau de chagrin, aider par sa "juridictionnalisation" à ce que la branche naissante du Droit de la compliance grandisse dans sa conception européenne
🔴 mafr (dir.),📕 Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019
🔴 mafr (dir.),📕 Les buts monumentaux de la compliance, 2022
🔴 mafr (dir.),📕 L'obligation de compliance , 2025
2. le rôle central du juge dans le droit européen de la compliance, en construction
🔴 mafr (dir.),📕 La juridictionnalisation de la compliance , 2024
3. l'obligation de vigilance, pointe avancée de l'obligation de compliance,
🔴mafr, 📝La vigilance, pointe avancée et part totale de l'obligation de compliance, 2025
II. POINTS DE CONTACT ENTRE L'OBLIGATION DE COMPLIANCE DES ENTREPRISES CRUCIALES ET LA RESPONSABILITE SOCIETALE DES ENTREPRISES
1. définition de l'obligation de compliance à laquelle l'entreprise cruciale est assujettie
2. "Obligation sur obligation vaut"
🔴mafr, 📝"Obligation sur obligation vaut", 2025
3. cumul possible des deux natures, engagement de droit, engagement de fait : régime juridique (ex. La Haye, 12 nov. 2024, Shell)
🔴mafr, 📝A quoi engagent les engagements, 2025
4. ll n'existe pas d'obligation juridique générale de veiller sur autrui ; il existe des obligations spéciales, une obligation spéciale sur l'entreprise maîtresse de sa chaine de valeur et, par exemple un souci éthique que l'entreprise, par sa volonté, peut juridiciser
🔴mafr, 📝Compliance, vigilance et responsabilité civile : mettre en ordre et raison garder, 2025
III. PERSPECTIVE PROCESSUELLES DES POINTS DE CONTACT ENTRE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE ET RSE
1. Nature transitivement systémique du contentieux de la compliance
🔴mafr, 📝Les causes systémiques portées devant le juge, 2021
🔴mafr, 📝Droit de la compliance et contentieux systémique, 2025
🔴mafr (dir.), 📕 Contentieux systémique émergent, 2025
2. Double primauté : trouver des solutions ; avoir souci du futur
🔴🧮Dans l’espace de justice, les pratiques juridictionnelles au service du futur, 2024
🔴Th. Goujon-Bethan, 📝Les enjeux présents et à venir de l'articulation des principes de procédure civile et commerciale avec la logique de compliance, 2025
3. Régression de la méthode punitive, efficacité du principe contradictoire et de l'accusatoire comme mode d'obtention des informations, engagements et "programmes"
🔴F. Ancel, 📝Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : une compétence à partager ?, 2025
🔴M. Chapuis, 📝Le juge de l'amiable et la compliance, 2025
🔴Th. Goujon-Bethan, 📝Les enjeux présents et à venir de l'articulation des principes de procédure civile et commerciale avec la logique de compliance, 2025
4. Préserver les droits de la défense et la sagesse probatoire dont les pavés sont attaqués dans le paradis de la RSE
🔴mafr, 📝Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance, 2023
🔴 mafr et M. Boissavy (dir.),📕 Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquêtes internes, CJIP, CRPC, 2024
🔴J.-Ch. Roda, 📝La preuve de la bonne exécution de la vigilance au regard du système probatoire de compliance,2025
____
Oct. 2, 2025
Conferences
🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb
🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La culture et technique de compliance, une stratégie gagnante pour les entreprises européennes", intervention dans la table-ronde sur "La conformité : un frein pour la compétiitivé européenne ?", in Tribunal des Activités économiques (TAE) de Paris, Régulation des activités économiques en 2025 : quel équilibre pour la compétitivité des entreprises ?, Nuit du Droit, Paris, 2 octobre 2025.
____
►voir pour mémoire la présentation de l'intervention dans La nuit du droit 2023 à la Cour de cassation 🎥L'avenir du Droit de la compliance
____
► consulter le programme général de la manifestation
🪑🪑🪑Les autres participants à la table-ronde , dont la modératrice est 🕴🏻Constance Hion
🕴🏻Thomas Amico, avocat associé Veil Jourde
🕴🏻François de Bérard, avocat associé Lacourte Raquin Tatar
🕴🏻 Carmen Bricero, directrice juridique et compliance Raja
____
► Résumé de l'intervention : Dans cette discussion informelle, ma première intervention, pour ouvrir la discussion, a consisté en premier lieu à indiquer les différents corpus réglementaires directement insérés dans la nouvelle branche du Droit de la Compliance et, au-delà de ces différents corpus, la définition simple et unifiée que celle-ci reçoit. Au fil des questions posées, une seconde intervention a porté sur l'office du juge en matière de Droit de la compliance, office du juge à la fois accru du fait de la juridictionnalisation de cette matière et du fait du renouvellement de cet office, notamment du fait de la pointe avancée du Droit de la compliance que constitue l'obligation de vigilance.
Dans le débat qui a suivi la perspective internationale a prévalu, notamment dans l'articulation entre l'Europe, les Etats-Unis et la Chine.
____
📚Pour aller plus loin :
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le droit de la compliance, 2016
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la compliance, 2023
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le juge requis pour une obligation de compliance effective, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕L'obligation de compliance, 2025
________
Oct. 2, 2025
Publications
🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation sur Obligation vaut" ("Obligation upon obligation work"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp.324-354.
____
📝read the article
____
____
📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published
📚see the general presentation of the series "Régulations & Compliance" in which this book is published
____
► English Summary of this contribution: The demonstration of the part played by Will in the Compliance Obligation incumbent on companies is based on the distinction and articulation between the Regulatory Legal Obligation and the spontaneous Obligation of companies, in the use that companies make of their will to implement their Regulatory Legal Obligation and the use that they make of it to produce even new ambitions. This is why the demonstration is carried out in 3 stages.
The first part of the demonstration consists in finding the part played by the free will of companies in their Compliance Obligation by putting an end to two confusions: the first, which, within the Contract and Tort Law itself but also within Compliance Law, splits up and confuses "free will" and "consent", which would no longer require freely expressed acceptance; the second, which, specific to Compliance Law, confuses "Compliance" and "conformity", reducing the former to mechanical obedience, which would exclude any free will.
Having clarified this, the rest of this study focuses on the 2 ways in which a company subject to a Compliance Obligation by regulations expresses a part of its free will, which the study expresses in this proposed adage: Obligation upon Obligation is valid, since the regulatory legal obligation to which the company responds by the obedience owed by all those subject to the Law may be superimposed by its free will, which will then oblige it.
The first case of Obligation upon Obligation, studied in a second part, concerns the means by which the Regulatory Legal Compliance Obligation is implemented, the company subject to the Monumental Goals set by the Law remaining free to choose the means by which it will contribute to achieving them. Its free will will thus be exercised over the choice and implementation of the means. This can take two legal forms: contracts on the one hand and "commitments" on the other.
Thirdly, the second case of Obligation upon Obligation, which is more radical, is that in which, in addition to Compliance's regulatory legal Obligation, the company draws on its free will to repeat the terms of its regulatory legal Obligation (because it is prohibited from contradicting it), a repetition which can be far-reaching, because the legal nature (and therefore the legal regime) is changed. The judgment handed down by the The Hague Court of Appeal on 12 November 2024, in the case law Shell, illustrates this. What is more, the free will of the company can play its part in the Compliance Obligation by increasing the Compliance Obligation. This is where the alliance is strongest. The interpretation of the specific obligations that result must remain that of the Monumental Goals in a teleological application that gives coherence to the whole.
________
Oct. 2, 2025
Publications
🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb
🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation de Compliance : construire une structure de compliance produisant des effets crédibles au regard des Buts Monumentaux visés par le Législateur" (Compliance Obligation: build a compliance structure producing credible effects in the perspective of the Monumental Goals targeted by the Legislator), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp.3-44.
____
► This article is the introduction to the book
____
📝read the article (in French)
____
____
📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published
📚see the general presentation of the series "Régulations & Compliance" in which this book is published
____
► English Summary of this contribution: This article explains what companies' Compliance Obligation" is. Delving into the mass of compliance obligations, it uses the method of classification of those that are subject to an obligation of result and those that are subject to an obligation of means. It justifies the choice of this essential criterion, which changes the objects and the burden of proof of companies that are subject to an obligation of result when it comes to setting up "compliance structures" and are subject to an obligation of means when it comes to the effects produced by these compliance structures.
Indeed, rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a nascent branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different legal regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they have to apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only sanctioned in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means.
Although it would be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations put by legislation, starting from this observation in the evidentiary system of compliance of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether it is a question of this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would then appear that this plurality will not constitute a definitive obstacle to the constitution of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable "mass of regulations".
Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (effaciety) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the Goal is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else, all of which come under the heading of efficiency.
The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, commensurate with these Goals. In addition, because these structures (alert mechanisms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.) have real meaning if they are to produce effects and behaviours that lead to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account.
Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the entreprise's position, ultimately Goals at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial company, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave.
________