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
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, "La volonté, le cœur et le calcul, les trois traits cernant l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance" 2025, pp.49-65.
____
📝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 : There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear. It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require.
Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation. Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.
In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.
Thus, the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. It emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.
In order to define Compliance's Obligation, the study endeavours to recognise the contribution of all these three sources: Will, Heart and Calculation.
________
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, "Compliance, Vigilance et Responsabilité civile : mettre en ordre et raison garder" (Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in Order and keep the sense of Reason), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp.635-659.
____
📝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 article: The descriptions of the Liability incurred by large companies as a result of their compliance obligations are very diverse, even contradictory, going beyond the wishes that may be expressed as to what this liability should be. The first part of this study therefore sets out the various liabilities incurred by companies, which differ in the conditions under which they are implemented and in their scope, so as not to confuse them.
Indeed, as the various laws establish specific legal compliance obligations, they give rise to liabilities of varying conditions and scope, and it is not possible to avail of the regime of one in a situation that falls within the scope of another. It is therefore necessary to review the various bodies of compliance legislation, the GDPR, the ALM-FT regulations, the French so-called Sapin 2 law, the French so-called Vigilance law , the European IA Act , the European European DGA Act, etc., to recall the inflexion that each of these bodies of legislation has made to the liability rules applied to the companies subject to them. Nevertheless, the unicity of the Compliance Obligation, overcoming this necessary diversity of situations, regulations and liability regimes, can provide grouping lines to indicate beyond this diversity the extent of the liability incurred by companies.
Once this classification has been made, the second part of the study develops the observation that none of this can create any principle of general liability on large companies in terms of compliance, and in particular not in terms of vigilance. It is not possible to deduce a general principle of specific obligations of liability or specific obligations to reparation, for example in the area of vigilance, as the texts creating specific vigilance obligation refer to the conditions of commun Tort Law (proof damage and causality), and International Public Law does not have the force to generate a general principle binding companies in this respect.
The third part stresses that it is nevertheless always possible to invoke Tort Law, and companies cannot claim to escape this. This may involve contractual liability, a situation becoming increasingly frequent as companies contractualise their legal compliance obligations, reproducing them but also modifying them, and as Vigilance duty is an obligation that goes beyond the specific situations covered by the regulations.
But it is essential, and this is the subject of the fourth part, not to make companies pure and simple guarantors of the state of the world, present and future. Indeed, if we were to transform sectoral compliances into illustrations of what would then be a new general principle, but one that applied only to them, they would consequently exercise the other side of this coin, namely power over others.
________