The distinction between "Public Law" and "Private Law" is important. In the systems of Continental Law, or still called under Roman-Germanic Law, or even called Civil Law systems, it is even around it that legal systems are built: it can be a basic distinction, a summa divisio, as it it in the Civil Law systems. In the so-called Common Law or Anglo-American systems, the distinction is less fundamental, but it remains, justifying in particular that the rules and disputes concerning the administration call for special rules and are apprehended by special tribunals.

In principle, this distinction is based on the nature of the persons whose legal situation is examined. Under"Public Law" a legal situation involving a person who is itself a public-law entity: the State, a local authority, a public undertaking, etc. That is why, for example, the contract which may be concluded will be of public law, and the judge who may be seized of it will be an administrative court. If the situation does not involve a person governed by public law, then it will be governed by "Private Law". There are a thousand exceptions, but this is the starting and basic and fondamental principle.

Two essential remarks, bearing a system of values, explaining that the systems of Civil Law and Common Law are in fact confronting each other.

The two bodies of rules and institutions are not of equal strength because one of the categories is "closed", corresponding to one criterion (the "public person"), while the other is open: Public Law is a closed category; on the contrary, Private law becomes "active" as soon as there is no public person (a "private person" who or which must define himself or itself as a "non-public person").

One can consider this articulation between Public Law and Private Law in two ways, radically opposed. It may express a mark of inferiority in disfavour of private law: we are all "ordinary" persons in "ordinary" situations with "ordinary" activities (this will be the French conception ....). On the contrary, Public Law is the mark of the State, of Public Order, of Sovereignty, of public power, of the general will, in the interstices of which individuals slip in to act and satisfy their small particular interests

On the contrary, Private Law can be considered as the expression of the "common law": people are free and do what they want, through ownership and contract. As an exception and because they have elected people to do so, the rulers (whom they control), by exception, enact norms that constrain them. But this is an exception, since repression - public law and criminal law, which has the same status in this respect - is only a tribute to the freedom of persons, since this freedom remains wholly in the form of the private enterprise on the market.

It is then measured that the articulation between Public and Private Law profoundly reflects a philosophy and a political position. If it is considered that Regulation is the underlying order by which the Sovereign allows the deployment of his subjects who also benefit from a long-term policy constructed by the autonomous and measured political will, then Public Law in Is the master, the Regulation Law expressing a renewed search for efficiency, this but only this. If we believe that Regulation is whereby economic rationality manages to protect persons and companies from risks and to compensate for market failures, a market whose liberal principle remains the ideal, then Private Law is the core, whith contract and private property as basis tools.

France and the Latin countries adhere rather to this metaphysics of values which entrusts to the Public Authorities and the State the legitimacy and the power to express the general interest by Public Law, Regulators and Constitutional Courts, expressing it on a technical form renewed by the Regulatory tools: incitations, soft law, etc. The legal systems whose history draws on British history put more trust in the person of the entrepreneur and conceive of Regulation Law as an efficient outsourcing of functions to administrations that are efficient, informed and impartial.

Certainly, in the technical daily of the Law of Regulation and following the different sectors, Public and Private Law mix up:  public companies take the form of publicly traded companies under private law or private companies will be entrusted with missions of public service, instituting them as second-level regulators as are the infrastructure network operators.

But the fundamental conception of systems (rooted in the history of the people) and practice marry. In the silence of regulations (and the more they are gossiping and the more the judge must interpret them, which amounts to a "silence"), what sense to give to the system?

To take only a few questions, frequent in practice:

•      What judge to seize? The administrative judge or the civil judge? What is the "natural judge" of the Regulatory Law?
•      What standard to apply? The contractual will? The implicit will of the legislator? What is the "natural author" of the Law of Regulation?
•      Does the silence of the text prohibit action for operators or on the contrary does silence mean their freedom to act?

The absence of a firm and shared definition of what is the Law of Regulation does not facilitate practice. Hesitations in translations from one language to another increase confusion.

For the time being, there is a tendency to refer to Public Law in the sectors where whe take precedence over public operators' monopolies, such as telecommunications, energy, railways, air and postal services, and to refer to Private Law in the sectors which have long been the subject of competition between operators, namely banking, finance and insurance.

It should be recognized that the criterion of distinction has little economic rationale. The notion of risk would be a clearer and more manageable criterion. But it would then lead to a greater challenge to the distinction between Public and Private Law. Because the Law of Regulation, impregnated with Economy and Economic Analysis of Law, has sometimes little basis of legal tradition, it put in question of this summa divisio. If this were to be the case, it would be the totality of the legal systems which would be upset, especially in its judicial organization, since the judicial civil and commercial system is so distinctly distinguished (that of "ordinary" persons, that of "common law ) and the administrative judge (the "natural judge" of the State). It is then realized that the Law of Regulation challenges the whole Law, especially in the Latin countries and the Civil Law systems.

► Référence complète : Association des professionnels du contentieux économique et financier (APCEF), La réparation du préjudice économique et financier par les juridictions pénales, 2019.

____ 

Lire le rapport : 

________

► Référence complète : S-M.. Cabon, "Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale", in M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (dir.), Compliance et Droits de la défense - Enquête interne, CIIP, CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", à paraître.

____

📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance et Droits de la défense - Enquête interne, CIIP, CRPC, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : L'auteure définit la technique de "négociation" comme celle par laquelle "chaque interlocuteur va tenter de rendre compatibles par un jeu de coopération et de concessions mutuelles", ce qui va donc être utilisé dans la justice pénale française non pas tant par attraction du modèle américain, mais pour tenter de résoudre les difficultés engendrées par le flux des contentieux, le procédé s'étant élargi aux contentieux répressif, notamment devant les autorités administratives de régulation. Le principe en est donc la coopération du délinquant.

L'auteur souligne les satisfactions "pratiques" revendiqués, puisque les cas sont résolus, les sanctions sont acceptées, et les inquiétudes "théoriques", puisque des principes fondamentaux semblent écartés, comme les droits de la défense, l'affirmation étant faite comme quoi les avantages pratiques et le fait que rien n'oblige les entreprises à accepter les CJIP et les CRPC justifient que l'on ne s'arrête pas à ces considérations "théoriques".

L'article est donc construit sur la confrontation de "l'Utile" et du "Juste", parce que c'est ainsi que le système est présenté, l'utilité et le consentement étant notamment mis en valeur dans les lignes directrices des autorités publiques.

Face à cela, l'auteur examine la façon dont les textes continuent, ou pas, de protéger la personne qui risque d'être in fine sanctionnée, notamment dans les enquêtes et investigations, le fait qu'elle consente à renoncer à cette protection, notamment qu'elle apporte elle-même les éléments probatoires de ce qui sera la base de sa déclaration de culpabilité tandis que l'Autorité publique ne renonce pas encore au même moment à la poursuite étant problématique au regard du "Juste".

La seconde partie de l'article est donc consacrée à "l'Utile contraint à être Juste". A ce titre, l'auteur pense que l'indépendance du ministère public devrait être plus forte, à l'image de ce qu'est le Parquet européen, et le contrôle du juge judiciaire plus profond car la procédure actuelle de validation des CJIP semble régie par le principe dispositif, principe qui ne sied pas à la justice pénale.

________

► Full Reference: J.-S. Borghetti, "The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): The Author points out that in order to establish civil liability, it is first necessary to find fault, i.e. a deviation from an obligation, which will trigger a secondary obligation, that of reparation. But it can also be argued that it is from liability that this primary obligation arises, civil liability then revealing an obligation which existed only implicitly. That establishes a two-way relationship between liability and obligation. The Compliance Obligation illustrates this, in particular through the Obligation of Vigilance conceived by the French law of 2017.

The author therefore devotes the first part of his contribution to civil liability as a result of an Compliance Obligation, especially the Obligation of Vigilance. issued of the French law of 2017. After discussing whether the constraints generated by compliance should be classified as 'obligations', since there is no creditor, which therefore opens the way to liability in tort, he examines the conditions for incurring such liability, which are difficult, particularly with regard to the burden of proof and the demonstration of the causal link. The requirement concerning the latter may evolve in French law towards the admission of proportional causality, as is now accepted in certain cases in German case law.

In the second part of his contribution, the author deals with the hypothesis of civil liability as an indicator of a Compliance Obligation. He points out that the claims made, particularly in the cases of TotalOuganda (France) and Milieudefensie v. Shell (Netherlands) seek to obtain from the judge a such "revelation".

The author considers that it is not possible to draw from the  French 2017 law which refers to article 1240 of the French Civil Code on the liability because this article is referred to only in order to organise the consequences of a breach of article L.225-102-4 of the French Commercial Code organising the Obligation of Vigilance (article 1240 being therefore under the secondary obligation described above) and not to feed what this article L.225-102-4 requires under the primary obligation (defined above). 

On the other hand, the Shell judgment derives directly from civil liability an obligation to act. This is understandable if one takes the perspective and the measure of the future challenges posed, in this case in the area of climate change. But the author considers that it is up to the legislator to decide on such a development in Liability Law. 

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Référence complète : S. Noël : "Regard sur une justice méconnue : la justice civile", conférence à l'Académie des Sciences morales et politiques, 2024.

____

📻 Ecouter la conférence

________

Référence complète : Grandjean, J.P., rapporteur, Rapport sur l'avocat chargé d'une enquête interne, Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats, Paris, 8 mars 2016. 

Lire le rapport. 

The procedural safeguards enjoyed by a person whose situation may be affected by a future judgment are principally the right to bring proceedings before the court, the rights of the defense and the benefit of the contradictory principle.

The legal action was for a long time considered as a "power", that is to say, a mechanism inserted in the organization of the judicial institution, since it was by this act of seizure, access by which the person enters the judicial machine, through the latter starts up.

But in particular since the work of René Cassin and Henri Motulsky, legal proceedings are considered as a subjective right, that is to say, a prerogative of any person to ask a judge to rule on the claim that the plaintiff articulates in an allegation, that is a story mixing the fact and the law in a building and on which he asks the judge to give an answer, such as the cancellation of an acte, or the award of damages, or the refusal to convict him (because the defense is also the exercise of this right of action).

The legal action is now recognized as a "right of action", the nature of which is independent of the application made to the court, a subjective procedural right which doubles the substantive subjective right (eg the right to reparation) and ensures the effectiveness of the latter but which is autonomous of it. This autonomy and this uniqueness in contrast with the variety of the sort of disputes (civil, criminal or administrative) makes the right of action a pillar of the "Procedural Law" on which a part of European and Constitutional Law are built. In fact, Constitutional Law in Europe is essentially constituted by procedural principles (rights of defense, impartiality, right of action), since the principle of non bis in idem is only an expression of the right of action. Non bis in idem is a prohibition of double judgment for the same fact which does not prohibit a double trigger of the action (and criminal, civil and administrative). This unified due process of Law has helped to diminish the once radical separation between criminal law, administrative law and even civil law, which are clearly separated from one another in the traditional construction of legal systems and which converge today in the Regulatory and Compliance Law.

Moreover, the subjective right of action is a human right and one of the most important. Indeed, it is "the right to the judge" because by its exercise the person obliges a judge to answer him, that is to say to listen to his claim (the contradictory resulting therefore from the exercise of the right of action ).

Thus the right of action appears to be the property of the person, of the litigant, of the "party". This is why the attribution by the law of the power for the Regulators to seize itself, which is understood by reason of the efficiency of the process, poses difficulty from the moment that this constitutes the regulatory body in "judge and party", since the Regulator is in criminal matters regarded as a court, and that the cumulation of the qualification of court and of the quality of party is a consubstantial infringement of the principle of impartiality. In the same way, the obligation that Compliance Law creates for operators to judge themselves obliges them to a similar duplication which poses many procedural difficulties, notably in internal investigations.

There is a classical distinction between public action, which is carried out by the public prosecutor, by which the public prosecutor calls for protection of the general interest and private action by a person or an enterprise, which seeks to satisfy its legitimate private interest. The existence of this legitimate interest is sufficient for the person to exercise his or her procedural right of action.

In the first place, the person could not claim the general interest because he or she was not an agent of the State and organizations such as associations or other non-governmental organizations pursued a collective interest, which could not be confused with the general interest. This procedural principle according to which "no one pleads by prosecutor" is today outdated. Indeed, and for the sake of efficiency, Law admits that persons act in order that the rule of law may apply to subjects who, without such action, would not be accountable. By this procedural use of the theory of incentives, because the one who acts is rewarded while and because he or she serves the general interest, concretizing the rule of law and contributing to produce a disciplinary effect on a sector and powerful operators, procedural law is transformed by the economic analysis of the law. The US mechanism of the class action was imported into France by a recent law of 2014 on "group action" (rather restrictive) but this "collective action" , on the Canadian model, continues not to be accepted in the European Union , Even if the European Commission is working to promote the mechanisms of private enforcement, participating in the same idea.

Secondly, it may happen that the law requires the person not only must have a "legitimate interest in acting" but also must have a special quality to act. This is particularly true of the various corporate officers within the operators. For the sake of efficiency, the legal system tends to distribute new "qualities to act" even though there is not necessarily an interest, for example in the new system of whistleblowers, which can act even there is no apparent interest.

The procedural guarantees enjoyed by a person whose situation may be affected by a forthcoming judgment are mainly the right of action, the rights of defense and the benefit of the adversarial principle.

The rights of the defense have constitutional value and constitute human rights, benefiting everyone, including legal persons. The mission of positive Law is to give effect to them in good time, that is to say from the moment of the investigation or custody, which is manifested for example by the right to the assistance of a lawyer or the right to remain silent or the right to lie. Thus the rights of the defense are not intended to help the manifestation of the truth, do not help the judge or the effectiveness of repression - which is what the principle of adversarial law does - they are pure rights, subjective for the benefit of people, including even especially people who may be perfectly guilty, and seriously guilty.

The rights of the defense are therefore an anthology of prerogatives which are offered to the person implicated or likely to be or likely to be affected. It does not matter if it possibly affects the efficiency. These are human rights. This is why their most natural holder is the person prosecuted in criminal proceedings or facing a system of repression. This is why the triggering of the power of a tribunal or a judge offers them in a consubstantial way to the one who is by this sole fact - and legitimately - threatened by this legitimate violence (one of the definitions of the State ).

The rights of the defense therefore begin even before the trial because the "useful time" begins from the investigation phase, from the searches, even from the controls, and continues on the occasion of appeals against the decision adversely affecting the decision. The legal action being a means of being a party, that is to say of making arguments in its favor, and therefore of defending its case, shows that the plaintiff in the proceedings also holds legal defense rights since he is not only plaintiff in the proceedings but he also plaintiff and defendant to the allegations which are exchanged during the procedure: he alleged to the allegation of his opponent is not correct.

They take many forms and do not need to be expressly provided for in texts, since they are principled and constitutionally benefit from a broad interpretation (ad favorem interpretation). This is the right to be a party (for example the right of intervention, the right of action - which some distinguish from the rights of the defense - the right to be questioned, such as the right to be brought into question (or examination), right to be assisted by a lawyer, right to remain silent, right not to incriminate oneself, right of access to the file, right to intervene in the debate (the rights of the defense thus crossing the adversarial principle), right to appeal, etc.

It is essential to qualify an organ as a tribunal because this triggers for the benefit of the person concerned the procedural guarantees, including the rights of the defense, which on the basis of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights man was made about the Regulators yet formally organized in Independent Administrative Authorities (AAI). This contributed to the general movement of jurisdictionalization of Regulation.

🌐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, Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a sustainable Arbitration Place", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of this article: The first part of this study assesses the evolving relationship between Arbitration Law and Compliance Law, which depends on the very definition of the Compliance Obligation (I). Indeed, these relations have been negative for as long as Compliance has been seen solely in terms of "conformity", i.e. obeying the rules or being punished. These relationships are undergoing a metamorphosis, because the Compliance Obligation refers to a positive and dynamic definition, anchored in the Monumental Goals that companies anchor in the contracts that structure their value chains.

Based on this development, the second part of the study aims to establish the techniques of Arbitration and the office of the arbitrator to increase the systemic efficiency of the Compliance Obligation, thereby strengthening the attractiveness of the Place (II). First and foremost, it is a question of culture: the culture of Compliance must permeate the world of Arbitration, and vice versa. To achieve this, it is advisable to take advantage of the fact that in Compliance Law the distinction between Public and Private Law is less significant, while the concern for the long term of contractually forged structural relationships is essential.

To encourage such a movement to deploy the Compliance Obligation, promoting the strengthening of a Sustainable Arbitration Place (III), the first tool is the contract. Since contracts structure value chains and enable companies to fulfill their legal Compliance Obligation but also to add their own will to it, stipulations or offers relating to Arbitration should be included in them. In addition, the adoption of non-binding texts can set out a guiding principle to ensure that concern for the Monumental Goals is appropriate in order the Compliance Obligation to be taken into account by Arbitrators.

________

🌐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 (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, to be published

____

📕In parallel, a book in French L'Obligation de compliance, is published in the collection "Régulations & Compliance" co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. 

____

📚This book is inserted in this series created by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for developing Compliance Law.

 read the presentations of the other books of this Compliance Series:

• further books:

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Evidential System, 2027

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2027

• previous books:

​🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Juridictionnalisation, 2023

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021

____

► go to the general presentation of this 📚Series ​Compliance & Regulation, conceived, founded et managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. 

____

🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners.

____

► general presentation of the book: Compliance is sometimes presented as something that cannot be avoided, which is tantamount to seeing it as the legal obligation par excellence, Criminal Law being its most appropriate mode of expression. However, this is not so evident. Moreover, it is becoming difficult to find a unity to the set of compliance tools, encompassing what refers to a moral representation of the world, or even to the cultures specific to each company, Compliance Law only having to produce incentives or translate this ethical movement. The obligation of compliance is therefore difficult to define.

This difficulty to define affecting the obligation of compliance reflects the uncertainty that still affects Compliance Law in which this obligation develops. Indeed, if we were to limit this branch of law to the obligation to "be conform" with the applicable regulations, the obligation would then be located more in these "regulations", the classical branches of Law which are Contract Law and Tort Law organising "Obligations" paradoxically remaining distant from it. In practice, however, it is on the one hand Liability actions that give life to legal requirements, while companies make themselves responsible through commitments, often unilateral, while contracts multiply, the articulation between legal requirements and corporate and contractual organisations ultimately creating a new way of "governing" not only companies but also what is external to them, so that the Monumental Goals, that Compliance Law substantially aims at, are achieved. 

The various Compliance Tools illustrate this spectrum of the Compliance Obligation which varies in its intensity and takes many forms, either as an extension of the classic legal instruments, as in the field of information, or in a more novel way through specific instruments, such as whistleblowing or vigilance. The contract, in that it is by nature an Ex-Ante instrument and not very constrained by borders, can then appear as a natural instrument in the compliance system, as is the Judge who is the guarantor of the proper execution of Contract and Tort laws. The relationship between companies, stakeholders and political authorities is thus renewed.

____

🏗️general construction of the book

The book opens with a substantial Introduction, putting the different sort of obligations of compliance in legal categories for showing that companies must build structures of compliance (obligation of result) and act to contribute with states and stakeholders to reach Monumental Goals (obligation of means). 

The first part is devoted to the definition of the Compliance Obligation. 

The second part presents the articulation of Compliance obligation with the other branchs of Law, because the specific obligation is built by Compliance Law, as new substantial branch of Law but also by many other branchs of Law.

The third part develops the pratical means established to obtained the Compliance Obligation to be effective, efficace and efficient.

The fourth part takes the Obligation  of Vigilance as an illustration of all these considerations and the discussion about the future of this sparehead fo the Compliance Obligation . 

The fifth part refers to the place and the role of the judges, natural characters for any obligation. 

____

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ANCHORING THE SO DIVERSE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS IN THEIR NATURE, REGIMES AND FORCE TO BRING OUT THE VERY UNITY OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION, MAKING IT COMPREHENSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE 

🔹 Compliance Obligation: building a compliance structure that produces credible results withe regard to the Monumentals Goals targeted by the Legislator, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

TITLE I.

IDENTIFYING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

CHAPTER I: NATURE OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 🔹 Debt, as the basis of the compliance obligation, by 🕴️Bruno Deffains

Section 3 🔹 Compliance Obligation and Human Rights, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine

Section 4 🔹 Compliance Obligation and changes in Sovereignty and Citizenship, by 🕴️René Sève

Section 5 🔹 The definition of the Compliance Obligation in Cybersecurity, by 🕴️Michel Séjean

CHAPTER II: SPACES OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Industrial Entities and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Etienne Maclouf

Section 2 🔹 Compliance, Value Chains and Service Economy, by 🕴️Lucien Rapp

Section 3 🔹 Compliance and conflict of laws. International Law of Vigilance-Conformity, based on applications in Europe, by 🕴️Louis d'Avout 

TITLE II.

ARTICULATING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF LAW

Section 1 🔹 Tax Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Daniel Gutmann

Section 2 🔹 General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 3 🔹 Corporate and Financial Markets Law facing the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Anne-Valérie Le Fur

Section 4 🔹 Transformation of Governance and Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Véronique Magnier

Section 5 🔹 The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Jean-Sébastien Borghetti

Section 6 🔹 Environmental and Climate Compliance, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub

Section 7 🔹 Competition Law and Compliance Law, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda

Section 8 🔹 The Compliance Obligation in Global Law, by 🕴️Benoît Frydman & 🕴️Alice Briegleb

Section 9 🔹 Environmental an Climatic Dimensions of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub

Section 10 🔹 Judge of Insolvency Law and Compliance Obligations, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Barbièri

TITLE III.

COMPLIANCE: GIVE AND TAKE THE MEANS TO OBLIGE

CHAPTER I: COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: THE CONVERGENCE OF SOURCES

Section 1 🔹 Compliance Obligation upon Obligation works, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 🔹 Conformity technologies to meet Compliance Law requirements. Some examples in Digital Law, by 🕴️Emmanuel Netter

Section 3 🔹 Legal Constraint and Company Strategies in Compliance matters, by 🕴️Jean-Philippe Denis & 🕴️Nathalie Fabbe-Coste

Section 4 🔹 Opposition and convergence of American and European legal systems in Compliance Rules and Systems, by 🕴️Raphaël Gauvain & 🕴️Blanche Balian

Section 5 🔹 In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their Commitments and Undertakings, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

CHAPTER II: INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 How International Arbitration can reinforce the Compliance Obligation, by  🕴️Laurent Aynès

Section 2 🔹 Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a Sustainable Arbitration Place, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 3 🔹 The Arbitral Tribunal's Award in Kind, in support of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Eduardo Silva Romero

Section 4 🔹 The use of International Arbitration to reinforce the Compliance Obligation: the example of the construction sector, by 🕴️Christophe Lapp 

Section 5 🔹 The Arbitrator, Judge, Supervisor, Support, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine

TITLE IV.

VIGILANCE, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Vigilance Obligation, Spearheard and Total Share of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

CHAPTER I: INTENSITIES OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM

Section 2 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Financial Operators, by 🕴️Anne-Claire Rouaud

Section 3 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Digital Operators, by 🕴️Grégoire Loiseau

Section 4 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Energy Operators, by 🕴️Marie Lamoureux

CHAPTER II: GENERAL EVOLUTION OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Rethinking the Concept of Civil Liability in the light of the Duty of Vigilance, Spearhead of Compliance, by 🕴️Mustapha Mekki

Section 2 🔹 Contracts and clauses, implementation and modalities of the Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Gilles J. Martin

Section 3 🔹 Proof that Vigilance has been properly carried out with regard to the Compliance Evidence System, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda

Section 4 🔹 Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in order and keep the Reason, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Title V.

THE JUDGE AND THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Present and Future Challenges of Articulating Principles of Civil and Commercial Procedure with the Logic of Compliance, by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan

Section 2 🔹 The Judge required for an Effective Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

CONCLUSION

THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: A BURDEN BORNE BY SYSTEMIC COMPANIES GIVING LIFE TO COMPLIANCE LAW  

(conclusion and key points of the books, free access)

🌐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, "General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of this article: At first glance, General Procedural Law seems to be the area the least concerned by the Compliance Obligation, because if the person is obliged by it, mainly large companies, it is precisely, thanks to this Ex Ante, in order to never to have to deal with proceedings, these path that leads to the Judge, that Ex Post figure that in return for the weight of the compliance obligation they have been promised they will never see: any prospect of proceedings would be seeming to signify the very failure of the Compliance Obligation (I).

But not only are the legal rules attached to the Procedure necessary because the Judge is involved, and increasingly so, in compliance mechanisms, but they are also rules of General Procedural Law and not a juxtaposition of civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, etc., because the Compliance Obligation itself is not confined either to civil procedure or to criminal procedure, to administrative procedure, etc., which in practice gives primacy to what brings them all together: General Procedural Law (II).

In addition to what might be called the "negative" presence of General Procedural Law, there is also a positive reason, because General Procedural Law is the prototype for "Systemic Compliance Litigation", and in particular for the most advanced aspect of this, namely the duty of vigilance (III). In particular, it governs the actions that can be brought before the Courts (IV), and the principles around which proceedings are conducted, with an increased opposition between the adversarial principle, which marries the Compliance Obligation, since both reflect the principle of Information, and the rights of the defence, which do not necessarily serve them, a clash that will pose a procedural difficulty in principle (V).

Finally, and this "prototype" status is even more justified, because Compliance Law has given companies jurisdiction over the way in which they implement their legal Compliance Obligations, it is by respecting and relying on the principles of General Procedural Law that this must be done, in particular through not only sanctions but also internal investigations (VI).

________

🌐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, "The Future of Compliance", series Compliance, Centre Perelman, Brussels, 23 February 2026.

____

🧮view the full programme for the series Compliance (in French)

____

► English presentation of this concluding conference in the series : The future of Compliance: who knows what it holds? Anyone who practises and studies the texts, litigation, structures and behaviours will have to admit that they do not know what will become of what has emerged as a new branch of law. It is not easily recognised, probably for three reasons. Firstly, because the birth of a new branch of law is an unusual phenomenon, whose disruptive and regenerative waves are felt in all branches of law and other regulatory systems, accompanying and reflecting the new world we have already entered, whether we like it or not. Secondly, because it is unpleasant (especially if you are a professor...) to begin and conclude with the fact that you do not know. Thirdly, because it is not very marketable, and in today's large and growing "compliance market", it is not very smart, if you want to sell compliance products (whether they be algorithms, new services to be linked to the highest level of companies, specialities in law firms, new chairs in various schools), to say that you don't know. So the experts say they know. For my part, I meet many people who are "experts" and who are "knowledgeable". What is surprising is the diversity of their discourse, which casts doubt on the solidity of the projection, particularly on the meaning of words: for example, not only words that could be described as "new" (which we then try to anchor in old words) such as "compliance/conformity" and "governance", but also words that we are undoubtedly more familiar with, such as "commitment" and "responsibility" or "sanction", i.e. the very pillars of the matter.

Why is this a cause for concern, apart from the fact that it is always better to know what we are talking about, rather than everyone talking in their own corner, for their own compliance corpus, for their like-minded friends, with the subject matter becoming increasingly siloed? Because the object of Compliance Law is the future. So, the future of this branch of law which its object is the future is by nature very uncertain.

It will therefore be assumed in advance that not knowing the future is a major difficulty when it comes to Compliance Law, in that this branch of law is unified in that it is ex ante and its object is the future. The difficulty is neither of the same nature nor of the same magnitude when it comes to the legislator, the "regulator", the regulated company (calculating or political), or the judge faced with systemic compliance litigation.

That said, in a first part, one can imagine the future possibilities for Compliance (because that is what it boils down to, given the number of candidates eager to seize the instruments of power that are the " Compliance tools"). It is not a foregone conclusion that this future will be governed by Law. The consequences could take care of that. Or the order given by the leader (Trump, for instance), and that would go down all the better as he states that he certainly does not care about human beings but that he wields the power of Compliance to restore the climate balance (through Chinese regulations): except to say that there is no unified Compliance Law. That there would be one for the climate and another for human rights. So what about the future consistency of European Law, which links the two in the CSRD and the CS3D? Particularly in value chains. The question then is: what will be the uniqueness of Compliance Law in the future?

In a second part, since we do not know how things will turn out, from omnibus to omnibus, from a government hostile to the Law to a government appealing to the Due Process, from case law to case law, from special law to common law, we must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the various perspectives. There is never one perspective where everything is good and another where everything is bad, because in that case there would be no choice and no policy: it would be enough to have information, to be "rational" and to go for the right solution rather than the wrong one. Beyond general statements that a combination of compliance and ethics is welcome, which is not in doubt in the superb statements made in this regard, it is necessary to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the direction we may take. Firstly, there is the disappearance of Compliance Law, with the advantage of reducing the regulatory burden on those subject to it and the disadvantage of abandoning altruistic and global ambitions (these two Monumental Goals may overlap). Secundly, it could involve the creation of a global empire, with the advantage of a simplified American empire, whether extraterritorialised by the state or by companies and their governance or technology, with the advantage of a Western model and the disadvantage of the crushing of "mondialisation" by globalisation and the disappearance of the specific ambitions of States. Thirdly, it may be a contribution to a war between powers, particularly through the European DSA and the data war, with the advantage of European maturity in Compliance Law as an extension of Regulatory Law and the disadvantage that we could move from a war in the metaphorical sense (never use metaphors in Law) to a war. Quaterly, it could be a new rule of Law in which systemic companies participate in an alliance to achieve Monumental political Goals decided by States and political authorities, preserving systems for the future ("sustainability") so that human beings are not crushed by them but benefit from them. The disadvantage is that we have to relearn the Law, because although it has nothing to do with conformity, which is only an instrument, Compliance Law changes all branches of Law and requires the integration of other techniques, particularly political and technological ones.

In third part, in practice, we must strive in advance to reduce the disadvantages associated with the shortcomings of possible future developments in Compliance Law, just as we must strive in advance to increase the advantages associated with the qualities of possible future developments in Compliance Law. The disadvantage lies in the very nature of Compliance Law, namely its great power, because unlike Competition Law, it calls for and increases power. We must therefore counteract the prospect of compliance techniques, particularly those related to Information, being monopolised by those who only want to use them to consolidate or extend their power, laughing at Ethics and Monumental Goals. This means that supervision techniques on the one hand and a renewed role for judges on the other must be considered. The quality attached to possible futures stems from the fact that we could uphold a "Global Law" (reference to the work of Benoît Frydman, among others) and that, faced with the possible disappearance of Public International Law and the imperative preservation of value chains, particularly in the context of possible war, the alliance between supervised systemic companies and the political authorities in charge of the future of the social group that legitimises them may appear to be a legitimate, effective, efficiate and efficient system.

____

⛏️Go further  :

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Conceiving Power, 2021

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022 

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and conformity: distinguishing between them to better articulate them, 2024

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Complianceo Obligation, 2025

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025

________

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The Monumental Goals of Compliance, 2022 

🌐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, "Asset freezing in the legal saga between American power and Venezuelan wealth", MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation Newsletter, 23 January 2026

____

🌐read this article published on LinkedIn the 23 January 2026 

____

📧Read other articles from the MAFR Newsletter - Law, Compliance, Regulation for free with a subscription.

____

► Summary of this article  : It is often emphasised that the  law is merely a masquerade in the series of events we are witnessing.

This is not entirely true.

For three reasons.

1. Much will depend on the judge who will rule on the Madura couple's case. The energy sector has always similarly mixed regulation, public policies of states and businesses, both articulated by States and companies, both articulated by  international contracts, always organising international arbitration

3. If ExxonMobil now refuses to make the investments desired by Trump, it is also because this enterprise remembers that many years ago the freeze  of assets granted by the arbitrators was not very successful, and now the company manager believes that investment in  Venezuala's infrastructure is therefore "impossible".

And given the current state of the law in the US, there is little Trump can do about it..

____

📝⤵Read the complete article below⤵

► Référence complète :E. Roudinesco, "Donald Trump. Sur le pouvoir délirant de la Maison-Blanche", Le Grand Continent, 16 janvier 2026. 

____

🦉Cet  article est accessible en texte intégrale pour les personnes qui suivent les enseignements de la professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

_________

► Référence complète : Y. Kerbrat et S. Maljean-Dubois, "Legal consequences of breaching international climate obligations in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change", Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), opinion, janvier 2026.

____

🦉Cet  article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes qui suivent les enseignements de la professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

_________

🌐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, Saisir les principes du Droit de la Compliance à travers l'actualité (Understanding the principles of compliance law through current current legal cases and events), Jean Moulin  - Lyon 3 University Law Faculty, 10 December 2025.

____

► Methodological presentation of this 4-hour MasterClass : It is difficult to teach a branch of law that is still being developed, to find a way to open its doors, because if by explaining its principles ex abrupto, the risk exists of remaining at the door, even though the aim is to open it. This door is all the more blocked by the accumulation of multiple regulatory corpus, which are now perceived as being linked to Compliance Law: GDPR, Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, FCPA, etc.; These are highly technical and complicated, and tend to be studied in silos, with little connection between them and little articulation with the traditional branches of Law. Therefore, the principles that form the backbone of Compliance Law as an autonomous branch of Law are all the less apparent, even though they would make these "compliance blocks" more intelligible and manageable. However, setting out these principles, which shed light not only on the current positive law but also on how it will evolve, seems "theoretical".

In order to open the door to this new branch of Law, which already occupies a significant place in practice and is set to expand, so that it can be handled by lawyers who understand its spirit and is not entirely dominated by those from other disciplines who will master its tools (risk mapping, assessment, internal investigation, etc.), most often through algorithms and platforms (compliance by design), it is relevant to start with a few cases, a few decisions, a few texts, and a few comments, to gauge what they reveal.

Because the principles are already there. They are gradually emerging. The challenge is that they often emerge quickly, in a manner that is sufficiently consistent with other branches of Law, and that the legal aspect takes precedence. That is what is at stake today.

Each hour is devoted to a different case, based on a document of a different legal genre.

____

🌐read a post on LinkedIn (in French)

____

____

⛏️Find out more  :

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental Goals, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings, 2025

🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025

________

► Référence complète  : K.Lenaerts, "Democracy in the EU: A Value Beyond the Ballot Box", King’s College London - Centre Of European Law – 51st Annual Lecture – 28 novembre 2025.

____

►lire la transcription de cette conférence

________

► Référence complète : Y. Kerbrat, "L’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de justice du 23 juillet 2025 sur les obligations des États en matière de changement climatique", Clunet, 2025, n°4, 

________

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

► Référence complète : É. Schmit et A. Peter, "Introduction", in Justices manifestes , Clio - Thémis, n°29, 2025.

____

📝lire l'article

____

📗Consulter l'ensemble de la publication

____

► Résumé de l'article : Les auteurs présentent le sujet même de ce dossier : montrer la place de l'écrit dans les procédures comme mode spécifique de rituels qui eux-aussi rendent la justice "manifeste".  Présentation par les auteurs : "

"Ce dossier se situe au croisement de deux manières d’aborder et d’écrire l’histoire de la justice : celle, d’une part, qui s’intéresse aux manifestations rituelles du processus judiciaire ; et celle, d’autre part, qui traite des enjeux et des pouvoirs de l’écrit dans l’action de la justice. En repartant de la métaphore théâtrale, c’est-à-dire en envisageant la scène judiciaire comme cadre spatio-temporel du déploiement du rituel, il s’agit d’en étudier précisément les modalités d’enregistrement, pour mieux comprendre comment l’écrit participe du caractère manifeste des justices médiévales et modernes – dans leur diversité. À l’intersection entre rituel et écrit judiciaires, il y a bien sûr la procédure, entendue à la fois comme la succession des étapes conduisant à l’exécution d’une décision de justice, et comme l’ensemble des règles qui encadrent chacune de ces étapes. Faire l’histoire des modalités d’enregistrement du rituel judiciaire implique dès lors d’expliciter à la fois les rapports entre rituel et procédure, et entre procédure et écrit. Les contributions qui suivent témoignent de l’intérêt, pour les historiennes et historiens de la justice, d’articuler ces deux approches, chacune ayant fait l’objet d’une historiographie féconde.".

C'est la quatrième partie de l'article qui est plus particulièrement consacré au rôle des "écrits judiciaires", évoquant le gouvernement par l'écrit, le réseau des écritures, les écritures judiciaires grises, etc.

Le contenu des 5 articles composant le dossier est présenté ainsi : "Voilà quelques-unes des questions auxquelles les cinq articles de ce dossier apportent de précieux éléments de réponse, à partir de contextes documentaires, temporels, géographiques et juridictionnels bien différents. À partir d’une série de 70 arrêts criminels rendus au parlement de Paris au xive siècle, Isabelle D’Artagnan analyse la façon dont l’enregistrement façonne la jurisprudence de la cour quant à l’usage de deux peines infamantes, l’amende honorable et le pilori. En étudiant au plus près les modalités de l’enregistrement, elle montre combien celui-ci est en lui-même performatif : il constitue non seulement une première satisfaction pour les parties, mais oriente aussi l’action future des juges. Rudi Beaulant interroge quant à lui le rôle des écritures judiciaires comme outil de gouvernement urbain, dans un contexte de partage du pouvoir judiciaire entre ville et prince à Dijon à la fin du Moyen Âge. La multiplication et la répartition des informations enregistrées montrent que les écritures judiciaires constituent à la fois un instrument d’administration et de légitimation pour les officiers urbains, tout autant qu’elles participent de la construction de la mémoire judiciaire de la ville. Dominique Adrien s’intéresse, dans la Bavière de la fin du xve siècle, à une charte rédigée à la demande des parties qui s’opposent devant le tribunal urbain de Kempten, et dont il donne l’édition et la traduction. À partir de cette charte qui permet, dans un contexte juridictionnel concurrentiel, de consolider les droits de la plaignante mais aussi la décision du tribunal, l’auteur analyse les modalités spécifiques de l’enregistrement du procès, et notamment la place importante accordée aux témoignages oraux. Dans sa contribution, Rémi Demoen piste dans les comptes municipaux d’Amboise, Chinon et Loches au second xvie siècle les traces indirectes du rituel spécifique du jugement des comptes, dans le contexte documentaire particulièrement lacunaire de la Chambre des comptes. Il apparaît que l’écrit, davantage qu’une simple trace du rituel, joue un rôle central dans le processus même de vérification des comptes. Enfin, Mathias Boussemart consacre son article aux bandeaux gravés qui ornementent un grand nombre d’impressions judiciaires au xviiie siècle. S’il s’intéresse aux scènes judiciaires que ces bandeaux représentent, il montre surtout comment ces bandeaux, qui participent de l’ultime phase du rituel judiciaire – l’impression sur papier de décisions jugées remarquables – contribuent à la diffusion, à grande échelle, de petites scénettes judiciaires. Toutes attentives aux mécanismes d’enregistrement à l’œuvre, ces contributions affinent, dans la diversité des cas étudiés, notre compréhension des rituels judiciaires.".

________