The recent news
June 21, 2023
Conferences
♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Favoriser ou pas la « contractualisation » du Droit" ("To favour or not the "contractualisation" of the Law"), final speech in Société de législation comparée (SLC) and Procuradoria Geral do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (PGE-RJ), La contractualisation du droit. Acte II, Paris, 21 June 2023.
____
🧮See the full programme of this event (in French).
The conference is held in French
________
June 19, 2023
Conferences
♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation in the panel "Vigilance (due diligence)", in International Law Association (ILA), 150th Anniversary Symposium of the ILA/ADI, Paris, 19 June 2023.
____
🧮See the full programme of this event
________
June 16, 2023
Conferences
♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
♾️s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'usage des puissances privées par le droit de la compliance pour servir les droits de l’homme" in Joel Andriantsimbazovina (dir.), Puissances privées et droits de l'homme, Université de Toulouse, 16 juin 2023.
____
🧮Consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation
________
June 14, 2023
Conferences
♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'état du Droit en matière de vigilance" ("Status of Law in vigilance matters", in Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes (H3C), Réalités et défis de la CSRD - Perspectives du devoir de vigilance, Paris, 14 June 2023.
____
🧮See the full programme of this event
________
June 13, 2023
Conferences
♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
♾️s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut", in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche et J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture, Université Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 14 juin 2023.
____
🧮Consulter le programme de cette manifestation
________
June 2, 2023
Conferences
♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : acte de naissance" ("Compliance: birth certificate"), in Conseil d'État (French Council of State) and Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ?, speech constituting the "closing session" of the annual joint symposium of the two High Courts, held at the French Council of State, Salle d'Assemblée générale, 2 June 2023.
____
🧮See the full programme of this event
________
May 31, 2023
Publications
♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, "The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system", in M.A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published
____
► Summary of this article: the article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork.
To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the "probatory square" in a "probatory system" that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance.
The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law
In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof.
The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the "round of the burden of proof". But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a "compliance contract" or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law.
Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof.
In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with.
In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools.
If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law.
____
🚧read the Bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article.
____
_______
May 25, 2023
Conferences
♾️ flollow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn
♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law
____
► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conclusions", in Ch. Maubernard et A. Brès (dir.), Institut de droit européen des droits de l'homme et Centre de droit de l'entreprise, Université de Montpellier, Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité?("The Entreprises duty of vigilance: the maturity age?") , Montpellier, May 25, 2023.
The conference is held in French.
____
🧮see the manifestation programme (in French)
___
🌐 read the report done on LinkedIn (in French)
___
► English summary of this final speech of the manifestation: It is rather difficult to draw a conclusion after listening so many contributions. For three reasons: firstly, because of their richness and extreme diversity; secondly, because of the fact that we do not know whether the duty of vigilance is under the French law of 2017 (known as the Vigilance Law) or in other national, European and international texts or beyond or below the legal rules; thirdly, because we do not know what is meant by the "maturity" of a legal concept. But in the end, since the question posed by the title itself of the colloquium is Duty of Vigilance: the age of maturity? the answer is clearly: no.
But this is regrettable. It is therefore essential to explore the ways in which the duty of vigilance can mature. If we find merit in this duty which has now entered the legal system, there are eight intersecting avenues, which must be exploited.
The first path is progression through the passage of time, rediscovering what in the past was already vigilance and what in the future will be its deployment.
The second way is to progress by fixing the vocabulary, because we are witnessing a great battle of words, overtly or covertly, in French or English.
The third path is progression through the emergence of principles, or even a principle, rediscovered or invented.
The fourth path is progression through coherence brought to the legal system(s), which at present suffer from gaps and inconsistencies, which could be remedied by methods such as centralising litigation or, more radically, ignoring borders.
The fifth path is progression through the fact that it works, because vigilance techniques are those of Compliance, of which vigilance is the leading edge, and the challenge is to find solutions.
The sixth path is progression through using power of the legal system not only to create new areas of relevance - starting with the notion of vigilance, but also that of the value chain - but also to impose new indifferences, namely indifference to the figure of the market (to which laws prefer the company and the value chain) and indifference to borders.
The seventh path is progression through bringing perspectives closer together, in order to find solutions even when interests are opposed. This is where the two techniques of contract and mediation are very welcome.
The eighth path is progression through culture, because the culture of vigilance, like the culture of compliance, must be developed within companies and supply chains, and must become common to them and their stakeholders.
____
________