Sept. 16, 2021
Organization of scientific events
📅 Scientific Co-organization of the colloquium "Radioscopie d'une notion : les "buts monumentaux" de la Compliance ("Radioscopy of a notion: the Compliance "monumental goals""), in "Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance" ("Compliance Monumental Goals")"
► co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), this colloquium) is the core manifestation of the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals.
It will take place on 16th of September 2021, at the Maison du Barreau, in Paris.
This first work is in French but will be the basis of the book in English : Compliance Monumental Goals,
► Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.
These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.
► with :
🎤 Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris - Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)
🎤 Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University)
🎤 Regis Bismuth, professeur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris)
🎤 Marie-Emma Boursier, doyen de l'Université Paris - Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University)
🎤 Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris - Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante)
🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris)
🎤 Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
🎤 Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University)
🎤 Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
🎤 Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
🎤Dominique de La Garanderie, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
🎤 Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris - Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University)
🎤 Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa)
🎤 Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority)
🎤 Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University)
🎤 Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
🎤 Benoît Petit, maître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)
Read a detailed presentation below:
Sept. 16, 2021
►Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in André C., Frison-Roche, M.-A., Malaurie, M. and Petit, B., Les Buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Laboratoire Dante of Paris-Saclay University,
📅 Septembre 16, 2021.
🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris
📝 Read the program of this colloquium (in French)
🎥 See Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French)
📝 Read the bilingual working paper on which this conclusion is based
📅 This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Monumental Goals.
📘 This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Monumental Goals, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant.
📕 An equivalent book in French, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-edited by the JoRC and Dalloz.
Sept. 7, 2021
► Référence complète: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur (rapport de synthèse), in Claudel, E. (dir.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états, Numéro spécial, Gaz. Pal. , 7 sept. 2021.
📅 Cet article fait suite au colloque de l'Association Droit & Commerce qui s'est tenu à Deauville les 25 et 26 juin 2021.
📝 Il se base sur les notes qui y furent prises pour établir le rapport de synthèse qui y fût prononcé.
Sept. 6, 2021
Teachings : Participation à des jurys de thèses
► Référence : Frison-Roche, M.-A., présidente et membre du jury de la thèse de Mamadou Diallo, , La transposition du pouvoir administratif exorbitant en droit de la régulation économique, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I) , Salle Duroselle, centre Sorbonne, 6 septembre 2021, à partir de 14h30.
► Autres membres du jury :
► Résumé de la thèse qui sera présentée :
La thèse sera présentée et soutenue publiquement à l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), au sein de l'Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne, dans le Département de Droit public et fiscal, le 6 septembre 2021 à partir de 14h, en vue de l'obtention du titre de Docteur en droit
July 23, 2021
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Programme de mise en conformité (Compliance), Dictionnaire de droit de la concurrence, Concurrences, Art. N° 12345, 2021
Read the definition (in French)
July 22, 2021
► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionality and Compliance, Working Paper, 22nd July 2021.
🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference in the colloquium Compliance and Proportionality. From the control of Proportionality to the proportionality of the control, to be helded in Toulouse, France, on the 14th October 2021.
📝It constitutes the basis for an article:
► Working Paper Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.
However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression. But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition... Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...
In this definition of Compliance Law, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.
By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law, the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression Law has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.
In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...
But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!
Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.
A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as Goals have be precised, Proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of Criminal Law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "Monumental Goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Goal Monumental Goals". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to that. Then all the Compliance Tools must adjust in a "proportionate way", that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).
In consequence, the rule contrary to the Principle of Proportionality is: the rule useless to achieve the goal. The unnecessary rule is the disproportionate rule: this is how the judicial review of excessive sanctions should be understood, not by the notion of "the limit" but not by the notion of "the unnecessary".
Everything then depends on the legal quality of the goal. De jure - and this would deserve to be a requirement at constitutional level, the goal must always be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, attainable.
This increases the office of the Judge. This renews the power of the Legislator in a conception which ceases to be discretionary.
But the Legislator retains the prerogative of determining the Monumental Goals, while the Judge controls the quality of the formulation that he makes of them, in order to be able to measure the proportionality of the means which are put in front by the State and the Companies, while Companies can rally to the Monumental Goals of the Politics by making an alliance with them, but certainly not instituting others in an autonomous way because they are not normative political entities, whereas they are free to determine the means necessary to achieve these goals, the Judge controling the proportionality mechanism that makes this new system work.
The case law of the German Constitutional Council expresses this conception. It is fully consistent with what Compliance Law is in what is the one Monumental Goal containing all the systemic Monumental Goals: the protection of the human being.
July 3, 2021
► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law Big Bang, talk show with Jean-Philippe Denis, July 3, 2021.
🎥 watch the emission with English subtitles
June 26, 2021
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., notes prises pour faire le rapport de synthèse du colloque de Droit et Commerce, La concurrence dans tous ses états, 26 juin 2021.
► Méthode : En raison de la richesse et la diversité des propos tenus, pour tenir le temps imparti, des passages n'ont pas été repris à l'oral.
Parce qu'il s'agit d'une synthèse, le document ne s'appuie que sur les propos tenus et n'est pas doté de références techniques, ne renvoyant pas non plus à des travaux personnels.
► Articulation et résumé des notes prises au fur et à mesure de l'écoute des différentes interventions des orateurs successifs :
🔻Lire les notes prises d'une façon exhaustive ci-dessous.