The recent news

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance : progresser" ("Duty of Vigilance: the Way Forward"), in Ch. Maubernard & A. Brès (eds.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. L'âge de la maturité ? (The duty of vigilance. The age of maturity?), Bruylant, "Droit & Economie" Serie, 2024, pp. 221-251

____

📝read the article (in French) 

____

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of the article: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

________

► Full Reference: Les techniques probatoires adéquates dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Appropriate Evidentiary Techniques in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, October 14, 2024, 11am.-12.30pm., Paris Court of Appeal, Masse courtroom

____

► Presentation of the conference: 

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Sixth conference-debate

LES TECHNIQUES PROBATOIRES ADÉQUATES

DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT 

(APPROPRIATE EVIDENTIARY TECHNIQUES

IN EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)

Cour d’appel de Paris, salle Masse

Presentation and moderation by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11am.-11.10am. 🎤La crédibilité (Credibility), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11.10am.-11.30am. 🎤Ce que des entreprises font et les preuves disponibles qui en résultent (What firms are doing and evidence available as a result), by 🕴️Nathalie Fabbe-Costes, Professor of management at Aix-Marseille University 

🕰️11.30am-11.50am. 🎤Les différentes techniques probatoires quand un système est impliqué dans un litige (The various evidential techniques when a system is involved in a dispute), by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Professor of Law at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University, director of the Centre patrimoine et contrats, director of the IEJ de Lyon

🕰️11.50am.-12h30pm. Debate

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Entreprises assujetties au Droit de la Compliance : la charge de prouver la crédibilité de la trajectoire des actions entreprises à partir des structures mises en place" ("Companies subject to Compliance Law: the burden of proving the credibility of the course of action taken on the basis of the structures put in place"), in Les techniques probatoires adéquates dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Appropriate Evidentiary Techniques in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, October 14, 2024, 11am.-12.30pm., Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► English Summary of the conference : As developed below, the presentation shows that Systemic Litigation highlights what is incumbent on systemic companies: first and foremost, a permanent Evidential Obligation that they must satisfy with regard to stakeholders, in particular investors, partners, consumers and public opinion, whether or not there is a lawsuit. But it is essential to determine the purpose of this proof, the burden of which is permanent. It is a question of showing the efforts made on an ongoing basis by the crucial company to ensure that the system in which it operates does not collapse ("Negative Monumental Goal"), or even that it improves ("Positive Monumental Goal"). As these are inherently future factual goals, which is akin to impossible proof, it is a question of demonstrating "Credibility", i.e. showing that the structures put in place by the company and the behaviour already obtained by it, both internally and externally, generate a "trajectory" which can reasonably be expected to produce the effects expected by the Legislator which places obligations on companies. This is relevant whatever the systems involved, be they banking, financial, energy, climate, digital, etc., and whatever the monumental systemic goal targeted, be it the fight against corruption, money laundering, harmful climate change, the establishment of effective equality between human beings, respect for others, etc.

It is in this new conception that the traditional notions of the object of proof, the burden of proof, presumption, means of proof, exemption from proof, and above all the judge's evidentiary role, must be adjusted to the Systemic Litigation that is emerging.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, by MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, E. Silva Romero, G. Filhol, V. Autret, B. Sillaman et K. Hennessee, Compliance & arbitrage : les prémices d’une symbiose, propos recueillis par O. Delaunay, LJA Magazine, septembre-octobre 2024, pp. 12-20

____

💬read the collective interview (in French)

____

🌐read the presentation of this interview on LinkedIn

____

► Topics covered during this collective interview: 

• The development of Compliance in an international environment

• The Arbitrator and the concept of Compliance

• Linking Arbitration and Compliance systems

____

► Summary of my interventions: Compliance Law appears to be developing in the context of international trade and Arbitration.

For my part, I placed particular emphasis on the fact that the first reports were the result of "negative reports" between Compliance and Arbitration, through Criminal Law and the obligation of arbitrators to ensure that they don't give effectivity to pacts of corruption. But the future lies in a more 'positive' and fruitful relationship between this new branch of law, Compliance Law, and the solid prospect offered by Arbitration, in that the arbitrator, this natural judge of international trade, will be able to support the contractualisation of Compliance obligations, particularly about due diligences in structural chains of activities and duty of vigilance.

Thus competent, the international arbitrator must respond to what the Monumental Goals in which Compliance Law is rooted expect of him/her: to provide solutions and remedies to issues that often concern an entire chain of activity or an entire sector in a more systemic perspective than in a traditional conception. This applies not only to investment arbitration, but also, for instance, to infrastructure arbitration. The concern for sustainability and the systemic perspective must be integrated into the reasoning and produce appropriate case law, a sort of new doctrine in the arbitration order, that will make more attractive the arbitration place that will most solidly link the skills of specialists in Compliance Law and Arbitration Law.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Du Droit de la Compliance découle le Droit de l'Intelligence Artificielle", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 1er octobre 2024ré

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La durabilité, coeur dynamique de la Régulation et de la Compliance", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 27 septembre 2024

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le contentieux systémique" ("The Systemic Litigation"), D. 2024, chron., pp. 1633-1635

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of the article: We are seeing the Emergence of a category of its own and must be designated by a singular expression: 'Systemic Litigation' (I). This category is composed of concrete cases, "Systemic Cases", in which a system is entirely involved. The interest in these systems, insofar as they are all a system, unifies the category and justifies its own procedural, institutional and jurisdictional treatment. This type of Litigation is Emerging for three reasons, which are recorded in the Systemic Cases (II). Systemic Litigation must be dealt with in a way that is both specific and unified. This is beginning to happen and must be expanded (III).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l'"incidence" et s’organiser" ("Duty of vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised"), in L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The Impact of the Duty of Vigilance on Commercial Litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, September 25, 2024, 17.15pm to 20pm

____

🌐read the report of this speech on LinkedIn (in French)

____

🧮see the full programme of this event (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event (in French)

____

► English Summary of the conference: After listening to the enlightening speeches of François Ancel and Jean-Christophe Roda, I had the great opportunity to emphasise, as they did, that the duty of vigilance, in the respect of French laws of 2017 and 2021, with a view to the transposition of the CS3D, does not imply, so brutally as has been said, a lack of knowledge by judges other than those of the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) of this new Law, which is the extension of Compliance Law, as François Ancel reminded us.

Because Commercial Court judges deal with Contract Law on a daily basis, and because companies build their value chains through contracts that should be described as "regulatory contracts", the duty of vigilance has an "impact" on these disputes.

These disputes may be of a "systemic" nature.

This can only result not in jurisdictional trenches, but in "shared jurisdiction", along the lines drawn by François Ancel. This sharing must be built through a dialogue between judges, a necessary method on which Patrick Sayer concluded this elaborate conference on an essential and forward-looking subject.

________