The recent news

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les notaires "agents d'effectivité de la compliance"", interview with  Sarah Bertone, Solution Notaire Hebdo, 9 February 2023.

____

💬read the interview (in French)

____

► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French): "Souvent envisagée comme un ensemble des processus visant à s’assurer du respect de certaines réglementations et/ou valeurs éthiques par les professionnels, la compliance est aujourd’hui encore mal appréhendée. Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur de droit, spécialisée en droit de la régulation et de la compliance, nous explique en quoi le notariat trouve pourtant toute sa place dans cette démarche."

____

► Questions asked (in French): 

• Quelle conception de la compliance doit-on adopter pour être efficace ? 

• En quoi ces organisations sont-elles clés ?

• Concrètement, puisque ces organisations anciennes se révèlent si adéquates, ont-elles besoin de s’adapter ?

• Ne faudrait-il pas que ces professions se modifient ?

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Instaurer l'insécurité juridique comme principe, outil de prévention des crises systémiques catastrophiques totales" ("Establishing legal uncertainty as a principle and a tool for preventing total catastrophic systemic crises"), in G. Gerqueira, H. Fulchiron et N. Nord (eds.), Insécurité juridique : l'émergence d'une notion ?, Société de législation comparée, coll. "Colloques", vol. 53, 2023, pp. 153-167. 

___

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Papier which is the basis of the conference and this article

____

🎤watch the conference of March 22, 2021 that took place in the Cour de cassation (French Court de cassation) and for which this reflection was globally led

____

► English Summary of the article: "whatever it takes". In 2015, Mario Draghi used this formula to aim for the defence of the European currency, when the Euro was in danger of collapsing under the dance of the speculators who would be enriched by its collapse. Rarely has a formula been more violently political and more strongly prescriptive. It contributed to his being dubbed "Super Mario", as in the video game. The formula was used again in 2020 by the Président de la République Française (President of the French Republic) in the face of the financial turmoil caused by the health crisis that led to similar calculations. It goes beyond the mere "financial cost". With this formula, the President of the European Central Bank stated that the economic crisis in Europe was such that the institution would do everything in its power to put an end to it, without any limits; that all those who, by their behaviour, even supported by their legal prerogatives, in this case the speculators, because they were destroying the economic and financial system, would come up against this and would themselves be swept away by the Central Bank because the latter's mission, in that it is absolutely to safeguard the Euro itself, would prevail "quoi qu'il en coûte" ("whatever the cost"). At one point, the master stood up. If the royal position is the seated position, when he listens and judges, it is by rising that he shows his acceptance of also being the master, because he is in charge of more and will use everything to win.

More broadly, we might consider drawing up a positive concept of legal uncertainty (which is bound to please the Hegelians), increasing legal certainty: this would make it possible to associate a clearer legal regime with the hypotheses of legal uncertainty. Indeed, rather than sweeping Law under the carpet, which explains many of the tensions between the Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council) and the Conseil d'État (Council of State) on the one hand, and the legislator and the government on the other, concerning the "État d'urgence" ("State of emergency"), we could set out the conditions in which legal uncertainty makes it possible to set aside or limit rules.

The idea proposed is therefore that in "extraordinary situations", legal uncertainty would be a dimension, or even a principle which would be admissible. And developing this first point, it is proposed that the hypothesis of an "economic crisis" justifies a dimension, or even a principle of "legal uncertainty". But this first assertion needs to be tested. Is an economic crisis, a concept that needs to be defined, if it is to have such a major reversal effect, such an extraordinary 'situation'? Furthermore, to deal with this extraordinary situation constituted by an 'economic crisis', how much legal uncertainty would be legally acceptable, or even legally claimed? Could we even conceive of a reversal of principle that would bring applicable Law to an economic crisis under the aegis of legal uncertainty? In such a case, the question that then arises is to determine the conditions and criteria for emerging from the economic crisis, or even to determine the elements of perspective of an economic crisis, which could justify in advance the admission of an injection of legal uncertainty. Above all, Law has control over the future.

The economic crisis should therefore be legally defined as an exceptional situation, before stressing that Regulation and Compliance Law, because on the one hand we move from crisis to crisis and on the other hand the whole system aims to avoid and manage the future crisis in advance or to exclude it; this is particularly true of health and climate issues (the way the health crisis was managed was to 'decree' that the State should initiate an economic crisis), which means that legal insecurity is no longer seen as a distant exception, a failure to be combated, but as a lever that can be used to influence the future.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: Ancel, F. & Frison-Roche, M.A., Droit de la compliance ("Compliance Law", French National School for the Judiciary (Ecole nationale de la magistrature - ENM), 

This teaching is given in French.

_____

► Presentation of the Teaching: The two-day session is designed for magistrates and practicing lawyers who are not necessarily specialized, to enable them, based on concrete cases, to understand the issues, objectives, and methods of compliance mechanisms in companies, including the increasing judicialization and the supranational dimension strengthen, modifying the office of the judge and the role of lawyers.

The analysis is made from the angle of Civil Law (contract, tort), Company Law, Labor Law and Criminal Law, but also governance, financial markets, regulatory, climate and digital issues.

____

► Organisation of the Teaching: this teaching is open to all judicial members and lawyers. Enrollments are made at the French National School for the Judiciary.

________

🌐♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance" ("The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p 409-442.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): 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.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conforter le rôle du Juge et de l'Avocat pour imposer la Compliance comme caractéristique de l'État de Droit" ("Reinforce the Judge and the Attorney to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 29-55. 

____

► This article is the introduction of the book.  

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____ 

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): One can understand that the compliance mechanisms are presented with hostility because they seem designed to keep the judge away, whereas there is no Rule of Law without a judge. Solid arguments present compliance techniques as converging towards the uselessness of the judge (I). Certainly, we come across magistrates, and of all kinds, and powerful ones, but that would be a sign of imperfection: its ex-ante logic has been deployed in all its effectiveness, the judge would no longer be required... And the lawyer would disappear so with him...

This perspective of a world without a judge, without a lawyer and ultimately without Law, where algorithms could organize through multiple processes in Ex Ante the obedience of everyone, the "conformity" of all our behaviors with all the regulatory mass that is applicable to us, supposes that this new branch of Law would be defined as the concentration of processes which gives full effectiveness to all the rules, regardless of their content. But supposing that this engineer's dream is even achievable, it is not possible in a democratic and free world to do without judges and lawyers.

Therefore, it is imperative to recognize their contributions to Compliance Law, related and invaluable contributions (II).

First of all, because a pure Ex Ante never existed and even in the time of the Chinese legists, people were still needed to interpret the regulations because a legal order must always be interpreted Ex Post by who must in any case answer the questions posed by the subjects of law, as soon as the political system admits to attributing to them the right to make claims before the Judge. Secondly the Attorney, whose office, although articulated with the Judge's office, is distinct from the latter, both more restricted and broader since he must appear in all cases where the judicial figure puts himself in square, outside the courts. However, Compliance Law has multiplied this since not only, extending Regulatory Law, it entrusts numerous powers to the administrative authorities, but it also transforms companies into judges, in respect of which the attorneys must deal with.

Even more so, Compliance Law only takes its sense from its Monumental Goals. It is in this that this branch of the Law preserves the freedom of human beings, in the digital space where the techniques of compliance protect them from the power of companies by the way that the Compliance Law forces these companies to use their power to protect people. However, firstly, it is the Judges who, in their diversity, impose as a reference the protection of human beings, either as a limit to the power of compliance tools or as their very purpose. Secondly, the Attorney, again distinguishing himself from the Judge, if necessary, reminds us that all the parties whose interests are involved must be taken into consideration. In an ever more flexible, soft, and dialogical Law, everyone presenting himself as the "advocate" of such and such a monumental goal: the Attorney is legitimate to be the first to occupy this place.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Lignes de force de l'ouvrage La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance" ("Main lines of the book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 1-28. 

____

► This article constitutes the first part of the Introduction of the book; its access is free⤵️ 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): This free access article ⤵️explains firstly the general purpose of the book and secondly how the book is structured in 4 parts.

Then, thirdly and following the table of contents, this article takes up in a few lines each of the contributions.

This is how the "main lines" of the book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance ("The Juridictionnalisation of Compliance") become even clearer

____

🔓read this article in full text (in French) ⤵️

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐 subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, 490 p. 

____

► Presentation of this book: Sanctions, controls, appeals, deals: judges and lawyers are everywhere in the Compliance mechanisms, creating unprecedented situations, sometimes without a solution yet available.  Even though Compliance was designed to avoid the judge and produce security by avoiding conflict. This jurisdictionalisation is therefore new. Forcing companies to prosecute and judge, a constrained role, perhaps against their nature. Leading to the adaptation of major procedural principles, with difficulty. Confronting arbitration with new perspectives. Putting the judge at heart, in mechanisms designed so that he is not there. How in practice to organize these opposites and anticipate the solutions? This is the challenge taken up by this book.

____

📘 In parallel, the English version of this book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, is published in the series co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. 

____

🧮 This book comes after a cycle of colloquia organised in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Academic Partners.

____

This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in the collection "Régulations & Compliance", founded and managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

___

🏗️ General construction of this book:

The book begins by a double Introduction, the first (in free access) summarizing the book, the second, substantial, relating to the need to reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose the Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law. 

The first Part is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law. of Compliance: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, even of others.

The second Part relates to Compliance general procedural Law, the procedure being the way between the dispute and the judgement. 

The third Part continues this journey to the judge and aims to measure the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in dispute resolution methods where it was not, with some exceptions, present, but where it has a great future: Arbitration.

Because trial and judicial decision are inseparable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law should not be divided but compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon of their dissociation, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding the latter must not be dissociated, because therefore Compliance mechanisms and the Rule of Law must be thought out and practiced then, the rise in power of one must be the sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the 'weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Part relates to the Judges in the Compliance mechanisms and culture. 

____

► Read in free access the article: M.A. Frison-Roche, "Lignes de force de l'ouvrage La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance" (Lines of Forces of the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance).

____

►Read below the summaries of each contribution of the book⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Droit de la compliance : Tour d'horizon" ("Compliance Law: Overview"), in Droit de la compliance (Compliance Law), French National School for the Judiciary (Ecole nationale de la magistrature - ENM), Paris, 2 February 2023.

This conference is given in French.

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

► Presentation of the conference:

Compliance Law is mysterious in itself, because it is still in creation, because its presence and power are felt, but it is difficult to grasp it. It is necessary, however, because it deals with the most important, even the most dramatic, facts and carries with it the greatest ambitions. Magistrates must also "make the effort" to participate in the "adventure of Compliance Law", because it affects, and even overturns, all subjects, and because the Prosecutor and the Judge play an increasing role in it.

Because the purpose of this conference is to introduce the two days of a training course designed for magistrates and open to lawyers, it only provides an "overview" of, so that we do not get lost in the sprawling regulations, the global mechanisms and the political ambitions that permeate them.

This is why, without going into any of the subjects, it is about opening up four ways of entering what is a branch of Law that is being born before our eyes:

1. Understanding Compliance Law through "regulations"

2. Understanding Compliance Law through "tools"

3. Understanding Compliance Law through "methods"

4. Understanding Compliance Law through "goals"

The four approches are legitimate because the four dimensions are articulated in positive Law.

But the more positive Law is consolidated, the more its normativity through the goals that give normativity, or even a simplicity without which the whole is not humanly controllable.

These Goals are monumental and Europe bears them more and better than other areas of the world.

____

🚧See the slides used as a support of the presentation (in French)

________