The recent news

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique" ("Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation"), in Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligation and 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, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► Summary of the conference: 

________

► Full Reference: Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligation and 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, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

► Presentation of the conférence: Sustainability is a new legal concept, the lineaments of which can be found in certain sectors and branches of Law, and which today has both multiple resulting obligations and a definition that is sufficiently unified to allow it to be grasped through the technique and the requirement of the "sustainability report", which translates a requirement linked to the systems themselves. The dual materiality mechanism illustrates this.

The litigation that will ensue shall be imbued with this systemic dimension, since this report was required from this perspective, and the notion of sustainability itself was conceived in the same way. What is commonly referred to as "ESG" reflects this perspective, which is both structural and long-term: Information is central here, since it is a report, anchored in  the new conception of Corporate Law that is imbued with Governance, where internal and external stakeholders are present. The various Supervisors, who go beyond supervising professionals to supervise activities, are also bound to have a role to play in this systemic litigation.

In order to understand and anticipate this, this conference is built around an analysis of the construction of the sustainability report and an analysis of the role of the supervisory authority, the French Audit Authority, the Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A. These analyses are carried out with a view to the systemic litigation that will arise from these new requirements and practices, in correlation with litigation linked to other fields of systemic litigation such as Vigilance field.

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Fith conference-debate

LE RAPPORT DE DURABILITÉ : OBLIGATION ET CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUES ÉMERGENTS

(THE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT: EMERGING SYSTEMIC OBLIGATION AND LITIGATION)

Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom

🕰️11h-11h10. 🎤Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique (Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

➡️read the presentation of this speech

🕰️11h10-11h30. 🎤Comment construire un rapport de durabilité ? (How to build a sustainability report?), by 🕴️Alexis Gazzo, Partner, Climate Change & Sustainability leader, EY France

🕰️11h30-11h50. 🎤Le contrôle (The control), by 🕴️Florence Peybernès, President of the Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A (French High Audit Authority)

🕰️11h50-12h30. 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

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Duty of vigilance: the way forward, Working Paper, December 2023/July 2024.

____

🎤 This working paper has been drawn up to serve as a basis for the conclusions of the colloquium Le devoir de vigilance: l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?") organised by the University of Montpellier on 25 May 2023.

_____

📝 Updated and developed, it serves as the basis for the article that concludes the book Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?"), Editions Bruylant, 2024.

____

► Working Paper summary: 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.

____

🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les deux rencontres entre l'intelligence artificielle et le Contentieux Systémique" ("The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation"), in L’intelligence artificielle, nouveau champ de Contentieux Systémique (Artificial intelligence, new field of Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-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, June 24, 2024, 11am-12.30pm, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► English Summary of the conference: In the general presentation on the theme itself, I underlined "The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation".

The focus of this conference is not the state of what is usually called Artificial Intelligence, but rather how to correlate AI and "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL).

This involves recalling what "Systemic Litigation" is (1), then looking at the contribution of Artificial Intelligence to dealing with this type of litigation (2), before considering that the algorithmic system itself can be a subject of Systemic Litigation (3).

1. What is the Systemic Litigation that we see Emerging?

On the very notion of "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL), proposed in 2021, read : M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021

Emerging Systemic Litigation concerns situations that are brought before the Judge and in which a System is involved. This may involve the banking system, the financial system, the energy system, the digital system, the climate system or the algorithmic system.

In this type of litigation, the interests and future of the system itself are at stake, "in the case". The judge must therefore "take them into consideration"📎!footnote-3679.

In this respect, "Emerging Systemic Litigation" must be distinguished from "Mass Litigation". "Mass litigation" refers to a large number of similar disputes. The fact that they are often of "low importance" is not necessarily decisive, as these disputes are important for the people involved and the use of A.I. must not overpower the specificity of each one. The fact remains, however, that the criterion for Systemic Litigation is the presence of a system. It may happen that a mass litigation calls into question the very interest of a system (for example, value date litigation), but more often than not the Systemic Litigation we see emerging is, unlike mass litigation, a very specific case in which one party, for example, formulates a very specific claim (e.g., asking for considerable work to be stopped) against a multinational company, and will thus "call into question" an entire value chain and the obligations incumbent on the powerful company to safeguard the climate system, which is therefore present in the proceedings (which does not, however, entitle it to make claims, but which must be taken into consideration).

2. The contribution of Algorithmic Power in the conduct of a Systemic Litigation

In this respect, AI can be a useful, if not indispensable, tool for mastering such Systemic Litigation, the emergence of which corresponds to a novelty, and the knowledge of which is brought before the Ordinary Law Judge.

Indeed, this type of litigation is particularly complex and time-consuming, with evidentiary issues at the heart of the case, and with expert appraisal following on from expert appraisal. Expert appraisals are difficult to carry out. AI can therefore be a means for the judge to control the expert dimension of Systemic Litigation, in order to curb the increased risk of experts capturing the judge's decision-making power.

The choice of AI techniques presents the same difficulties as those that have always applied to experts. It is likely that certification mechanisms, analogous to registration on expert lists, will be put in place, if we move away from construction by the courts themselves (or by the government, which may pose a problem for the independence of the judiciary), or if we want control over tools provided by the parties themselves, with regard to the principle of equality of arms due to the cost of these tools.

3. When it is the Algorithmic System itself that is the subject of a Systemic Litigation: its place is then rather in defense

Moreover, the algorithmic system itself gives rise to Systemic Litigation, in that individuals may bring a case before the courts claiming to have suffered damage as a result of the algorithmic system's operation, or seeking enforcement of a contract drawn up by the system. It is in the realm of the Ordinary Contract and Tort Law that the system may find itself involved in the jurisdictional proceedings.

It is noteworthy that, compared with the hypotheses hitherto favored in previous conference-debates, notably those of April 26, 2024 on Emerging Systemic Litigation linked to the Duty of Vigilance📎!footnote-3681, the systems involved have been taken into consideration more behind the claims articulated by the plaintiffs, since they allege that a system has been attacked. It would then be "civil society" acting against the company. In the case of the algorithmic system, the initial litigation is made up of allegations that accuse the system of infringing rights (e.g. copyright, right to privacy, etc.).

However, the instance changes if the system is no longer presented as the potential "victim" but rather as the potential "culprit". In particular, it is much less clear what type of intervener in the proceedings, who is not necessarily a party to the dispute, should speak to explain the system's interest, particularly with regard to the sustainability and future of the AI system.

This is an area for further consideration by heads of courts.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation, March 2024.

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis for the contribution "The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation", in📘Compliance Obligation.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. It emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

In order to define Compliance's Obligation, the contribution endeavours to recognise the contribution of all these three sources: Will, Heart and Calculation. 

_____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

► Full reference:  M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Entreprises et compliance : une justice et des juges plus offensifs" ("Companies and compliance: more aggressive courts and judges"), interview conducted by Jean-Philippe Denis as part of a series of interviews on Compliance Law, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion (Open windows on management), broadcast by J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, recorded December 12, 2023, released on June 14, 2024.

____

🌐consult the December 2023 presentation of the interview on LinkedIn

____

🎥watch the interview video on LinkedIn, with English subtitles

____

🧱consult the general presentation of this series of interviews on Compliance Law

____

► Starting point: Since 2016, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche has been building Compliance Law, notably through a collection co-published in French with Editions Dalloz and co-published in English with Editions Bruylant: 

🧱read the presentation in English of the series in French, Régulations & Compliance ➡️click HERE 

🧱read the presentation of the series in English, Compliance & Regulation ➡️click HERE

____

► Summary of interview:

Jean-Philippe Denis. Question : 

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  Answer. : 

____

J.-Ph D. Q. : Thus

MaFR. A. : Yes, 

____

J.-Ph. D. Q. : Thus

MaFR. A. : Yes, 

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Participation in the panel "Une Gouvernance responsable : vers un mieux vivre ensemble ?" ("Responsible governance: towards a better way of living together"), in Grenelle du Droit 5. L'avenir de la filière juridique, Association française des juristes d'entreprise ("The future of the legal profession"), AFJE), Cercle Montesquieu and Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Campus Port-Royal Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1 rue de la Glacière, 75013 Paris, June 12, 2024

____

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

____

🎥watch the interview made just after this round-table discussion (in French)

____

🪑🪑🪑🪑🪑 will also be taking part in this round-table discussion:

🕴️Yves Garagnon, Chairman of Dilitrust,

🕴️Pierrick Le Goff, lawyer, partner at De Gaulle Fleurance,

🕴️Sabine Lochmann, Chairman of Ascend,

🕴️Vincent Vigneau, President of the Commercial, Economic and Financial Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French Judicial Supreme Court)

____

► English presentation of my intervention in this event's opening plenary  round-table: In this plenary round table which opens the event, devoted to the theme of 'responsible corporate governance', for my interventions based on my work I will have the opportunity to address more particularly these different perspectives:

• How the new Compliance Law, which gives concrete expression to the responsibility of enterprises in a new relationship with States and with civil society, constitutes a 'legal revolution
• 💡for the record, mafr,📝Compliance Law, 2016 ; (ed.) 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

• how the judgment handed down by the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) on 28 February 2023 (Total Ouganda case) is remarkable and already constitutes a turning point in case law
• 💡for the record, mafr, 🎤audition as amica curiae, hearing of 26 October 2022 before the first instance Paris Court; (ed)📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024

• how the relationship between States and enterprises is being renewed by this profound legal movement expressed by Compliance Law
• 💡for the record, mafr et M. Boissavy (ed.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense - Enquêtes internes, CJIP, CRPC, mafr (dir.), 📘 Compliance Obligation, 2025

• how internal lawyers have a decisive and central role to play in this movement, particularly in the mechanism of vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence, the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law,
• 💡for the record, mafr, 📝Contract of Compliance, Compliance stipulations, 2023 ; (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2025

• what is meant by the "Ex Ante responsibility" of enterprises, which does not necessarily entail their Ex Post liability, a distinction which lawyers are the guardians of
• 💡for the record, mafr, 📝La responsabilité Ex Ante, pilier du Droit de la Compliance ("Ex-Ante Responsability, Compliance Law Pillar"), 2021

• how European Compliance Law is profoundly humanist, an identity that distinguishes European Compliance from American Compliance and, above all, from Chinese Compliance.
• 💡for the record, mafr (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance ("For the Europe of the Compliance"), 2017

________

read the  article about this round table written by Delphine Bauer in Actu-Juridique (in French)

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "François Terré. In memoriam", D. 2024, p. 1028

____

🌞read the in memoriam published in the Recueil Dalloz on June 6, 2024 (in French)

________