The recent news

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Naissance d'une branche du Droit : le Droit de la Compliance" ("Birth of a branch of Law: Compliance Law"), in Mélanges offerts à Louis Vogel. La vie du droit, LexisNexis - Dalloz - LawLex - LGDJ, 2024, pp.177-188.

____

📝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:  The study focuses on the various movements that have given rise to Compliance Law, with particular emphasis on Competition Law.

After a preliminary reflection on the construction of the legal system into branches of Law, their classification in relation to each other, the difficulty encountered in this respect by Economic Law, and the various movements that give rise to one of them, the diversity of which the branch subsequently keeps track of, the study is constructed in 4 parts.

To find out what gave rise to Compliance Law, the first part invites everyone to reject the narrow perspective of a definition that is content to define it by the fact of "complying" with the applicable regulations in the sens to obey them automatically. This has the effect of increasing the effectiveness of the regulations, but it does not produce a branch of Law, being only an efficiency tool like any other.

The second part of the study aims to shed light on what appears to be an "enigma", because it is often claimed that this is the result of a flexible method through the "soft law", or of an American regulation (for instance FCPA), or of as many regulations as there are occasions to make. Instead, it appears that in the United States, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent another atrocious collapse of the system, while in Europe, in 1978, in memory of the use of files about Jews, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent an atrocious attack on human rights. A common element that aims for the future ("never again"), but not the same object of preventive rejection. This difference between the two births explains the uniqueness and diversity of the two Compliance Law, the tensions that can exist between the two, and the impossibility of obtaining a global Compliance Law.

The third part analyses the way in which Competition Law has given rise to conformity mechanisms: they had only constituted a secondary branch which is a guarantee of conformity with competition regulations. Developed in particular through the soft law issued by the competition authorities, the result is a kind of "soft obedience", a well-understood collaboration of a procedural type through which the company educates, monitors and even sanctions, without going outside Competition Law, of which compliance  (in the sens of conformity) is the appendix. The distance between a conformity culture and Compliance Law can be measured here.

The fourth part aims to show that Competition Law and Compliance Law are two autonomous and articulated branches of Law. Since Compliance Law is a autonomous and strong branch of Law built around Monumental Goals, in particular the sustainability of systems and the preservation of the human beings involved so that they are not crushed by these systems  but benefit from them : the current challenge of European integration is to build the pillar of Compliance Law alongside the competitive pillar. Jurisdictions are in the process of doing this and articulating them.

________

🌐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, "Les droits de la défense sont au bénéfice de tout le monde, y compris de l’entreprise elle-même" (The rights of defence benefit everyone, including the company itself), interview by Chloé Lassel, in Guide Compliance Fraudes Investigations, edition 2024, ed. Décideurs, Oct. 2024, pp.

____

💬read the interview (in French)

🌐its  présentation on LinkedIn (in French)

____

► Presentation of this interview by Décideurs juridiques : "Directrice du Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et fondatrice de l’École européenne de droit de la régulation et de la compliance, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche revient sur la révolution du droit de la compliance, son articulation avec les enquêtes internes et les droits de la défense, la place que vont y prendre les contrats et l’arbitrage international." ("Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and founder of the European School of Regulatory and Compliance Law, looks back at the revolution in Compliance Law, its relationship with internal investigations and the rights of the defence, and the role that contracts and international arbitration will play in it.

____

► Questions asked, Answers given: 

Décideurs. Question : La compliance est au cœur des préoccupations des entreprises depuis plusieurs années. Pouvez-vous expliquer ce que c’est exactement ? (Compliance has been a key concern for companies for several years. Can you explain what it is exactly?)

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. English summary Answer: 'Compliance' should not be confused with 'Compliance', which I defined in 2016. Compliance Law is an extension of Regulatory Law, by freeing the latter from the existence of a sector as a prerequisite and a regulatory authority as an indicator. Internalised in the company, it manifests itself, for example, in Vigilance mechanisms, which are its cutting edge. Through Compliance, the political authority asks companies to help it achieve "Monumental Goals", as I have suggested, standards in which this new branch of Law is anchored (anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, sustainability, etc.).

D. Q. : Les entreprises doivent désormais être enquêtrices et juges de ce qu’il leur arrive. Voire transmettre aux autorités, lorsqu’il le faut, des informations pouvant les incriminer. Comment concilier ces obligations avec les droits de la défense ? (Companies must now be investigators and judges of what happens to them. When necessary, they can even pass on incriminating information to the authorities. How do you reconcile these obligations with the rights of the defence?)

MaFR. English summary A.: In 2023, I proposed this expression of companies as "prosecutors and judges of themselves", and the place that this should give to the rights of the defence, and in 2024 I will work out the right balance between internal investigations and the rights of the defence. For the moment, this balance has not been achieved.

D. Q. : Dans l’un de vos ouvrages, François Ancel, conseiller à la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation, écrit que la compliance renouvelle l’office du juge. Comment concilier cette idée avec l’office habituel du juge qui est celui de se prononcer sur des faits avérés et non pas futurs ? (In one of your books, François Ancel, judge in the First Civil Chamber of the French Court of Cassation, writes that Compliance is renewing the role of the judge. How do you reconcile this idea with the judge's usual role, which is to rule on proven facts rather than future ones?)

MaFR. English summary A.: Indeed, In this book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance (Compliance Jurisdictionalisation), he stresses that the role of the civil and commercial courts is being profoundly renewed, in particular because they must deal with what I described in 2021 as "Systemic Litigation" and must rule on the future. From then on, the ordinary courts will take centre stage.

D. Q. : Le recours aux clauses de compliance est-il une solution pour être à la hauteur des ambitions de la compliance et de ses exigences ? (Is the use of compliance clauses a solution for living up to the ambitions and requirements of compliance?)

MaFR. English summary A.: Indeed, in 2022, I developed the concepts of 'Compliance Contract' and 'Compliance clauses', by which companies implement their legal compliance obligations. This gives rise to Regulatory Contracts, particularly in business chains. This gives a great deal of leeway and power, but also Responsibility, to the companies that invent them.

D. Q. : Le recours aux arbitrages doit-il être privilégié ? (D. Q. Should recourse to arbitration be preferred?)

MaFR. English summary A.: It has to be. Because there is a contract. Even though Compliance is closely bound up with the legal obligations and public order, and possibly international public order. Even if this is not yet apparent, Compliance and International Arbitration are natural allies.

________

🌐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.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb/Overhang

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Articulation Droit de la Compliance (RGPD) et Droit commun : illustration par la décision de la CJUE du 4 octobre 2024, ND c/ DR, document de travail, octobre 2024.

____

🎤 Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base tout d'abord :

à la vidéo Surplomb👁 du 20 octobre 2024  : cliquer ICI

____

🎬🎬🎬Dans la collection des Surplomb👁 Il s'insère dans la catégorie des  Actualités.

►Voir la collection complète des Surplombs👁 : cliquer ICI

____

► Résumé du document de travail : 

Sur question préjudicielle, la décision ND c/ DR de la CJUE du 4 octobre 2024 articule le Droit de la concurrence déloyale et protection des données, qui croise la vente de médicaments sur Internet.... Un pharmacien prend des informations personnelles sur la santé des acheteurs, un concurrent se plaint d'une violation du RGPD qui constitue un détournement de clientèle.  Le RGPD n'ouvre pas une telle action. Ne la ferme pas non plus.

Bien que la protection des données soit assurée par des organes nationaux spéciaux et qu'il s'agit de protéger des droits spécifiques des personnes protégées, la Cour pose qu'un tiers peut se baser sur un tel comportement pour se situer sur le droit commun pour s'en plaindre, en tant qu'il est concurrent et qu'il peut alléguer que cela constitue un acte de concurrence déloyale.

Pour affirmer cela, Cour souligne qu'en premier lieu le RGPD ne confère pas de compétence exclusive et que d'autre part la convergence des actions renforce le Droit de l'Union car le RGPD vise aussi le flux des données, principe de liberté que protège aussi le droit de la concurrence déloyale, qui s'applique selon les conditions du droit (faute qualité, dommage, causalité).

____

🔓lire les développements ci-dessous⤵️

► 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.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang/Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Monumental Goals, normative anchoring of Compliance, Working Paper, February 2025.

____

🎬This working document has been drawn up to serve as basis to

the video Overhang👁 of  the 1st February 2025: click HERE

____

🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the Notions category.

►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE

____

► Summary of this  Working Paper: Compliance, of which conformity is only one instrument (the 2 should not be confused), must be understood through the ‘Monumental Goals’ : political ambitions pursued by the public authorities and internalised in the entities in a position to achieve them, i.e. large companies.

These Goals are Monumental in that they concern systems: ensuring that these systems do not collapse in the future = ‘Negative Monumental Goals’ (e.g. fight against corruption, against climate change); more ambitious still, they may aim to improve systems = ‘Positive Monumental Goals’ (e.g. effective equality between women and men).

Their systemic nature gives rise to Systemic Litigation.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️