May 24, 2024


🎤Synthèse, in 🧮Concurrence : les enjeux de la Compliance

by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

pour lire cette présentation en français ↗️ cliquer sur le drapeau français

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law


► Full ReferenceM.-A. Frison-Roche, "Synthèse" ("Synthesis"), in Concurrence : les enjeux de la Compliance​, May 24, 2024, Paris, Collège européen de Paris, Paris Panthéon-Assas University, 28 rue Saint-Guillaume


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

🌐read the  la newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation on 26 Mai 2024 about this colloquium and this synthesis (in English)


► Summary of this concluding conference:The conference was based on the 'framework document' on conformity programmes published by the French Competition Authority, the Autorité de la concurrence, on 24 May 2022 and focused on one of the tools used, namely risk mapping. The care taken to bring together academics whose job it is to give an account of reality by classifying and naming it, which makes it easier to handle, and people who every day in enterprises find solutions to anticipate difficulties so that they can be resolved, or even prevented from arising, has borne fruit.


From all the presentations and discussions, 4 perspectives emerge, each showing what has been achieved, what may still emerge in interaction with all the other mechanisms in Compliance Law that incorporate risk mapping (for instance ,the French 2016 so-called "Sapin 2" law, the French 2017 so-called "Vigilance" law, the CS3D European directive, etc.) and the other mechanisms that are correlated with risk mapping (audit, internal investigations, evidence likely to be raised before a judge by the enterprise and/or by a stakeholder and what remains uncertain in this 2022 framework document.



The first perspective is the basis of these recommendations, encouragement, methods, advice, etc.

The second perspective is the means developed to establish and implement these compliance programmes.

The third perspective is the scope of this framework document, which also depends to a large extent on the scope of the compliance programmes adopted by the firms themselves.

The fourth perspective is that of the subjects of law who are obliged, or who benefit from the adoption of such  compliance programmes in Competition Law.



During this conclusion, based solely on what each speaker had to say, I continued my reflections in each of these 4 directions.

This reminded me of some of my work made in English on this subject: 





comments are disabled for this article