♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Participation à la Table ronde "Normes de Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises (RSE & Devoir de Vigilance)" (Participation in the Round Table "Corporate Social Responsibility Standards (CSR & Duty of Vigilance)"), in Fribourg University, Journée du Droit, Fribourg University, Pérolles site, room C230, October 2, 2023.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

🎥​watch the video of this event (in French)

____

🌐read the report written in French with photos, tags and links on LinkedIn and also with links to each the speech

____

► General presentation of the event : This conference, build around 4 presentations and a debate between the speakers and then with the audience, aimed at explaining and understanding this fundamental movement and the new texts that express it in Switzerland, even if it is French law, such as the so-called 'Vigilance' law of 2017 and the draft European CS3D directive, because on the one hand it is a movement that begins with legal technique and on the other hand the texts in question are extraterritorial in scope, if only because of the notion of 'value chain'. In the first part of this round table, and to set the scene, I will outline the origin and content of the French 'Vigilance' law, the way in which the draft directive draws heavily on it, its relationship with Compliance Law, of which it constitutes the 'advanced point', and the decisive role it gives to the courts, in the general movement of the jurisdictionalisation of compliance. The purpose of this is to allow the discussion to get underway.

🕴️Idris Abdelkhalek, PhD candidate and lawyer, introduced the speakers and led the debate between them and the audience. He took questions from the audience on the intensity of the obligation weighing on companies, in particular between civil liability and criminal liability, between the obligation of means and the obligation of result, and on the way in which the duty of vigilance is applied to specific sectors such as defence.

____

► Presentation of my speech : the subject of which was Presentation of French Vigilance law, European perspective and European Compliance System. My presentation was divided into four points. Firstly, I outlined the state of Law in France, in the novelty represented by the 2017 law known as the "Vigilance" law, whose principles are simple and strong, principles that are situated in the aims pursued, and the way in which this law inspires what is currently being negotiated: the CS3D Directive.

Secondly, I stressed the need for companies to master these often technically complicated corpus, especially if we take into account the link between Vigilance and the CSRD directive on sustainability reporting and extra-financial information. 

Thirdly, I have shown that an overall understanding can nevertheless be achieved, and that the technical nature of the 'tools' is better mastered if we place the duty of vigilance within Compliance Law, of which it constitutes the 'advanced point'. All of this anchors its legal normativity in the 'Monumental Goals' it serves, which in Europe are humanistic, since the aim is to protect, now but above all in the future because it is a branch of ex ante Law, the human beings involved in the systems (banking, finance, energy, digital, climate, etc.).

Fourthly, I emphasised that this understanding enables everyone to play their part: political and public authorities, businesses and stakeholders. Even more, and at the heart of the matter, the judge plays an essential role, even in countries with so-called 'continental' Law. I have used current cases as examples. This is just the beginning, and judges need to train, specialise and work in dialogue to achieve this.

____

► Presentation of the other speakers contributions :

🕴️Marion Paradas, Ambassador of France to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, opened the conference and gave a general presentation of the theme. Ambassador Marion Paradas presented the international challenge represented by Law, illustrated here by the duty of vigilance. She emphasised that this is a major issue, both now and in the future, for Swiss companies and French companies based in Switzerland, particularly as this duty extends throughout the "value chain" and in view of the CS3D directive, which will also have consequences for both.

🕴️Isabelle Chabloz Waidacher, Professor at the Faculty of Law in Fribourg and holder of the Chair of Economic Law at the University of Fribourg, gave a Presentation of Swiss Law. In particular, she emphasised the state of Swiss Law, which could have gone further than the 2017 French law known as the "Vigilance" law if the popular initiative reference had led to the adoption of a law, and which currently focuses more on information and transparency obligations, with CSR taking over from there. But she stresses that the reality of value chains will force Swiss companies to take into account the requirements of the European directive currently being adopted.

🕴️Renaud Roussel, Managing Director of Colas Switzerland, presented an entrepreneurial view of the subject. He began by outlining the concrete steps taken by his industrial group in Switzerland and around the world to implement its commitments to protect the environment, for example by ensuring the proper use of materials used in road construction. He also stressed the importance of human rights, particularly in labour relations, in the context of CSR and vigilance. He went on to point out that it was not always easy for a large company to meet its own requirements, or the requirements imposed on it by the law, because in the construction and public works sector in particular it is often small companies that are competing, competitors who do not bear the costs of such obligations.

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conclusion", in Club des avocats environnementalistes, L’eau : entre protection de la ressource et conflits d’usage, Maison des Avocats, Auditorium, September 28, 2023.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

________

♾️suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation par le Droit de la Compliance : fixer les buts et superviser les moyens", in XXIV Jornadas Internacionales de Derecho Administrativo (XXIVièmes Journées internationales de Droit administratif), Université Externado de Colombie, Bogota, 31 août 2023.

____

🧮consulter le programme complet cette manifestation

Présentation de la conférence :  Dans le temps imparti, il n'est pas discuté de la façon dont les États se transforment pour devenir des "États Régulateurs" : cela est exposé dans d'autres contributions. Il est donc ici pris pour acquis que les Etats sont "Régulateurs" à la fois dans leur conception même (c'est-à-dire qu'ils accompagnent l'économie de marché pour l'infléchir en s'appuyant sur elle) et dans des techniques nouvelles, notamment la mise en place des Autorités de Régulation. C'est ainsi que naît une branche spéciale du Droit : le Droit de la Régulation. Celui-ci demeure encore ancré dans le Droit administratif à beaucoup d'égard (cela non plus n'est pas discuté ici).

En quelque sorte, la présente contribution porte sur l'étape suivante, qui consiste au développement de cette sorte d'étape qu'est l'Etat Régulateur, qu'exprime le Droit de la Régulation, dans le Droit de la Compliance. Il convient de conserver ce terme américain de "compliance", malgré toutes ses ambiguïtés, parce que l'instant on n'en a pas trouvé d'autres ...

La conférence est bâtie en dix points, succinctement développés dans le document de travail sous-jacent.

____

🚧Lire le document de travail sous-jacent à la conférence.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation in the panel "Vigilance (due diligence)", in International Law Association (ILA), 150th Anniversary Symposium of the ILA/ADI, Paris, 19 June 2023.

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et droit processuel" ("Compliance and Procedural Law"), in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche and J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (Compliance : obligation, duty, power, culture), University Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 14 June 2023.

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

🎤see the other speech made during the first day of this symposium : "L'obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut" ("Compliance Obligation, between will and consent: obligation on obligation works")  

____

► Summary of the conference: After referring to the chapter in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, which deals more specifically with Procedural Law!footnote-2987, the conference is built around 5 developments, each of which represents a progression.

The first development relates to the fact that the relationship between Compliance Law and Procedural Law is very difficult because it is often said that they simply have nothing to do with each other, or that they have everything to dislike each other. This is because Compliance is often reduced to processes, and to the mechanical place that algorithms could take in it, in taking care of everything.

Compliance would even have the purpose and effect of ensuring that the company and its managers never come into contact with a judge, the public prosecutor being their best ally in this respect.

Secondly, I recalled the very common idea that Procedural Law is a kind of 'tribute' that the rule of Law demands, which certainly weighs down companies when compared with companies living in systems in which there's not not such a price.

But many stress that Procedural Law could become a model. This can be justified and technically anticipated because it has already happened in Regulation Law, and Compliance Law is the deployment of it!footnote-2988.

In the third stage, I worked on the alliance between the two, with the procedure (rather than the process) modifying compliance and thereby reinforcing it, evoking the way in which this can manifest itself technically!footnote-2989.

In the fourth step, I looked for what would be the "naturally appropriate procedure" for Compliance: one that takes into account the duration and the development of "solutions", to which the notion of "sustainability", which is central in the substantive Law of Compliance, refers.

In a fifth stage, and devoting more time to this, I have pointed out where innovation should be the strongest: the proof, the probatory obligation being the "part totale" ("total part") of the compliance obligation. This major issue will be the subject of a series of symposiums held in 2024.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'esprit des Lois en matière de vigilance" ("Spirit of Law in Vigilance (Due Diligences) matters"), in Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes (H3C), Réalités et défis de la CSRD - Perspectives du devoir de vigilance, Paris, 14 June 2023.

____

🎥watch the video of a part of the speech (in French)

____

🧱read the description of the speeches of other speakers of this panel (in French)

____ 

The speech took place during the third-round table devoted to the Perspectives du devoir de vigilance (Perspectives of the duty of vigilance), the first round table having been devoted to the lessons that the DPEF can provide for the CSRD, and the second to the transposition work of the CSRD.

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

____

► English summary of the speech: In consideration of and in addition to what has been said, explained and even affirmed by other speakers, I have emphasised that 'vigilance" laws is not a 'regulation' like any other, but the leading edge of a very vast movement, Compliance Law, in which the 2017 French law is the driving force. For its application, the Judge, who is at the centre because of the will of the Legislator, is already taking into consideration the CS3D, the twin text of the CSRD.

The texts must not be seen in isolation. If we isolate them from each other, they become almost incomprehensible, their meaning appearing uncertain, even threatening: we need to understand the spirit of these texts, which are indeed new, because they aim to provide answers to the new world we have entered. We must all rejoice in this political ambition, which is taking a legal form, and work to make it efficient: Legislators, companies, auditors, Regulators and Judges.

If we do not stop at the letter, which would be to reduce Compliance to conformity, whereas Compliance Law, particularly Vigilance, is the extension of Regulation, finds its meaning in the Goals, we see that the French law of 2017, known as the "Vigilance law", which copies all the techniques of the French law known as "Sapin 2", gives goals simple to understand to the companies subject to the Legislator's will: detect and prevent environmental and human rights abuses in the value chains.

The logic is therefore Ex-Ante.

This Ex-Ante logic is retained by the CS3D directive.

The Judge is central to it. But the responsibility which the NGOs will ask him to trigger is itself an "Ex Ante responsibility", the Compliance trials being like "accountability" trials, to ensure that companies act in accordance with the Goals set by the Legislator.

This is transforming the role of the Judge, who must find effective solutions for the future. The discussion and the adversarial principle will become more important. Mediation will be encouraged. Stakeholders and the company will have to work together, and this method, which was intended by the Legislator for drawing up the vigilance plan, will be continued in the supporting legal proceedings.

This will also transform the company, and the role played by those who accredit the information on the company's actions and long-term strategies: auditors therefore have a central role to play.

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut", in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche et J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Université Paris Panthéon-Assas, Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture, Université Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 13 juin 2023.

____

🎤consulter la présentation de l'autre conférence faite lors de la seconde journée de ce colloque : "Compliance et Droit processuel"

____

🧮Consulter le programme de cette manifestation

____

► Présentation de la conférence : Le Droit des contrats noue le "consentement" et la "volonté", puisque le consentement est ce qui manifeste la volonté d'une personne, en marque la liberté et l'engagement, en constitue la trace et la preuve. En 1995, j'ai montré que le Droit économique avait distingué le consentement et la volonté, pour rendre les consentements autonomes et en faire des marchés, notamment dans le Droit de la concurrence et le Droit financier📎!footnote-2980. Or, le consentement si on le transporte en objet, autonome, devient le signe d'une obéissance mécanique, ce qui produit des effets dont le système juridique, si l'on est dans un système libéral et démocratique, doit tenir compte d'une façon centrale. Le Droit économique lui-même doit mettre cela au centre, ce qu'il ne fait guère, notamment par la distinction, néfaste, des branches du Droit.

Puis en rendant hommage à Pierre Godé qui avait fait sa thèse sur la volonté📎!footnote-2982, j'ai montré en 2018 que les "consentements mécaniques" étaient la base de beaucoup d'industries dans l'espace numérique📎!footnote-2981.  Les Autorités publiques de supervision et de régulation mis en place en matière de Compliance, par exemple en France la CNIL, ont eu pour mission et pour jurisprudence de sauvegarder ce lien entre le consentement et la volonté.

Mais la difficulté à comprendre le système général du Droit de la Compliance vient de la confusion souvent faite entre celui-ci et ce qui n'est qu'un de ses outils : la conformité. Or, la conformité est l'obligation pour un sujet de droit, certaines entreprises de donner à voir en Ex Ante qu'elles obéissent activement à la réglementation qui leur est applicable. J'ai montré en 2016📎!footnote-2983 que le Droit de la Compliance ne doit pas se définir par l'obéissance mécanique mais comme la compréhension de la Volonté du Législateur qui vise des Buts, l'entreprise contribuant à la concrétisation de ceux-ci.

Les entreprise qui sont sujets du Droit de la Compliance ne sont alors pas toutes les entreprises, ni celles qui seraient "coupables" par avance, mais celles qui "sont en position" d'atteindre les buts : les "entreprises cruciales", notion que j'ai proposée en 2006📎!footnote-2984. C'est donc dans une perspective systémique et en Ex Ante que le Droit de la Compliance se développe, le Droit de la Compliance étant le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation, comme je l'ai montré en 2017📎!footnote-2985.

Il demeure que les entreprises, qui entrent dans le commerce juridique par leur personnalité juridique, peuvent elles-aussi exprimer leur volonté et non pas seulement consentir. Elles le font non seulement dans la mise en œuvre, ce que la Volonté du Législateur leur demande, mais encore en édictant des Buts, là où se loge la normativité du Droit de la Compliance. 

C'est là où l'on doit affirmer dans un nouvel adage : Obligation sur Obligation vaut.

En effet, si l'entreprise exerce sa puissance juridique non seulement sa capacité à obéir (consentement), ce qui est une puissance faible, mais encore en exerçant leur puissance pour l'effectivité, l'efficacité et l'efficience des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance, les systèmes et les êtres humains qui y sont impliquées en sont les bénéficiaires.

C'est pourquoi dans une conception générale du "pouvoir" que j'ai dessinée pour rendre hommage à Emmanuel Gaillard qui avait consacré sa thèse à cette notion📎!footnote-2986, l'entreprise déploie sa volonté libre et autonome, le consentement, y compris celui des tiers qui dépendent d'elles, convergeant vers la concrétisation des buts. Le contrat devient l'outil premier. 

Le sujet premier devient alors en théorie et en pratique l'articulation entre la Volonté du Législateur (la "réglementation" applicable) et la Volonté des entreprises cruciales. Ce point sera particulièrement développé lors de la conférence. 

La dimension probatoire de la question sera plutôt développée le lendemain dans la conférence qui, dans le cadre de ce cycle portant sur L'Obligation de Compliance, portera sur Compliance et Droit processuel.

_____________________________

La conférence est construite en trois temps :

III. OBLIGATION SUR OBLIGATION VAUT

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Le rôle du Juge dans le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation en Droit de la Compliance (The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law in Compliance Law), in Conseil d'État (French Administrative Supreme Court) and Cour de cassation (French Judiciaire Supreme Court of cassation), De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ? ("From Regulatory to Compliance : what role for the judge?"), speech constituting the "closing session" of the bi-annual joint symposium of the two High Courts, held at the Conseil d'Etat, Salle d'Assemblée générale, 2 June 2023.

The event was held in French.

____

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

____

🎥watch the interview given about the conclusion, done after the speech (in French)

____

🧮read the general programme of the manifestation (in French)

____

📚read the bibliographical dossier du participant. (participant's file made in French)

___

🎥watch the general introductory speechs of Didier-Roland Tabuteau, Vice-Président du Conseil d'Etat, de Christophe Soulard, Premier Président de la Cour de cassation, and of François Molins, Procureur général près la Cour de cassation ;  and the interventions in the first session devoted to the path from the Regulatory to the Compliance with Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, présidente de l'AMF, Jean-Yves Ollier, conseiller d'Etat, Daniel Calleja-Crespo, directeur général du service juridique de la Commission européenne andChristine Guegen, , première avocate générale de la chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation

____

🎥watch the speechs in the second session devoted to the office of the judge with  Vincent Vigneau, président de la chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation, François Ancel, conseiller à la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassatin, Astrid Mignon-Colombet, avocate à la Cour, Lucien Rapp, professeur à Toulouse-Capitol and Alain Seban, conseiller d'Etat ; the speechs of the third session dedicated to the Compliance new frontiers, with Christophe Chantepy, président de la section du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, Roch-Olivier Maistre, président de l'Arcom, Paul Nihoul, juge au Tribunal de l'Union européenne, Jean-François Bohnert, procureur de la République financier, Joëlle Tolédano, professeure émérite à Dauphine ; the final session with Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

____

🎥watch this final speech by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, which formed the closing session of the event

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper used as basis for the article to be published later

____

💬read the interview given by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Alain Seban after the colloquia and entitled "Compliance : les cours suprêmes s’emparent de la question de ses enjeux juridictionnels" ("Compliance : the Supreme Courts take up the issue of its jurisdictional implications")

____

► English presentation of this general conclusion: Having a definition of Compliance Law in mind, a definition around which there still seems to be so much dispute, is not required to understand that this Law is what will enable us to enter and deal with a new world and if this subject is so fascinating to young people who want to become lawyers, prosecutors, regulators or judges, even though they are not taught this subject, it is because they have understood that with Compliance Law they will be able to actively participate in this new world and build it. This is the way we want it to take it, with force and courage in a sort of collective adventure. In this way, the Judges have a monumental role to play, which is at the very heart of Compliance Law.

They will necessarily be so because demands and claims will converge on them from all sides, from Internet users, consumers, investors, associations and companies, and the Judge will have to respond. This has already started and is only just beginning. Judges must be prepared.

Four expectations are emerging as to what their role should be.

Firstly, judges must persist in their role as guardians of the Rule of Law, in a Compliance Law impregnated with technologies (algorithms) that could be described as insensitive.

Secondly, beyond this vital role as guardian of the Rule of Law, the Judge has a new role in the extraordinary deployment of Compliance Law, which is measured in terms of the novelty of the normative control it exercises, the commitments it supports, the remedies it finds and the sustainability it reinforces.

Thirdly, in the natural space of justice, the judge responds to parties who make claims of compliance, both as plaintiff and defendant, because the causes of compliance are systemic causes that deserve a new jurisdictional treatment.

Fourthly, given the novelty and scope of this innovative approach, all judges must converge in terms of content, qualifications, and methods if they are both to continue their traditional role as guardians of the Rule of Law and to be able to endure their new role, a dialogue in which they have so much to contribute to each other.

________

♾️ flollow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conclusions", in Ch. Maubernard et A. Brès (dir.), Institut de droit européen des droits de l'homme et Centre de droit de l'entreprise, Université de Montpellier, Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité?("The Entreprises duty of vigilance: the maturity age?") , Montpellier, May 25, 2023.

The conference is held in French.

____

🧮see the manifestation programme (in French)

___

🌐 read the report done on LinkedIn (in French)

___

► English summary of this final speech of the manifestation: It is rather difficult to draw a conclusion after listening so many contributions. For three reasons: firstly, because of their richness and extreme diversity; secondly, because of the fact that we do not know whether the duty of vigilance is under the French law of 2017 (known as the Vigilance Law) or in other national, European and international texts or beyond or below the legal rules; thirdly, because we do not know what is meant by the "maturity" of a legal concept. But in the end, since the question posed by the title itself of the colloquium is Duty of Vigilance: the age of maturity? the answer is clearly: no.

But this is regrettable. It is therefore essential to explore the ways in which the duty of vigilance can mature.  If we find merit in this duty which has now entered the legal system, there are eight intersecting avenues, which must be exploited.

The first path is progression through the passage of time, rediscovering what in the past was already vigilance and what in the future will be its deployment.

The second way is to progress by fixing the vocabulary, because we are witnessing a great battle of words, overtly or covertly, in French or English.

The third path is progression through the emergence of principles, or even a principle, rediscovered or invented.

The fourth path is progression through coherence brought to the legal system(s), which at present suffer from gaps and inconsistencies, which could be remedied by methods such as centralising litigation or, more radically, ignoring borders.

The fifth path is progression through the fact that it works, because vigilance techniques are those of Compliance, of which vigilance is the leading edge, and the challenge is to find solutions.

The sixth path is progression through using power of the legal system not only to create new areas of relevance - starting with the notion of vigilance, but also that of the value chain - but also to impose new indifferences, namely indifference to the figure of the market (to which laws prefer the company and the value chain) and indifference to borders.

The seventh path is progression through bringing perspectives closer together, in order to find solutions even when interests are opposed. This is where the two techniques of contract and mediation are very welcome.

The eighth path is progression through culture, because the culture of vigilance, like the culture of compliance, must be developed within companies and supply chains, and must become common to them and their stakeholders.

____

🚧read the Working Paper written just after this oral conclusion in preparation for the article to be published.

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, synthèses de chacune des 8 tables-rondes et synthèse finale, in Conseil National des Barreaux (CNB), L'avocat et les droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée, Paris, 20 et 21 avril 2023.

____

🧮Consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation

🧮Retrouver le programme dans lequel les vidéos sont insérées

📕Consulter une première présentation de l'ouvrage dirigé par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche et Matthieu Boissavy.

____

Dans la journée du 20 avril 2023

consacrée plus particulièrement aux enquêtes internes

🎥regarder le film de la première session, ayant pour thème : Des avocats dans les enquêtes internes : pourquoi, avec qui et avec quels outils ? cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la deuxième session, ayant pour thème : Quels droits de la défense et quelle déontologie de l'avocat dans une enquête interne ? cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la troisième session, ayant pour thème : Les enquêtes internes en  matière sociale :  cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la quatrième session, ayant pour thème : Les enquêtes internes dans la lutte anti-corruption et pour le respect du devoir de vigilance :  cliquer ICI (la synthèse porta à la fois sur cette 4ième session et sur l'ensemble de la journée)

________

Dans la journée du 21 avril 2023

consacrée plus particulièrement à la CJIP et à la CRPC

🎥regarder le film de la première session, ayant pour thème : Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la deuxième session, ayant pour thème : Le rôle du juge, du procureur, du justiciable et de l'avocat dans une CRPC et une CJIP cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la troisième session, ayant pour thème : Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : enjeux, défis et perspectives cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la quatrième session, ayant pour thème : Analyse comparative internationale de la justice négociée et prospective cliquer ICI

____

🎥regarder le film de la troisième session, ayant pour thème : Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : enjeux, défis et perspectives cliquer ICI

____

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation à la Table-Ronde sur La dynamique du Droit de la compliance, avec Clara Ingen-Housz, chief ethics and compliance officer, antitrust group legal counsel Saint-Gobain, et Hervé Guyader, avocat à la Cour et responsable de la commission Commerce international de l'Ordre des avocats du Barreau de Paris, Maison du barreau, 13 avril 2023.

____

consulter le programme.

____

présentation de l'intervention : 

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Propos introductifs : Les buts monumentaux de la vigilance" (Introductory remarks: The Monumental Goals of Vigilance), in La société vigilante ("The Vigilant Company"), Aix-Marseille University, Institut de Droit des Affaires, March 24, 2023.

____

This conference is done in French; read its English Summary below⤵️

🧮see the complete program of the manifestation (in French)

____

► English Summary of the conference: "Vigilance" is intriguing because, although it occurs in many branches of Law and is familiar in "banking compliance", in a form that is moreover reinforced since it is an obligation of vigilance on the part of the banker about a client whom he/she should "know", it is the "duty of vigilance" that made this notion famous. One could almost say scandalously famous because of a French law of 2017 that now bears its name, called the "Vigilance Law", whereas other laws bear the name of the minister who thought of it, which due diligence (vocabulary used for the European directive) does not erase.  

The current challenge is to take the right measure of what "vigilance" is.

Vigilance goes beyond the French Loi Vigilance, which is not enough to express what it is in its few dispositions. To say what it is in the legal system, to use it in practice, to propose the intellectuel legal exercice of qualification, Vigilance must be thought of in Compliance Law, of which it is both a "Tool" and the most advanced point, as shown by the European Directive, whose discussions during its elaboration show these design issues.

Thus, like the whole of Compliance Law, Vigilance is understood, deployed, analysed and exercised through what underpins and gives meaning to all these constantly changing regulations, powers, and obligations, through Compliance Monumental Goals which give it stability and simplicity. This is the least that can be done in a mechanism that has the ambition to organise the "sustainability" of economic relations.

But while Vigilance expresses and concretizes Compliance Monumental Goals, it must not go beyond measure.

In fact, to set up structures, use tools and behave in such a way that human rights and nature are effectively and extraterritorially protected, both negatively and positively, these obligations of the company, which is the natural subject of the "duty", more generally the natural subject of Compliance Law, see its legal powers increased, these means being required for the company to fulfil its new obligations, first legal, then contractual, soon to be unilaterally formulated.

Perhaps we should conceive of a "vigilant company" and not just a company that, beyond and through its economic activity, cares for others and the world, but a company that "watches over" everything and on everything would be to go beyond the measure, to make companies the "regents" of the world and the people who live in it.

Faced with this perspective to be excluded, the construction of a Europe of Compliance, which does not be reduced to corruption fighting or environment protection, and draws on its humanist tradition, distinguishing itself in this respect from the American and Chinese compliance systems, is the major challenge. 

Companies are not the alpha and omega, but they are one of the elements of an Alliance between the political Authorities and the population, its link, the one that allows us to escape from the limit of the territory, in what we call by this inadequate term of "extraterritoriality". It is rather a question of going beyond territories, required by the Compliance Monumental Goals of Compliance, of which Vigilance is the advanced point.

____

🚧read the English Working Paper, basis of this conference: "Vigilance, Compliance Monumental Goals, and "Vigilant Company""

____

📈see the slides created for this conference (in French)

____

📝read the article published after this conference

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "synthèse", in I. Grossi (dir.), La société vigilante, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Institut de Droit des Affaires, 24 mars 2023.

____

► lire la présentation de l'introduction du colloque, également opérée : "Les buts monumentaux de la vigilance"

____

🧮Consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation

____

Cette réflexion finale a servi de base à un article ; La vigilance, pièce du puzzle européen. Lire le document de travail sous-jacent.

____

► Présentation de la synthèse : La synthèse du colloque a été réalisée sur le vif, à partir des notes prises au fur et à mesure du déroulement de la journée. L'écoute des uns et des autres a fait ressortir 4 points qu'il aurait été difficile d'isoler dans une partie du droit positif, parce qu'il a été manifeste que les propos ont porté parfois sur la Compliance, parfois sure l'obligation de vigilance, parfois sur le devoir de vigilance et le plus souvent sur la loi du 27 mars 2017, laquelle a donc servi de porte d'entrée à l'ensemble des réflexions. Mais elle n'a été qu'une porte d'entrée.

Le premier point est justement l'impression d'une ampleur de tantôt de "gloire" et tantôt d'"indignité" qui ont été déversées sur cette loi Vigilance. Les intervenants ont donc fortement divergé.

Le deuxième point est l'impression à l'inverse générale et commune, pour que les orateurs s'en félicitent, s'en inquiètent, s'en réjouissent ou s'en effondrent, d'un grand mouvement auquel nous assistons et que la Vigilance traduit ou/et porte.

Le troisième point est la multiplicité des branches du Droit qui sont utilisées ou touchées, là encore qu'on s'en réjouisse ou pas, et la nécessité de dépasser ces branches du Droit. Face à la Vigilance, des disciplines peuvent apparaître en opposition, tandis que des branches du Droit semblent entrer comme en résistance. La majorité des intervenants ont souligné que les branches du Droit, cette loi n'étant alors que l'expression d'un mouvement plus vaste, la Vigilance dépassant la Loi Vigilance, sont activées et transformées. Il en est ainsi du Droit international et du Droit processuel. L'idée étant que la Vigilance pourrait bien être l'expression d'une branche du Droit spécifique et nouvelle : le Droit de la compliance. Au-delà de la compréhension de ce qui se passe, l'enjeu technique est d'articuler les branches du Droit concernées, notamment dans le rapport entre dispositions spéciales et principes, entre Droit spécial et Droit commun.

Le quatrième point est l'absence de définition de la vigilance. L'on en a peu davantage entendu de ce que pourrait être une "entreprise vigilante"...L'existence d'un devoir portant sur une situation précise suffit-elle à transformer toute l'entreprise et que devient-elle alors dans son entier ?  Art pratique, le Droit n'aime pas les mystères. Car comment bien manier un instrument juridique dont la définition varie, dont on ne connaît que le régime, lequel varie au gré des réglementations, diverses et changeantes, ? Peut-elle varier selon les secteurs, selon les entreprises, selon les divers contrats qui sont partout ? 

Peut-être, en conclusion et comme cela fût évoqué par certains, au-delà de la directive attendue sur la Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, c'est plus largement dans le puzzle des définitions que le Droit de l'Union européenne est en train de construire, en corrélation avec le reporting extra-financier, que l'on pourra trouver, dans la conception systémique et humaniste portant l'identité européenne, voire sa souveraineté, ce qui donne sens et simplicité à la Vigilance.

____

✏️lire les notes prises sur le vif pour opérer la synthèse

____

📝lire l'article publié suite à cette conférence

________

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance soutenus par les autorités publiques", in Revue Droit pénal de l'entreprise, La soirée de la Revue de Droit pénal de l'entreprise, Bruxelles, 15 mars 2023.

________

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Pourquoi le Droit de la Compliance ?" ("Why Compliance Law?"), in Roman Aydogdu et Hans De Wulf (dir.), Bruxelles, 15 march 2023. 

____

🧮Read the full programme of this event

________

♾️ 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)

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La compliance, perspective dynamique pour exprimer la raison d'être des commissaires de justice", in Table-ronde sur "Professions réglementées, ambitions et enjeux", Congrès annuel national des Commissaires de justice, Paris, 8 décembre 2022. 

____

►lire le programme complet du congrès et 🎥regarder la présentation du colloque par le président du Congrès

____

🎥regarder le débat

____

►présentation de l'intervention : Ce premier congrès annuel national des Commissaires de justice, réunissant pour la première fois la profession réformée, a débuté par un débat de 2 heures animé par une journaliste, débat entre les autres professions, les autorités publiques (Autorité de la concurrence, Chancellerie), ayant pour ma part à y apporter le regard académique :

Ce débat fut particulièrement animé et vivant, ne serait-ce qu'en raison de la configuration des lieux, chacun étant placé pour entrer dans un dialogue :

🎤 J'y pris la parole en premier pour insister sur le fait que les "professions" sont des structures qui ont un grand avenir, en ce qu'elles s'articulent avec le système économique libéral, qu'elles sont par nature régulées et porteuses de régulation, dans des systèmes qui, pour demeurer libéraux, vont en avoir de plus en plus besoin. Cela est pertinent pour la profession des Commissaires de justice qui procurent de la sécurité, via de l'incontestabilité reposant aussi sur le lien entre celle-ci et les faits, et qui assurent l'effectivité des engagements en gardant le souci du lien social.

🎤 J'ai repris la parole lorsque la place de la Compliance fut évoquée. Dépassant l'exigence de "conformité", qui n'est qu'un outil de la Compliance, j'ai montré l'avenir du Droit de la Compliance, notamment dans l'Europe qui associe dynamisme économique, souci des personnes et de l'environnement, et l'alliance que cela implique entre les Autorités politiques et publiques et les entités susceptibles de participer à la concrétisation de ces Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance.

📕 Pour aller plus loin :  M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la compliance, 2022.

________

regarder la présentation du colloque par le président du Congrès

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge, tiers régulateur des obligations contractuelles de compliance", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Université de Nîmes, Laboratoire CHROME, Compliance et Contrat : les acteurs et leurs stratégies, Nîmes, 18 novembre 2022.

____

🏗️Cette conférence prend place dans le cycle de colloques, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et les Universités qui sont ses partenaires académiques, pendant l'année 2022/2023 autour du thème général L'obligation de compliance.

____

🎤 consulter la synthèse également faite de ce colloque

____

🧮Consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation

____

🚧lire le document de travail servant de base à cette conférence

____

📝Cette conférence sera la base d'un article, à paraître dans un ouvrage qui en résultera, dans sa version française, dans la collection 📚Régulation & Compliance coéditée entre le  JoRC et les Editions Dalloz, et dans sa version anglaise, dans la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation coéditée entre le JoRC et les Editions Bruylant.

____

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "The distinction between the part and the whole", contribution of the Chapter 2 of the third global Summit of Gaia-X, Chapter on Automated compliance: "the" solution or "a" solution?,  November 17, 2022, Paris.

____

This intervention took place in a panel moderated by🕴️Hubert Tardieu, Board of Direction Gaia-X, with:

🕴️Martine Gouriet, Board of Direction Gaia-X and Directrice des Usages numériques EDF – DSIG

🕴️Jakob Rehof, Chair, Software Engineering, Technical University Dortmund Faculty of Computer Science and Director Research Strategy, Fraunhofer-ISST

🕴️Joëlle Toledano, Conseil National du Numérique (CNNum), Chaire Gouvernance & Régulation (Université Dauphine) – Emeritus Professor

____

🧮see  the Summit general programme programme

____

🚧read the working paper, basis of this intervention.

____

🎥 see this intervention and debate

____

📝read the presentation of the intervention done in the GaiaX Global Summit of 2020

________

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Régulation et Compliance, expression des missions d'un Ordre, in📅 Ordre des Géomètres-experts, Une profession face aux défis de la société, Le Havre, September 15, 2022. 

____

📅 read the general of the manifestation de la manifestation (in French)

____

🎥watch the one-minute video summarizing the twenty-minutes intervention (in French)

____

🚧 read English Presentation of the Working Paper which has been the basis of this conference

► English Summary of this intervention: Professional orders should not present themselves as exceptions, however legitimate they may be, in relation to a principle, which would be the competitive system, but as the expression of a principle. This principle is expressed by two branches of Law whose importance is constantly growing in European Law, liberal branches which are based on the conception of economic life and the definition of company, turned towards the future: the Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, two branches of Law both related and distinct.

Indeed, and this is the topic of the first part, Competition Law conceives professional orders as exceptions since these "corporations" constitute structural agreements. French domestic legal system both consolidates the professional orders by backing them up to the State, which would sub-delegate its powers to them, but involves them in the questioning by the European Union of the States and their tools. Most often the temptation is then to recall with a kind of nostalgia the times when the professional orders were the principle but, except to ask for a restoration, the time would be no more.

A more dynamic approach is possible, in accordance with the more general evolution of Economic Law. Indeed, the Professional Order is the expression of a profession, a little-exploited concept in Economic Law, over which the Order exercises the function of "Second-level Regulator", the public authorities exercising the function of "First-level Regulator". The Banking and Financial Regulatory Law is built in this way and operates thank to that, at national, European, and global level. This is what should be linked.

The Professional Orders therefore have the primary function of spreading a "Culture of Compliance" among the professionals they supervise and beyond them (clients and stakeholders). This culture of Compliance is developed regarding the missions which are concretized by the professionals themselves.

Therefore, the second part of the Working Paper deals with the legal evolution of the notion of "Mission" which has become central in Economic and General Law, through the technique of the mission-based company. However, there are multiple points of contact between the raison d'être, the company with a mission and Compliance Law as soon as the latter is defined by the concrete and overly ambitious goals that it pursues. : the Monumental Goals.

Each structure, for example the French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is legitimate to set the Monumental Goal that it pursues and that it inculcates, in particular the conception of territory and the living environment, joining what unites all the Monumental Goals of Compliance: concern for others. The French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is adequate because it has a more flexible relationship, both tighter and broader, with the territory than the State itself.

By instilling this in professionals, the Professional Order develops in the practitioner an "ex ante responsibility", which is a pillar of Compliance Law, constituting both a charge and a power that the practitioner exercises, and of which the Professional Order must be the supervisor.

____

► to go further ⤵️ 

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2021
• Frison-Roche, M.-A., 💻Appliquer la notion de "Raison d'être" à la profession du Notariat, 2021

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the  Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance, Artificial Intelligence and Business Management: the right measure" ("Compliance, Intelligence artificielle et gestion des entreprises : la juste mesure"), participation to the Conference coordinated by Mustapha Mekki, L'intelligence artificielle et la gestion des entreprises. July 1st, 2022. 

____

🎥 see the conference (in French)

____

 consult the slides having been used as brief notes for deliver the lecture (inf French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper having been used as basis for this conference

____

📝This work will be the basis for an article.

____

► Summary of the Lecture: Of the next European Regulation on artificial intelligence, the European Commission has a quite neutral conception of AI for obtaining a consensus between the Member States, while the Regulators and certain States have a more substantial conception of technology, wanting its power to be used to protect people, firstly from these new tools themselves, secondly from what is an amplification of the evils of the classic world, such as hate or misinformation. This is the reflection of two conceptions of Compliance.

Firstly, Compliance can be defined as neutral processes that increase the effectiveness of what would be the obligation for companies or their desire for efficient risk management (in particular the consideration of "legal risks") to prove being "conform" to all regulations that are applicable to itself and all persons to whom the firm is accountable. This is often referred to as the "compliance obligation" or "obligation of conformity".

This conception implies considerable practical consequences for the company which, in order to succeed in this "total exploit", would then have to resort to artificial intelligence tools constituting a "total and infallible solution", which mechanically generate for it the obligation to "know " all the "regulatory mass", to detect all "non-compliances", to conceive its relationship to the Law in terms of "risk of non-compliance", fully supported by Compliance by Design which could, without human intervention , eliminate legal risk and ensure "compliance total efficiency" in Ex Ante.

The "legal price" of this technological dream is extremely high because all the "regulatory" requirements will then be transformed into obligations of result, any failure generating liability. The Compliance probationary system will become overwhelming for the company, both in terms of burden of proof, means of proof, and transfers, without exemption from proof. Objective responsibilities for others will multiply. The "law of conformity" will multiply Ex Ante systemic penalties, the border with criminal law being less and less preserved.

It is essential to avoid this, both for businesses and for the Rule of Law. For this, we must use Artificial Intelligence to its proper extent: it may constitute a "massive aid", without ever claiming to be a total and infallible solution, because it is the human who must be at the center of the compliance system functioning thank to the firms and not the machinery.

For this, it is necessary to adopt a substantial conception of Compliance Law (and not a sort of Conformity Law or Obedience Law). It does not at all cover all the applicable regulations and it is not at all "neutral", being in no way a series of processes. This new branch of Law is substantially built on Monumental Goals. These are either of a negative nature (preventing a systemic crisis from happening, in many but specific perspectives: banking, financial, health, climate, etc.), or of a positive nature (building a better balance, in particular between human beings, in the company and beyond).

In this conception which appears more and more strongly, artificial intelligence finds its place, more modest. As Compliance Law is based on information, Artificial Intelligence is essential to capture it and make first connections, first stages for successive analyses, done by human beings, making what is essential: the commitment of the company, both by the leaders and by all those who are "embarked" by a "culture of Compliance" which is at both built and common.

This restores the required seal between Criminal Law and what can be asked of the mechanical use of Artificial Intelligence; this puts the obligation of means back as a principle. This restores the principal place to the lawyer and the compliance officer, so that the culture of compliance is articulated with the specificities of a sector and the identity of the company itself. Indeed, the culture of compliance being inseparable from a culture of values, Compliance by design requires a dual technique, both mathematical and legal culture. It is why European Compliance Law, because it is rooted in the European humanist tradition, is a model.

________

For further:

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021

📓Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la Gouvernance d'Internet, 2019 

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017

📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Internet, espace d'interrégulation, 2016

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance law,  2022,

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 2022

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Assessment of Whistleblowing, and the duty of Vigilance, 2022

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an obligation and the paradox of he "compliance risks", 2021

__________

► Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la Compliance et Cloud souverain, in Souveraineté numérique : quelles solutions pour quels problèmes ? ,   Association Master 2 Droit du Commerce Électronique et de l’Économie Numérique (M2 DCEEN), Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), 9 juin 2022, 18h-20h.

____

Voir le programme

____

Cette intervention s'insère dans un débat coordonné par la professeure Judith Rochfeld, auquel participent également Monsieur le Député Philippe Latombe et Céline Heller (société Google).

Pour ma part, interrogée en premier pendant un 1/4 d'heure, il s'agissait en premier lieu, avant de participer à la discussion générale, de répondre aux trois questions suivantes :

•  Quelles définitions doivent être retenues pour la souveraineté numérique ?
• Quel est le rapport entre souveraineté numérique et droit de la compliance ?
• Plus largement, quelle place le Droit doit-il occuper dans la souveraineté numérique selon vous ?
• En quoi la souveraineté numérique est-elle un but monumental ? 

____

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.A., La fonction sociale du Droit de la Compliance, Table-ronde "Les nouvelles formes d'un Droit embrassant son rôle de régulation", in📅Association du Master de Droit privé de Paris I (ADPG), Le rôle de régulateur social du Droit privé, Paris, 15 avril 2022. 

____

📅Lire le programme général du colloque

____

► Présentation générale de la conférence : En raison de la conception générale de la journée, ancrée dans le "Droit privé", mais qui oscillait en permanence sur la définition générale de ce qu'est la "régulation sociale" et qui est constitué depuis plus de vingt ans dans une branche du Droit spécifique, le Droit de la Régulation, parce qu'on m'avait demandé de présenter La fonction sociale du Droit de la Compliance, à un public sans doute peu averti du Droit économique, j'ai procédé de la façon suivante :

Je suis partie du souci actuel accru de savoir si le Droit peut avoir une part pour contenir les forces qui régissent le monde et s'y affrontent. Je suis partie de deux cas pratiques. Le premier irait plutôt vers une réponse positive, est celui de l'adoption en cours du Digital Services Act, législation européenne de Compliance qui utilise la puissance des opérateurs numériques cruciaux qui prévenir et lutte contre la haine et la désinformation dans l'espace numérique. Le second cas pratique qui débute est la possible prise de contrôle de Twitter par Elon Musk, opérée par celui-ci au nom de la "Démocratie" et pour l'instant le peu de contrôle que le Droit en cas.

A partir de de ces deux exemples, j'ai repris la définition du Droit de la Compliance, qui n'est pas la procédure par laquelle certains opérateurs devraient montrer qu'ils respectent la totalité des règles qui leurs sont applicables mais qui est substantiellement défini par des buts monumentaux substantiellement voulus posés par le Politique qui trouvent des alliés, volontaires ou contraints, en position de le faire. Ce Droit Ex Ante porte sur le futur, est de nature systémique et utilise des moyens qui traversent toutes les branches du Droit, notamment le contrat et la responsabilité.

Le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation. Il opère une régulation sociale et présente trois caractéristiques. Il est forcément mondial. Il est forcément politique. Il est forcément humain.

____

Pour aller plus loin⤵️

📝Le droit de la Régulation, 2001

📝Le Droit de la Compliance, 2016

📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022

📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2022

► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., The part of Compliance Law in the fight against Corruption and Climate Change, in Paris Arbitration Week (PAW), Compliance: Corruption and Climate Change - how legal systems adapt?, Jones Day, March 29, 2022.

Debate with Mathias Audit coordinated by Claire Pauly, Vice-President of the Paris Arbitration Week. 

____

► Presentation of the intervention: After the presentation made by Mathias Audit of the consideration of facts of corruption, notably by the red flags method, in an arbitration trial, it seems a low-performing system of proof in compliance: the more diligent a party is in showing that it tried to meet its compliance obligations, the more it is exposed to demonstrating its own failure to doing so.  It seems a perversity … Therefore, I can understand why companies often so dislike Compliance Law because more they make efforts, more they put money and more they are punished…

But this representation is not totally exact.

My first observation is about the definitions themselves. It is particularly important to have a precise definition of “compliance obligations”, to not confuse them with obligations coming from Criminal Law. The confusion between Criminal Law and Compliance Law is frequent, maybe because what Compliance Law want to eradicate is also prohibited by Criminal Law, for instance corruption. Indeed, technically criminal legal rules and compliance legal rules have many points of contacts, but they are not the same: the obligations are different, the legal persons obliged are different, the reasoning are different the purposes are different.

Because the general definition of Criminal Law and Compliance Law are different. Criminal Law, very old branch of Law, which prohibits and sanctions corruption, does it for everyone because the singular behavior is wrong (to corrupt; to be corrupted). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law, is a systemic branch of economic Law, which wants to eradicate in the future mechanisms because they destroy economic systems, such as corruption does. Its wants that not to protect moral values but to protect economic systems. Therefore, Compliance Law asks some entities, large companies, to do something only because they are in position to do so: to detect and to prevent this corruption, in order to obtain in the future, the protection against this systemic risk threating the economic systems. The compliance legal tools are more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post: risk mapping, audit, code of conduct, training, obtention of information through the chains of suppliers.

The proof to give is not the non-corruption everywhere from everyone but this concrete action of prevention and education, companies being entities helping public authorities in this global fight.

More precisely, in this definition Compliance Law is not the general obligation to obey the regulations applicable (because this is simply the definition of Law itself, applicable to everybody). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law which exists only for some systemic “global policies” (as the title of your manifestation says) applicable only on systemic entities (large companies) in a global perspective: for instance, fighting corruption, fighting money laundering, fighting climate change, fighting discrimination between human beings.

In your example, for fighting corruption, specific legal obligations are taken, such as FCPA (with extraterritorial effects) or in French legal system the so-called the 2016 “Sapin 2” Law. These obligations don’t concern everybody: they concern entities in position to do so: large companies.

My second remark is about the burden of proof. These compliance obligation or compliance duties are obligations of means. Companies are obliged to adopt Compliance plans, organize risk mapping, and so on. A lot of them organize them through code of compliance, or code of ethic, or code of corporate social responsibility, because Compliance Law is in an intimacy with Corporate Law. Because Compliance Law is a very concrete branch of law, these disposals are adopted at the level of the group and replicated in the contracts with suppliers.

But he success of these compliance tools is only an obligation of means. For instance the supervisory authority does not require the company to have seen all the risks, in their existence or their exact quantification. In this sense, about money laundering, the French Financial Markets Authority said that the setup of these compliance tools must be “effective”, but after that the company must only do its “best efforts” to aim an “efficient” result (obligation de moyens). The French Regulatory Authority for the digital space says the same about the eradication of speeches of hate that Compliance Law oblige digital companies to fight (using the term of obligation de moyens).

Moreover, about corruption, the Commission of sanction of the French Anticorruption Agency said in a decision of July 2019 that the firm is free to choose the technics to detect and to prevent the corruption (confirming that Compliance is not just following what the Regulator says), but offered a legal certainty:  if the company just follows what the Regulators had said in its guideline (rule based compliance behavior), it is no more possible to punish it.

My third remarks could be a proposal for a more efficient system of proof. It is true that the burden of proof is on the company’s shoulders. But the object of proof is not the absence of corruption (it would not be possible…). The object of proof is the existence of due diligence to detect and prevent corruption.

Companies must prepare that, must constitute these proofs by advance.  “Due diligence” is a legal concept frequently used in Compliance Law. Regulators, supervisors, and courts ask companies to show the reality of these diligences. It would not be sufficient to present the cost of Compliance… It will be sufficient to show the effectivity of Compliance programs freely adopted, taking in consideration the guidelines released by public authorities.

Public authorities say they want to help companies to diffuse an effective “culture of compliance” : a dialogue with civil and corporate courts, not only with criminal courts would be efficient, for instance for the protection of human rights. 

In a second part of this debate, on Climate change and Compliance, Claire Pauly asked the question: "My question is two-fold: do you consider that climate change issues should be treated in the same way as corruption issues? And do you think that arbitrators are well suited to tackle those issues, by upholding the method applied to determine and demonstrate corruption issues?".

The response has been:

Firstly, on the technical similarity between fighting Corruption and fighting Climate Change in Compliance Law, it is the same perspective effectively.

If we come back to the definition of Compliance Law, the Compliance tools are organized to obtain in the future systemics results, such as no more corruption, no more money laundering, what we can name “Monumental goals”. This is a political decision: to design the future for excluding some systemic catastrophes. Corruption is an example of systemic risk; but climate change is another one.

Fighting against Climate Change is a Monumental Goal, of the same nature than fighting Corruption.

As everyone knows, we suffer of a lack of tools to address one of this fundamental challenge of our times which is climate change (more difficult than corruption...). But we are lucky to have some Compliance legal tools: we need to use them, because we have so few techniques about this Climate issue…

And Compliance Law is the more adequate branch of Law because it is an Ex-Ante branch of Law : generally, its obligations are on the future, and the Climate change drama is in the future also.

We can already see that Compliance Law is applicable to Climate Change issue

It is easy to see it through the legal techniques. 

In the French legal system, the Sapin 2 law invented in 2016 some new compliance techniques, such as risk mapping, audit, due diligence, to detect and prevent corruption.

One year after, in 2017, the so-called Loi Vigilance took the same techniques, copying exactly the legal dispositions of Sapin 2 in this law to oblige large companies to detect and to prevent violation of human rights and environmental obligation, not only inside the corporate group but also through the supply chains. The manager will be accountable for that.

On February 23, 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a European Directive in the same direction of a “global policy” to impose a “corporate sustainability due diligence” on large companies, notably for fighting climate change. This new text will be effective in two years in the Internal legal systems.

By a rules-based analysis and a principle-based analysis, we can see this is the same reasoning.

Of course, this “corporate sustainability due diligence” is only an obligation of means.

But it is extremely ambitious, linked to the direct consideration of the Corporate Social Responsibility.

And I guess it will be efficient because all these tools are not only Ex Post but also Ex Ante: when the issue is to exclude the catastrophic perspective of the disappearance of the humankind on our planet, having Compliance Law, this Ex-Ante branch of law, is so precious!

Secondly, about the role of Arbitration in this issue, I am tempted to say: everyone is required in this global crucial policy!

It is quite difficult for a national court to decide on this sort of issue because Climate change is a global issue, while arbitrators are global judges.

Technically it is necessary and technically possible that Arbitration takes its place, because these due diligences about detection, prevention, action for a better Climate balance are organized non only in corporate mechanisms, such as code of conduct, corporate commitments, or manager remuneration calculation, but also a lot of contractual dispositions.

We will see a lot of new legal techniques: a lot of international public global policies will be adopted. The obligation to give information about that not only to investor but also to stakeholders will be adopted worldwide. The technique of “compliance by design” will be used on the corporate policy of fighting against Climate change.

Meanwhile, the classical branch of law, were Compliance Law steps in, will remain active, such as International Law, Corporate Law, Tort Law Contract Law, where Arbitration is so central.

So, in short, your question was: are Arbitrators able to deal with climate change issue? my response is: “oh, yes!”

____

► Read the repport made by the  fait par la Paris Week of Arbitration ( on the distinction between Compliance Law and Criminal Law, and their articulation)

____

Pour aller plus loin⤵️

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022.

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022.

________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L’appréhension du risque climatique par les acteurs privés : les apports du droit de la compliance, in Marta Torre-Schaub M., Lormeteau, B. et Stevignon, A.(dir.), Les risques climatiques à l’épreuve du droit Comment le droit fait-il face aux nouveaux risques engendrés par la crise climatique ? , Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), Amphithéâtre Liard, 17 mars 2022.

____

► Consulter le programme général de la manifestation

____

► lire le Document de travail ayant servi de base à cette conférence : Prévention et gestion du risque climatique par le Droit de la Compliance 

____

► Résumé de l'intervention : Cette intervention a été placée dans une construction qui la place comme une analyse plus particulière de ce qui serait une "insuffisante appréhension des risques climatiques par le Droit". Peut-être que le juriste estime que le Droit fait toujours une "insuffisante appréhension" de tout, parce qu'il voudrait aussi se saisir de tout, mais ne faut-il pas estimer que le Droit, ici le Droit de la Compliance ne vise pas tout, qu'il est au contraire particulièrement adéquat sur un sujet comme le Climat et qu'en la matière il fait déjà beaucoup ?

 Etant acquis qu'une société où le Droit serait tout et dicterait tout ne ferait plus place à la liberté, où les règles ne sont pas là pour nous dire à chaque instant et partout ce que nous devons faire, c'est dans ce souci-là qu'il faut trouver la bonne place que doit avoir le Droit de la Compliance, place qui tient à la définition qu'il faut donner à celui-ci.

Préalable : présentation de ce que doit être le "Droit de la Compliance"

Pour que le principe de liberté demeure il faut que le Droit de la Compliance lui-même exprime des Principes et non pas une masse réglementaire, ce qui étouffe les libertés. Si l'on réduisait le Droit de la Compliance à l'idée étroite de l'efficacité apportée à la masse réglementaire qui nous est applicable, par exemple obéir à la réglementation relative à l'environnement et au Climat, alors nous serions devant un choix dramatique : soit sauver la planète, soit sauver notre liberté. C'est parfois ainsi que l'Avenir nous est présenté.

Mais c'est supposer que le Droit de la Compliance serait défini comme l'accumulation de toutes les réglementations qui nous sont applicables et dont nous devrions montrer par avance et à tous que nous plions devant elles, devant toutes et chacune, aveuglement, le robot étant ainsi notre exemple du bon sujet de Droit de la Compliance. C'est souvent ainsi que ce qu'on appelle alors le "Droit de la Conformité" est défini : nous sommes obligés de nous conformer, et de donner à voir que nous nous conformons, et que nous nous conformons par avance, à toutes les réglementations cumulées et confondues, qui nous concernent. Par exemple celles sur le Climat. Parmi d'autres. Comme les autres. Pas moins mais pas plus. Certes nous ne serions alors pas plus libres que ne le sont les robots, mais la question du Climat pourrait être résolue ...Quelle triste perspective .... L'efficacité de la réglementation aurait donc balayé notre liberté, dont la liberté d'entreprendre n'est qu'un des modes. 

L'on voit bien que la question est avant tout une question de définition.

Plutôt que d'aller vers cet "apport catastrophique" que constituerait alors le Droit de la Compliance à la résolution des enjeux climatiques, puisqu'en échange de son efficacité nous devrions rendre nos libertés, allons vers ce qui doit être la définition du Droit de la Compliance et l'apport que ce Droit de la Compliance-là est en train d'opérer au bénéfice du risque climatique. Peut-être d'une façon insuffisante, mais d'une façon déjà considérable.

il apparaît alors que le Climat est un exemple qui va aller grandissant des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance (I). Cela justifie l'alliance entre les Autorités politiques et les "acteurs privés" pour que l'avenir se concrétise dans un équilibre systémique, ici l'équilibre climatique (II), justifiant la mise en place de mécanismes juridiques nouveaux par rapport au Droit traditionnel. 

____

► Pour aller plus loin : 

👩‍🏫📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022

👩‍🏫📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, 2022,

👩‍🏫🎥 Cas climatique, devoir de vigilance et pouvoirs des juges, 2021

👩‍🏫🚧 Concevoir les pouvoirs, 2022

👩‍🏫🚧 La Responsabilité Ex Ante, 2022

👩‍🏫📓Environnemental Compliance Law, as an Ex Ante Responsability, 2021

👩‍🏫📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise, 2022

👩‍🏫📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale, 2022

👩‍🏫🎥 Devoir de vigilance des entreprises : vers un Droit de la responsabilité Ex Ante, 2021

________