The recent news

April 24, 2020


This interview was conducted in French with Olivia Dufour, for an article published in French in the digital publication Actualité Juridique.

Its subject is  the confrontation between the current health crisis situation and the Compliance Law. 


Summary. After defining Compliance Law, distinguishing the procedural and poor definition and the substantial and rich definition, the starting point is to admit the aporia: the type of health crisis caused by Covid-19 will be renewed and it is imperative to prevent it, even to manage it, then to organize the crisis exit. Public Authorities are legitimate to do so, but because this type of crisis being global and the State being consubstantially linked to borders, States are hardly powerful. Their traditional International Law shows their  limits in this current crisis and one cannot hope that this configulration will improve radically.

In contrast, some companies and markets, notably the financial markets, are global. But the markets are not legitimate to carry out such missions and counting on the generosity of certain large companies is far too fragile in front of the "monumental goal" that is the prevention of the next health crisis, crisis which must never happen.

How to get out of this aporia?

By Compliance Law, basis of, in a literal and strong sense, the "Law of the Future". 

We need to be inspired by the Banking and Financial Compliance Law. Designed in the United States after the 1929 crisis to tend towards the "monumental goal" of the absence of a new devastating crisis in the country and the world,  this set of new legal mechanisms gave duty and power of supervision, regulation and compliance to market authorities and central bankers. These are independent of governments but in constant contact with them. Today, they claim to have as first priority the fight against climate change. Now and for the future, they must also be given the responsibility and the powers to prevent a global health disaster, similar to a global ecological disaster, similar to a global financial disaster. This does not require a modification of the texts because their mandate consists in fighting instability. Stability must become a primary legal principle, of which the fight against monetary instability was only a first example. By the new use that central banks must make of it by preventing and managing health crises, Compliance Law will ensure that the future will be not catastrophic.

March 22, 2020


This working paper is the basis for an article in the French Law Journal Le Clunet.


When we compare the terms "Compliance" and "Extraterritoriality", it is often with dissatisfaction, even anger and indignation. On the momentum, after having expressed a principle of disapproval of such a merger, attention is focused on how we can fight against it, to break the link between Compliance and Extraterritoriality. But do we have to go so fast? Is this negative initial assessment correct?

Indeed, thus gone, it is frequently explained that the binding mechanisms of Compliance are suffered, that they come from abroad!footnote-1750, that they apply with efficiency but in an illegitimate way, without agreement of the one who must submit to it, whose resistance is therefore certainly ineffective but nevertheless justified. In the same spirit, when we start to shell the cases, like so many scars, sort of rosary, even crown of thorns, BNPP case!footnote-1718, Astom case!footnote-1717, etc., the wounds not yet closed turn into reproaches made against the rules, public authorities, even reproaches made against named people.

We are leaving this kind of complaint against X, which targets what would be this appalling "Compliance", this Law which would be both hostile and mechanical which would not have been able to stay within the limits of borders, Compliance being thus placed in contrast to sovereignty and protection, which presuppose staying within its limits!footnote-1716 and being able to protect companies from abroad. More concretely, this presentation targets more directly the United States, which uses "the legal weapon", slipped under what is then designated as "the artifice of the Law" with extraterritorial scope. But this effect would in reality be the very object of the whole: their hegemonic will to better organize at least a global racket, notably through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and at best a world government through notably the embargoes.Those who believed otherwise would be naive or foolish. This silences the opponents because who likes this costume? So the world would be put in a ruled cut; what the mafia could not have done, Compliance Law would have obtained, offering the whole world to the United States thanks to the extraterritoriality of its national Law.

Compliance Law would thus become the very negation of Law, since it has the effect, even the purpose (barely concealed by strategic, powerful and shameless States), of counting borders for nothing, whereas Public International Law, in that it is built between the sovereign subjects of law that are the States presupposes the primary respect for borders to better exceed them while Private International Law takes the same postulate to better welcome foreign Law in situations presenting a foreign element!footnote-1726. Jurists believed in the force of Law; by Compliance, we would return to the sad reality that only the powerful, here the United States, dominate and - ironically - it is under the pretext of Law that they do it. It would be necessary to be well duped, or accomplice, to see there still legal where there is only the balance of powers. When one is more intelligent or skilful than that, one understands that the "small" can only be "subject" to the Compliance Law, one would have to be powerful to be the normative source and its enforcement agent. It is then towards this mis-named Department of Justice (DoJ) that the fearful, hateful and resigned glances turn. 

If you see it that way, what should you do then? The answer is obvious: react!

It is necessary to save the sovereignty, France, companies, the Law itself. If that is how the question is posed, how can we disagree? It is therefore necessary to destroy the Compliance Law and the extra-territoriality of American Law which had found this "Trojan horse", an expression so frequently used. This is the basis for the administrative reports available, for example the Berger-Lellouche!footnote-1719 parliamentary reports and the Gauvainfootnote-1720 report. Both of them broadly develop the two preceding claims, namely that the extra-priority of compliance mechanisms is illegitimate and harmful, since it is a mechanism invented by the Americans and harming the Europeans, or even invented by the Americans to harm Europeans, the description being made in much more violent terms than those used here. The description seems acquired, the reflections therefore relate to the remedies. The reaction is most often to "block" the Compliance Law in its extraterritorial effect.

But without discussing the effectiveness of the remedies proposed downstream, it is necessary to return to this description so widely shared made upstream. Because many elements on the contrary lead to affirm that ComplianceLaw first of all and by nature can only be extraterritorial and that it must be. Whether or not the State in which it was created has malicious intentions. The description which is made to us most often describes particular cases from which we draw generalities, but we cannot reduce Compliance Law to the already cooled cases, as BNPP case, or to the always hot case of the American embargo on Iran. Furthermore, one cannot take the issue of embargoes and draw conclusions, legitimate for it, but which would apply to the whole of Compliance Law. The fact that theCompliance Law is a branch of Law at the stage still of emergence can lead to this confusion which consists in taking the part for the whole, but it is very regrettable because what is justified for the embargoes does not is in no way relevant for all Compliance Law, of which precisely the Law of embargoes is only a small part, even an abusive use. This overlapping is not often perceived, because the definition of Compliance Law and its criterion are not clearly enough defined, namely the existence of a "monumental goal"!footnote-1725, which does not exist in an embargo decided unilaterally by an order decreed by the President of the United States, but which exists in all other cases and fully justifies extraterritoriality, extraterritoriality which is even consubstantial with Compliance Law (I).

Once we have distinguished the embargoes, as an atypical, sometimes even illegitimate part, of Compliance Law, we should continue this work of distinction by emphasizing that the United States has certainly invented Compliance Law!footnote-1721 but only developed a mechanical concept for the prevention and management of systemic risks. Europe has taken up this systemic conception of the protection of systems, for example financial or banking, but superimposed another conception, drawing on its deep humanist tradition!footnote-1722, whose protection of personal data is only an example and whose monumental goal is the protection of the human being. This primary concern then justifies the European use of Compliance mechanisms to interfere with global objects regardless of their location, especially the environment, and to block the entry onto the ground of objects that enter, which is contrary to Competition Law but builds a legitimate barrier under this Compliance Law, in the indifference of an extraterritorial origin (II).

Indeed, this branch of the new Law which is Compliance Law is not reducible to Competition Law!footnote-1723, any more than it is not reducible to a method. It is a substantial, extraterritorial Law because the "monumental goals" which give it substantial unity are extraterritorial. This can directly contribute to the future of a Europe which on the one hand will be able to pursue, in an extraterritorial manner, monumental humanist goals, in the field of the environment or the protection of personal information or access to the Law (in particular by the technique of compliance programs) and which, on the other hand, by the techniques of traceability of products!footnote-1724, will have the means not to bring in products manufactured in an indecent manner, except in countries which do not grant value than in Competition Law to enter the WTO.



Read the developments below.


March 18, 2020


Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'avocat, porteur de conviction dans le nouveau système de Compliance, Dalloz Avocat, mars 2020.

This editorial opens a thematic collective publication about Compliance.

A synthetic article on all the contributions, published in May 2020, mirrors it: "Attorney and Compliance - The future of the character and his tool: Law, Humanism and Defense"


English Summary of the article (written in French) : 

If we perceive Compliance Law as an aggression of the private company and a binding set of mechanisms that have no meaning and added value for it, then the attorney has a utility: to defend the business. It can do so not only during the sanctions phase, but also to prevent it.

But this function is not central.

He and she becomes so if we understand Compliance Law as being a body of substantial rules, pursuing a "monumental goal": the protection of the person, goal injected by political bodies and taken up by the operator. From this, the company must convince everyone to take it back, inside the company and outside. In a general and contradictory debate, the attorney carries this conviction, because he and shed is always convincing those who in the end judge (market, public opinion, etc.) that is their raison d'être.


Read the article





Read the Working Paper underlying this article, with the technical references and all the articles serving as the basis for all the assertions in this article






Feb. 5, 2020

Teachings : Banking and Financial Regulatory Law, spring semester 2020

Résumé de la leçon : L'Europe est avant tout et pour l'instant encore une construction juridique. Elle fut pendant longtemps avant tout la construction d'un marché, conçu politiquement comme un espace de libre circulation (des personnes, des marchandises, des capitaux). C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Concurrence est son ADN et demeure le coeur de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, qui tient désormais l'équilibre entre les diverses institutions, par exemple la Banque Centrale Européenne, dont les décisions peuvent être attaquées devant elle. Mais aujourd'hui le Droit de l'Union européenne se tourne vers d'autres buts que la "liberté", laquelle s'exprime dans l'immédiat, notamment la "stabilité", laquelle se développe dans le temps. C'est pourquoi la Banque y prend un si grande importance. 

En outre, face aux "libertés" les "droits" montent en puissance : c'est par les institutions juridiques que l'Europe trouve de plus en plus son unité, l'Europe économique et financière (l'Union européenne) et l'Europe des droits humains (le Conseil de l'Europe au sein duquel s'est déployée la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme) exprimant les mêmes principes. C'est bien à travers une décision prenant appui sur le Droit de la concurrence que la Commission européenne le 18 juillet 2018 a obligé Google à concrétiser le "droit d'accès" à des entreprises innovantes, apte à faire vivre l'écosystème numérique, tandis que le Régulateur financier doit respecter les "droits de la défense" des personnes qu'il sanctionne.

Aujourd'hui à côté de l'Europe économique se développe en même temps par des textes une Europe bancaire et financière (on ne sait pas si par le Droit - par exemple le droit de la propriété intellectuelle - existera une Europe industrielle).La crise a fait naître l'Europe bancaire et financière. L'Union bancaire est issue de Règlements communautaires du 23 novembre 2010 établissant des sortes de "régulateurs européens" (ESMA, EBA, EIOPA) qui donnent une certaine unité aux marchés financiers qui demeurent nationaux, tandis que les entreprises de marché, entreprises privées en charge d'une mission de régulation, continuent leur déploiement selon des techniques de droit privé. L'Union bancaire est née d'une façon plus institutionnelle encore, par trois piliers qui assurent un continuum européen entre la prévention des crises, la résolution des crises et la garantie des dépôts. En cela, l'Europe bancaire est devenue fédérale. 

Sur les marchés de capitaux, des instruments financiers et des titres, l'Union européenne a utilisé le pouvoir que lui confère depuis la jurisprudence Costa et grâce au processus Lamfallussy d'une sorte de "création continuée" pour injecter en permanence de nouvelles règles perfectionnant et unifiant les marchés nationaux. C'est désormais au niveau européen qu'est conçu la répression des abus de marché mais aussi l'information des investisseurs, comme le montre la réforme en cours dite "Prospectus 3". A l'initiative de la Commission Européenne, les textes sont produits en "paquet" car ils correspondent à des "plan d'action " . Cette façon de légiférer est désormais emprunté en droit français, par exemple par la loi dite PACTE du 29 avril 2019. Cette loi vise - en se contredisant parfois - à produire plus de concurrence, d'innovation, à attirer l'argent sur des marchés dont l'objectif est aussi la sécurité, notion d'égale importance que la liberté, jadis seul pilier du Droit économique. Conçue par les but, La loi est définitivement un "instrument", et un instrument parmi d'autres, la Cour de Justice tenant l'équilibre entre les buts, les instruments et les institutions.

La question du "régulateur" devient plus incertaine : la BCE est plus un "superviseur" qu'un "régulateur" ; le plan d'action pour une Europe des marchés de capitaux ne prévoit pas de régulateur, visant un capitalisme traditionnelle pour les petites entreprises (sorte de small businesses Act européen)



Accéder aux slides servant de support à la leçon sur la construction juridique de l'Europe bancaire et financière.


Se reporter au Plan complet du cours



Revenir aux bases avec le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.


Documentation spécifique à la leçon :

Documentation sur les textes et les institutions : 


Documentation sur la jurisprudence : 


Approfondir par la Bibliographie générale du Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière


Revenir à la présentation générale du Cours. 


Feb. 4, 2020


Complete reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., The tools of Compliance and the Theorie of Climates, in "Geographical pregance in Compliance Tools" (Les outils de la Compliance et la Théorie des climats, in La prégnance géographique dans les outils de la Compliance), February 4, 2020, Nice. 


Conference SummaryStarting from Montesquieu's "climate theory", affirming that human beings would be of a different nature in different places of the world, which therefore requires different rules of government according to these places, a theory which echoes the geographical confinement that Pascal operated on the Laws, we can think that, as with any rule, Compliance legal rules, which ensure compliance of the behavior of human beings to the rules, this will vary depending on whether we are below or beyond the Pyrenees. But on this geographical dimension so natural one can on the contrary and at first doubt. Indeed, by presenting it as a simple process, which artificial intelligence based on algorithms could fully take care of, by its absence of substance this dimension loses all relevance. Except falling into the other excess consisting in posing that everything is only a question of "pure compliance culture" or that this is only the dressing of a pure balance of power, between geographical areas, for example the United States and Europe, and in this Law of palisade geo-politics is to such an extent that it would have devoured Law.

It is necessary to keep the measure of things and on the contrary organize in a second time a kind of triptych and firstly find what comes from the accumulation of technical and immutable information, secondly what comes from local phenomena but requieres global standards of compliance which can be technically attached because of their "crucial nature" and thirdly also assume "political pretensions of monumental goals" which contest the borders and the branches of the Law which guard these. 

If we manage to do this, then Compliance Law not only manages to get rid of what undermines it, that is, its mechanical temptation offered by technology and its disappearance by political power, keeping substance without being violent. . Indeed by respecting geography the West does not have to dictate "its" law. On the contrary, it must take concrete lying to the Kanak Law, which does not define the Law as what is stated and applied, but as a 'path'. Thus in the technique of responsible investments, because the Law of Compliance is teleological, the Subject of law, that is to say the company (which is in position, for example that invests) does not prohibit but organizes the transition so that the beneficiary of the device is not himself sanctioned, for example abandoned to corruption, but accompanied towards the exit of the system. The integration of time and the concept of 'duration', common to compliance law and regulation law (the Law of Compliance being the internalisation of Regulations in entities capable of implementing them) involving the articulation between the territory and duration (which is not permitted by Competition Law).


Read the presentation of this conference on the Geographical pregnance in Compliance Tools 

See the other conferences of the complete cycle on Compliance Tools.

Read the general presentation of the conferences cycle.


Read the working paper which is the basis of this conference


Consult the slides on which the conference is based (in French).


Summary : Starting from Pascal's "climate theory", one might think, as with any rule, Compliance, which ensures that human behaviour conforms to the rules, it varies, depending on whether one is "below or beyond the Pyrenees". . But of this geographical dimension so natural, on the contrary and at first one can doubt. Indeed by presenting Compliance as a simple process, which artificial intelligence based on algorithms could fully support, by its absence of substance this geographical dimension loses all relevance. Except to fall into the other excess of asking that everything is only a matter of 'compliance culture' or that it is the dressing of a pure balance of power, between geographical political areas, for example the United States and Europe, and in this Law of façade the geo-politics is at this point all that it would have devoured Law.

We need to keep Reason, instead organizing a kind of tryptic and find what is the accumulation of technical and immutable information, which is local phenomena but to which standards of global Compliance can be technically attached because of their "crucial nature" and also assume "political pretensions of monumental goals" that challenge the borders and branches of Law that guard them.

If we manage to do this, then not only  Compliance Law manages to get rid of what undermines it, that is its mechanical temptation offered by technology and its disappearance by political power, keeping substance without being violent. . Indeed by respecting geography the West does not have to dictate "its" Law. On the contrary, it must take concrete conception, borrowing to Kanak Law, which does not define Law as what is stated and applied, but as a 'path'.

Thus in the technique of responsible investments, because Compliance Law is teleological, the subject of law, that is to say the company (which is in position, for example to invests) does not prohibit but organizes the transition so that the beneficiary of the device is not himself sanctioned, for example abandoned to corruption, but accompanied towards the exit of the system of corruption. The integration of time and the concept of 'duration', common to Compliance Law and Regulation Law (the Law of Compliance being the internalisation of Regulations in entities capable of implementing them) involving the articulation between the territory and duration (which is not the rule of Competition Law). 

Jan. 29, 2020


Le plan des 6 cours d'amphi est  actualisé chaque semaine au fur et à mesure que les cours se déroulent en amphi.

Il est disponible ci-dessous.


Jusqu'en 2019 le cours d'amphi se déroulait en 12 cours. Il permettait ainsi aux étudiants d'avoir une première vision plus large, sur laquelle s'appuyaient les maîtres de conférences pour approfondir, notamment à travers des cas, le Droit de la Régulation bancaire.

Depuis l'année dernière le volume hroraire allouée au Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière a été réduit. Le Cours est donc composé de 6 cours, dans lesquel l'essentiel sera vu,

Il peut être pertinent pour les étudiants du semestre de printemps 2020 désireux d'en savoir plus de se reporter au plan des années correspondant à la conception d'origine ayant présider à la création de cet enseignement, par exemple à celui du printemps 2018, et à l'ensemble des résumés, documentation, références techniques et slides, pour appréhender  tout ce qui ne sera pas vu au présent semestre 2020. Cela peut leur être utile dans le cadre de leur travail de conférence. 



Retourner à la présentation générale de l'enseignement de Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière du semestre de printemps 2020.

Jan. 29, 2020

Teachings : Sectoral Regulatory Law 2019-2020

Cet enseignement se déroule au semestre de printemps 2020, à la suite du cours semestriel qui a porté sur le "Droit commun de la Régulation".

Comme pour celui-ci, il est entièrement assuré par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur d'Université, titulaire à Sciences po.

Comme les étudiants qui n'ont pas suivi ce cours, il est important de se reporter au matériau du cours de Droit commun de la Régulation.  Dans la mesure où il est le prolongement de ce cours qui, en raison des nombreux retours des principes de droit commun dans diverses matières juridiques, s'est souvent éloigné du Droit de la Régulation, cette consultation peut demeurer utile même pour les étudiants ayant suivi ce premier cours.

Ce Cours de Droit sectoriel de la Régulation vise à montrer la spécificité de tel et tel secteurs. Il ne peut les examiner tous mais il s'agit de mesurer à quel point les spécificités sectorielles imprègnent les règles. Ainsi chaque secteur est à la fois gouverné par des règles communes à tous (ce "droit commun") et par ce qui lui est propre, sans doute avant tout ce qui est afférent à l'objet technique lui-même (le rail, le téléphone, la monnaie, etc.). Le Cours fait place également  à la "régulation du numérique", bien que l'espace digital ne puisse plus guère être analysé comme un "secteur", ni en conséquence sa régulation comme une "régulation sectorielle". Cette question sera reprise dans le semestre 3 d'automne dans le cours-séminaire de Droit de la Compliance 

Ce livret détaille la façon dont les étudiants, qui suivent cet enseignement situé dans l'École d'affaires publiques de Science po, sont évalués afin de valider cet enseignement. Il précise la charge du travail qui est demandé.

Les thèmes des  leçons qui composent successivement  le cours sont énumérés. Comme il s'agit d'une perspective thématique les bibliographies sont insérées dans les leçons et non plus dans une bibliographie générale, laquelle allait de soi pour la présentation du "Droit commun de la Régulation" et peut continuer un intérêt dans une perspective sectorielle..

A partir de ce livret, chaque document propre à chaque leçon est accessible.

Voir ci-dessous plus de détails sur chacun de ces points, ainsi que la liste des leçons et les annales des sujets d'examen.

Jan. 29, 2020

Teachings : Banking and Financial Regulatory Law, spring semester 2020

Résumé de la leçon n°1. La "Régulation" ne se confond pas avec la "réglementation". Elle constitue un "Droit" spécifique, dont la "réglementation" n'est qu'un outil, comme le sont les lois, les décisions de justice, etc., qu'ils soient obligatoires (hard Law) ou pris en considération par ceux qui sont concernés (soft Law). La "Régulation" ne se confond pas davantage avec la "Supervision", avec laquelle elle se cumule, en matière bancaire et financière. Ainsi, en-deçà des multiples Codes, par exemple le Code monétaire et financier, ce sont avant tout les Autorités de régulation et de supervision qui fabriquent et font vivre ce "Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière". 

Il convient donc de débuter par les institutions françaises : l'Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) et l'Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR).

Ces autorités sont elles-mêmes ancrées non seulement entre elles et entremaillées au niveau européen, dans des relations internationales constantes, mais encore elles sont ancrées dans le système juridique français, lequel se déploie entre les deux ordres de juridictions, juridictions judiciaires et juridictions administratives, substantiellement unis autour des principes constitutionnels, et s'ancre dans l'ordre de l'Union européenne. Mais de fait, parce que la banque, et plus encore la finance, ne sont pas contenus dans les frontières des systèmes juridiques, le Droit américain, plus proche du Droit britannique (Common Law) que du Droit européen continental (Civil Law) dont la France et l'Allemagne demeurent l'expression, demeure la source première d'influence. 

Après avoir fixé quelques définitions et avoir rappelé le raisonnement privilégié en Droit de la Régulation, prenant l'une puis l'autre, la description de l'AMF, qui succéda à la COB, née en 1967 par copie de la SEC américaine, suppose que l'on expose son statut, sa composition, ses pouvoirs et les contrôles dont elle est l'objet.

De nombreux modèles institutionnels existent et on les expérimente les uns après les autres. Le secteur des banques et des assurances continue d'être régulé par une Autorité adossée à la Banque de France, l'ACPR, dont il convient de faire une semblable description. 


Regarder les slides servant de base à la leçon n°1 relative aux institutions bancaires et financières de régulation et de supervision


Revenir aux bases avec le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.


Documentation spécifique à la leçon :


Approfondir par la Bibliographie générale du Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière


Revenir à la présentation générale du Cours. 

Se reporter au plan général du Cours.