Publications [664]

Publications

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Place and rôle of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, série "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

 

___

Article Summary:  This article has a very topic: the place of private Companies, with regard to the chapter's issue: "the ordeal of a crisis". The crisis constitutes a "test", that is to say, it brings evidence. Let us take it as such.

Indeed, during the health crisis, it appears that Companies have helped the Public Authorities to resist the shock, to endure and to get out of the Crisis. They did so by force, but they also took initiatives in this direction. From this too, we must learn lessons for the next crisis that will come. It is possible that this has already started in the form of another global and systemic crisis: the environmental crisis. In view of what we have been able to observe and the evolution of the Law, of the standards adopted by the Authorities but also by the new case law, what can we expect from Companies in the face of this next Crisis, willingly and strength ?

____ 

 

Read the bilingual Working Paper, with more developments, technical references and hypertext links.

 

See the general presentation of the book in which this article will be published.  

March 26, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A.,The Judge-Judged ; articulating words and things in the face of the impossible conflict of interest", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),  Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, série "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. 

___

 Article Summary (made par the Author : Since the topic of this article is part of a chapter devoted to the Company established as Prosecutor and Judge of itself by Compliance Law, chapter aiming to use the relevant qualifications, it is appropriate therefore to worry about the adjustment of words and things, of the way in which the relationship between ones and the others evolve, and of the more particular question of knowing if this evolution is radical or not when one speaks of "judge ".

because "judging" is a word that the Law has disputed with other disciplines, but that it has appropriated not so much to confer more powers on those who act in its name, for example that who supervise and punish, but on the contrary to impose limits, since to the one who judges it has put the chains of the procedure under foot, thus making bearable for the other the exercise of such a power. This is why those who want the power to judge would often want to not have the title, because having de jure the title of judge is being subject to the correlated regime, it is to be submitted to procedural correctness.

It is therefore to better limit that the Law sees who judges, for obliging this so-powerful character to the procedure. But the Law also has the power to appoint a judge and to fix the contours of all the characters in the trial. He usually does it with clarity, distinguishing the ones of the others, not confusing them. This art of distinction has constitutional value. Thus, not only the one who judges must be named "judge" but the procedural apparatus which goes with this character and which constitutes a way of doing things and fundamental rights, are not "granted" by kindness or in a second step: it is a block. If you didn't want to have to endure procedural rights, you didn't have to want to be a judge. Admittedly, one could conclude that the procedure would therefore have become "substantial"; by this elevation, it is rather a fashion of saying that the procedure would no longer be a "servant": it is a kind of declaration of love for the procedure, as long as one affirms that at the acts of judging , or investigating, or prosecuting, are "naturally" attached the procedural rights for the one who is likely to be the object of these powers.

Compliance Law, in search of allies to achieve the Monumental Goals for the aims of which it was instituted, will require, or even demand, private companies to go and seek themselves, in particular through investigations. internal or active vigilance on others, for finding facts likely to be reproached to them. Compliance Law will also require that they prosecute those who have committed these acts. Compliance La will again demand that they sanction the acts that people have committed in their name.

This is clearly understood from the point of view of Ex Ante efficiency. The confusion of roles is often very efficient since it is synonymous with the accumulation of powers. For example, it is more efficient that the one who pursues is also the one who instructs and judges, since he knows the case so well... Besides, it is more efficient that he also elaborates the rules, so he knows better than anyone the "spirit" of the texts. This was often emphasized in Regulatory Law. When everything is Information and risk management, that would be necessary ... But all this is not obvious.

For two reasons, one external and the other internal.

Externally, the first reason is that it is not appropriate to "name" a judge who is not. This would be too easy, because it would then be enough to designate anyone, or even to do it oneself to appropriate the regime that goes with it, in particular for obtain a so-called legitimate power for obtaining that others obey even though they are not subordinate or from them they transmit information, even though they would be  competitors: it would then be necessary to remember that only the Law is able to appoint judge ; in this new Compliance era, companies would be judges, prosecutors, investigators!  Maybe, if the Law says it, but if it didn't, it would be necessary to come back to this tautology ... But are we in such a radicalism? Moreover, do judges have "the prerogative" of judgment and the Law has not admitted this power for companies to judge for a long time? As soon as the procedure is there in Ex Ante and the control of the judge in Ex Post?

The second reason, internal to the company, situation on which the article focuses, is that the company investigates itself, judges itself, sanctions itself. However, the legal person expressing its will only through its organs, we underline in practice the difficulties for the same human being to formulate grievances, as he/she is the agent of the legal person, adressed to the natural person that he/she himself/herself is. The two interests of the two are not the same, are often opposed; how the secrets of one can be kept with respect to the other, represented by the same individual? ... It is all the mystery, even the artifice of legal personality that appears and we understand better that Compliance Law no longer wants to use this strange classical notion. Because all the rules of procedure cannot mask that to prosecute oneself does not make more sense than to contract with oneself. This conflict of interest is impossible to resolve because naming the same individual X then naming him/her Y, by declaring open the dispute between them does not make sense.

This dualism, which is impossible to admit when it comes to playing these functions with regard to corporate officers, can come back to life by setting up third parties who will carry secrets and oppositions. For example by the designation of two separate lawyers for the human being agent and the human being representative of the legal person, each lawyer being able to have secrets for each other and to oppose each other. These spaces of reconstitution of the so "natural" oppositions in procedure between the one who judges and the one who is judged can also take the technological form of platforms: where there is no longer anyone, where the process has replaced the procedure, there is no longer any human judgment. We can thus see that the fear of conflicts of interest is so strong that we resign ourselves to saying that only the machine would be "impartial", a derisory conception of impartiality, against which it is advisable to fight.

This then leads to a final question: can the company claim to exercise the jurisdictional power to prosecute and judge and investigate without even claiming to be a prosecutor, an investigating judge, or a court? The company's advantage would be to be able to escape the legal regime that classical Law attaches to its words, mainly the rights of the defense and the rights of action for others, the principle of publicity of justice for everyone, which expresses the link between procedure and democracy . When Facebook said on June 12, 2021 "react" to the decision of May 5, 2021 adopted by what would only be an Oversight Board to decide "as a consequence" of a 2-year suspension of Donald Trump's account, the art of qualifications seem to be used in order to avoid any regime constraint.

But this art of euphemism is very old. Thus the States, when they wanted to increase repression, presented the transformation of the system as a softening of it through the "decriminalization" of Economic Law, transferred from the criminal courts to the independent administrative agencies. The efficiency was greatly increased, since the guarantees of the Criminal Procedure ceased to apply. But 20 years later, Words found their way back to Things: under Criminal Law, slept the "criminal matter", which requires the same "Impartiality". In 1996, a judge once affirmed it and everything was changed. Let us therefore wait for what the Courts will say, since they are the masters of qualifications, as Article 12 of the French Code of Civil Procedure says, as Motulsky wrote it in 1972. Law has time.

____ 

 

📝 read the bilingual working paper, with technical developments, references and hypertext links , on which this article is based.

 

📝 read the general presentation ot the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published.

 

March 24, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le jugeant-jugé ; articuler les mots et les choses face à l'impossible conflit d'intérêts ("The Judge-Judged ; articulating words and things in the face of the impossible conflict of interest"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 

___

 Article Summary (made par the Author : Since the topic of this article is part of a chapter devoted to the Company established as Prosecutor and Judge of itself by Compliance Law, chapter aiming to use the relevant qualifications, it is appropriate therefore to worry about the adjustment of words and things, of the way in which the relationship between ones and the others evolve, and of the more particular question of knowing if this evolution is radical or not when one speaks of "judge ".

because "judging" is a word that the Law has disputed with other disciplines, but that it has appropriated not so much to confer more powers on those who act in its name, for example that who supervise and punish, but on the contrary to impose limits, since to the one who judges it has put the chains of the procedure under foot, thus making bearable for the other the exercise of such a power. This is why those who want the power to judge would often want to not have the title, because having de jure the title of judge is being subject to the correlated regime, it is to be submitted to procedural correctness.

It is therefore to better limit that the Law sees who judges, for obliging this so-powerful character to the procedure. But the Law also has the power to appoint a judge and to fix the contours of all the characters in the trial. He usually does it with clarity, distinguishing the ones of the others, not confusing them. This art of distinction has constitutional value. Thus, not only the one who judges must be named "judge" but the procedural apparatus which goes with this character and which constitutes a way of doing things and fundamental rights, are not "granted" by kindness or in a second step: it is a block. If you didn't want to have to endure procedural rights, you didn't have to want to be a judge. Admittedly, one could conclude that the procedure would therefore have become "substantial"; by this elevation, it is rather a fashion of saying that the procedure would no longer be a "servant": it is a kind of declaration of love for the procedure, as long as one affirms that at the acts of judging , or investigating, or prosecuting, are "naturally" attached the procedural rights for the one who is likely to be the object of these powers.

Compliance Law, in search of allies to achieve the Monumental Goals for the aims of which it was instituted, will require, or even demand, private companies to go and seek themselves, in particular through investigations. internal or active vigilance on others, for finding facts likely to be reproached to them. Compliance Law will also require that they prosecute those who have committed these acts. Compliance La will again demand that they sanction the acts that people have committed in their name.

This is clearly understood from the point of view of Ex Ante efficiency. The confusion of roles is often very efficient since it is synonymous with the accumulation of powers. For example, it is more efficient that the one who pursues is also the one who instructs and judges, since he knows the case so well... Besides, it is more efficient that he also elaborates the rules, so he knows better than anyone the "spirit" of the texts. This was often emphasized in Regulatory Law. When everything is Information and risk management, that would be necessary ... But all this is not obvious.

For two reasons, one external and the other internal.

Externally, the first reason is that it is not appropriate to "name" a judge who is not. This would be too easy, because it would then be enough to designate anyone, or even to do it oneself to appropriate the regime that goes with it, in particular for obtain a so-called legitimate power for obtaining that others obey even though they are not subordinate or from them they transmit information, even though they would be  competitors: it would then be necessary to remember that only the Law is able to appoint judge ; in this new Compliance era, companies would be judges, prosecutors, investigators!  Maybe, if the Law says it, but if it didn't, it would be necessary to come back to this tautology ... But are we in such a radicalism? Moreover, do judges have "the prerogative" of judgment and the Law has not admitted this power for companies to judge for a long time? As soon as the procedure is there in Ex Ante and the control of the judge in Ex Post?

The second reason, internal to the company, situation on which the article focuses, is that the company investigates itself, judges itself, sanctions itself. However, the legal person expressing its will only through its organs, we underline in practice the difficulties for the same human being to formulate grievances, as he/she is the agent of the legal person, adressed to the natural person that he/she himself/herself is. The two interests of the two are not the same, are often opposed; how the secrets of one can be kept with respect to the other, represented by the same individual? ... It is all the mystery, even the artifice of legal personality that appears and we understand better that Compliance Law no longer wants to use this strange classical notion. Because all the rules of procedure cannot mask that to prosecute oneself does not make more sense than to contract with oneself. This conflict of interest is impossible to resolve because naming the same individual X then naming him/her Y, by declaring open the dispute between them does not make sense.

This dualism, which is impossible to admit when it comes to playing these functions with regard to corporate officers, can come back to life by setting up third parties who will carry secrets and oppositions. For example by the designation of two separate lawyers for the human being agent and the human being representative of the legal person, each lawyer being able to have secrets for each other and to oppose each other. These spaces of reconstitution of the so "natural" oppositions in procedure between the one who judges and the one who is judged can also take the technological form of platforms: where there is no longer anyone, where the process has replaced the procedure, there is no longer any human judgment. We can thus see that the fear of conflicts of interest is so strong that we resign ourselves to saying that only the machine would be "impartial", a derisory conception of impartiality, against which it is advisable to fight.

This then leads to a final question: can the company claim to exercise the jurisdictional power to prosecute and judge and investigate without even claiming to be a prosecutor, an investigating judge, or a court? The company's advantage would be to be able to escape the legal regime that classical Law attaches to its words, mainly the rights of the defense and the rights of action for others, the principle of publicity of justice for everyone, which expresses the link between procedure and democracy . When Facebook said on June 12, 2021 "react" to the decision of May 5, 2021 adopted by what would only be an Oversight Board to decide "as a consequence" of a 2-year suspension of Donald Trump's account, the art of qualifications seem to be used in order to avoid any regime constraint.

But this art of euphemism is very old. Thus the States, when they wanted to increase repression, presented the transformation of the system as a softening of it through the "decriminalization" of Economic Law, transferred from the criminal courts to the independent administrative agencies. The efficiency was greatly increased, since the guarantees of the Criminal Procedure ceased to apply. But 20 years later, Words found their way back to Things: under Criminal Law, slept the "criminal matter", which requires the same "Impartiality". In 1996, a judge once affirmed it and everything was changed. Let us therefore wait for what the Courts will say, since they are the masters of qualifications, as Article 12 of the French Code of Civil Procedure says, as Motulsky wrote it in 1972. Law has time.

____ 

 

📝 read the bilingual working paper, with technical developments, references and hypertext links , on which this article is based.

 

📝 read a general presentation ot the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published.

 

Oct. 25, 2021

Publications

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Place et rôle des entreprise dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published

 

___

Article Summary:  Cette réflexion a un objet très précis : la place des entreprises privées, au regard du thème général qui unit les contributions : "l'épreuve que constitue une crise". La crise constitue une "épreuve", c'est-à-dire qu'elle apporte des preuves. Prenons-là comme telle.

En effet, lors de la crise sanitaire, il apparait que les entreprises ont aidé les Autorités publiques à résister au choc, à endurer et à sortir de la crise. Elles l'ont fait de force mais elles ont aussi pris des initiatives dans ce sens. De cela aussi, il faut tirer des leçons pour la prochaine crise qui viendra . Il est possible que celle-ci soit déjà commencé sous la forme d'une autre crise global et systémique : la crise environnementale. Au regard de ce qu'on a pu observer et de l'évolution du Droit, des normes prises par les Autorités mais aussi par les nouvelles jurisprudences, que pourra-t-on attendre des entreprise face à celle-ci, de gré et de force ? 

____ 

 

📝 Lire le document de travail bilingue, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes.

 

Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article a été publié.

 

Sept. 7, 2021

Publications

► Référence complète: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur (rapport de synthèse), in Claudel, E. (dir.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états, Numéro spécial, Gaz. Pal. , 7 sept. 2021.

____

 

📅 Cet article fait suite au colloque de l'Association Droit & Commerce qui s'est tenu à Deauville les 25 et 26 juin 2021.

📝 Il se base sur les notes qui y furent prises pour établir le rapport de synthèse qui y fût prononcé.

 

________

July 23, 2021

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Programme de mise en conformité (Compliance), Dictionnaire de droit de la concurrence, Concurrences, Art. N° 12345, 2021

Read the definition (in French)

July 22, 2021

Publications

► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionality  and Compliance,  Working Paper, 22nd July  2021.

____

 

🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference in the colloquium Compliance and Proportionality. From the control of Proportionality to the proportionality of the control, to be helded in Toulouse, France, on the 14th October 2021.

 

📝It constitutes the basis for an article: 

📕 this article will be published in its French version in the book  Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancein the Series 📚   Régulations & Compliance

 📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goalsin the Series 📚   Compliance & Regulation

____

► Working Paper Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.

 

However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression.   But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition...  Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...

In this definition of Compliance Law, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of  squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.

By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law,  the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression  Law  has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.

In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of ​​Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...

 

But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!

 

Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose  effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.

A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as one has a precise goal, proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of criminal law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "monumental goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Monumental Goals of Compliance Law". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to this. Then all the tools of Compliance must adjust in a way "proportionate" that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).

 

Une inversion se produit. La proportionnalité cesse d'être ce qui limite l'efficacité pour devenir ce qui devient l'efficacité. Dès l'instant que l'on a un but précis, la proportionnalité n'est pas la conséquence de la limitation (comme dans le principe de "nécessité" de la loi pénale, en tant que celle-ci est une exception), elle est la conséquence du fait que tout mécanisme juridique est un "Outil de la Compliance", qui n'a de sens que par rapport à un "but monumental". Il est alors essentiel de fixer les "Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance". Comme c'est là qu'est logée la normativité juridique de la Compliance, le contrôle doit d'une façon première porter sur cela. Puis tous les outils de la Compliance doivent s'ajuster d'une façon "proportionnée" c'est-à-dire efficace à ses buts : autant qu'il est nécessaire, pas plus qu'il n'est nécessaire. Selon le principe d'économie (que l'on appelle aussi le "principe d'élégance" en mathématique).

La règle contraire au principe de proportionnalité est alors : la règle inutile pour atteindre le but. La règle inutile est la règle disproportionnée : c'est ainsi qu'il faut lire le contrôle judiciaire des sanctions excessives, non pas par la notion de "la limite" mais pas la notion de " l'inutile". 

Tout repose alors sur la qualité juridique du but. De droit - et cela mériterait d'être une exigence de niveau constitutionnel, le but doit toujours être lisible, compréhensible non contradictoire, atteignable.

Cela accroît l'office du juge. Cela renouvelle le pouvoir du législateur dans une conception qui cesse d'être discrétionnaire.

Mais le Législateur garde l'apanage de fixer les Buts Monumentaux, tandis que le juge garde la qualité de la formulation qu'il en fait, afin de pouvoir en mesurer la proportionnalité des moyens qui sont mis en face par l'Etat et par les entreprises, tandis que les entreprises peuvent se rallier aux Buts Monumentaux du Politique en faisant alliance avec lui mais certainement pas en instituer d'autres d'une façon autonome car ce ne sont pas des entités politiques normatives, alors qu'elles sont libres de déterminer les moyens nécessaires pour atteindre ces buts, le juge contrôler le mécanisme de proportionnalité qui fait fonctionner l'ensemble de ce nouveau système.

La jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel allemand exprime cette conception-là. Elle est pleinement conforme à ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance dans ce qu'est le But Monumental qui contient tous les Buts Monumentaux systémiques : la protection de l'être humain.

_____________

 

June 26, 2021

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., notes prises pour faire le rapport de  synthèse du colloque de Droit et Commerce, La concurrence dans tous ses états, 26 juin 2021.

____

► Méthode : En raison de la richesse et la diversité des propos tenus, pour tenir le temps imparti, des passages n'ont pas été repris à l'oral. 

Parce qu'il s'agit d'une synthèse, le document ne s'appuie que sur les propos tenus et n'est pas doté de références techniques, ne renvoyant pas non plus à des travaux personnels.

____

 

► Articulation et résumé des notes prises au fur et à mesure de l'écoute des différentes interventions des orateurs successifs :

  • Pendant 2 jours, l'écoute de toutes les interventions sur "le Droit de la Concurrence dans tous ses états" a fait ressortir les choix qui s'offrent pour ce qui pourrait être demain cette branche du Droit : ce sont des choix de nature politique entre diverses définitions possibles de ce que doit être le Droit de la Concurrence.
  • L'essentiel est sans doute que cette définition soit claire ; pour être claire, il faut qu'elle soit de principe et que le but poursuivi par le Droit de la Concurrence soit simple, pour dans un second temps s'articuler avec d'autres branches du Droit (par le juge, notamment), et avec des "politiques", comme la "politique de la concurrence", puis d'autres politiques (par des Autorités politiques, notamment européennes).
  • Les interventions ont proposé des conceptions diverses, voire opposées de ce que doit être le Droit de la Concurrence, mais tous se sont accordés sur le fait qu'il a subi de nombreux chocs et que, sans doute, son rétablissement passe par une "culture" commune de la Concurrence.
  • Les évolutions ont attaqué les piliers mêmes du Droit de la concurrence pour mieux le reconstruire en le faisant passer d'une perspective principalement Ex Post vers une perspective principalement Ex Ante, en donnant pertinence aux objets mêmes, notamment aux données, en prenant en considération les êtres humains.
  • L'évolution peut s'opérer par internalisation des perspectives de Régulation et de Compliance dans un Droit de la Concurrence qui s'hypertrophie et devient politique, ce qui pose la question de la légitimité de cette conception "holistique" ; elle peut aussi s'opérer par un Droit de la concurrence qui demeure "autocentré" sur ses notions techniques de marché, de prix, etc., mais s'articule avec les autres branches du Droit, économiques ou non. C'est un choix politique.
  • Il est entre les mains non seulement des États et des Parlements, notamment à propos de l'espace numérique, mais encore, voire surtout, entre les mains des cours suprêmes, catégorie à laquelle la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne appartient et à laquelle chacun s'est référée en permanence. 

____

 

🔻Lire les notes prises d'une façon exhaustive ci-dessous.

 

June 22, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Judge-Judge ; articulating words and things in the face of the impossible conflict of interest, in "Compliance Juridictionnalisation", working paper, June 22, 2022.

____

 

🎤 This Working Paper had been made to prepare a conference (done in French).

This conference took place in the Academic Colloquium, L'entreprise instituée Procureur et Juge d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance, in Lyon, the 23rd  June 2021.

____

📝this Working Paper is the basis of an article to be published 

📕 in its French version in the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series 📚 Régulations & Compliance

📘 in its English version in the book  Compliance Juridictionnalisation, in the Series 📚 Compliance & Regulation

____

 

► Working Paper Summary: Puisque le thème de cette réflexion générale sur L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance porte sur un ensemble d'autres réflexions soucieuses de l’ajustement des mots et des choses, la façon dont le rapport entre les uns et les autres évoluent, ce travail va porter sur la question de savoir si cette évolution est radicale ou pas, lorsqu'on parle de "juge".

Car, "juger" c'est un mot que le Droit a disputé à d'autres discipline!footnote-2090s, mais qu'il s'est approprié pour non pas tant avoir davantage de pouvoirs, par exemple celui de surveiller et de punir, mais au contraire s'imposer des limites, puisqu'à celui qui juge il a mis aux pieds les chaines de la procédure, ce qui rend supportable pour l'autre un tel pouvoir exercé!footnote-2091. C'est pourquoi ceux qui veulent le pouvoir de juger voudraient souvent n'en avoir pas le titre, car avoir de jure  le titre de juge c'est être soumis au régime corrélé, c'est se soumettre à l'exactitude procédurale.

Le Droit repère qui juge et oblige ce si-puissant à la procédure. Mais il a aussi le pouvoir d'instituer juge et tous les personnages du procès. Il le fait d'ordinaire avec clarté en distinguant les uns des choses. C'est si important que ce conseil a valeur constitutionnelle. Ainsi, non seulement celui qui juge doit être nommé ainsi mais l'appareillage procédurale qui va avec le personnage et qui constitue à la façon une façon de faire et des droits fondamentaux, ne sont pas "concédés" par bonté ou dans un second temps : c'est un bloc. Si l'on ne voulait pas avoir à supporter les droits processuels, il ne fallait vouloir être juge. Certes on pu en conclure que la procédure serait donc devenue "substantielle" ; par cette élévation, il s'agit plutôt de dire que la procédure ne serait plus une "matière servante": c'est une sorte de déclaration d'amour pour la procédure, tant qu'on affirme qu'à l'acte de juger, d'enquêter ou de poursuivre, sont "naturellement" attachées les droits pour celui qui risque d'en être l'objet.

Le Droit de la Compliance, à la recherche d'alliés pour atteindre les Buts Monumentaux pour l'atteinte desquels il a été institué, va requérir, voire exiger d'entreprises privées qu'elle aillent elles-mêmes rechercher, c'est-à-dire enquêter, des faits susceptibles de lui être reprochés. Le Droit de la Compliance va aussi exiger qu'elles poursuivent les personnes ayant commis ces faits. Il va encore exiger qu'elles sanctionnent les faits que des personnes ont commis en son nom.

On le comprend bien du point de vue de l'efficacité Ex Ante. La confusion est souvent très efficace. Par exemple il est plus efficace que celui qui poursuit soit aussi celui qui instruise et qui juge, puisqu'il connait bien le dossier. D'ailleurs il est plus efficace qu'il prenne aussi les règles, ainsi il connait mieux que quiconque "l'esprit" des textes. Cela fut souvent souligné en Droit de la Régulation.  Mais tout cela ne va pas de soi.

Pour deux raisons, l'une extérieur et l'autre intérieure. 

La première raison, extérieure, tient que l'on ne pourrait pas "nommer" juge qui ne l'est pas. Cela serait trop facile, car il suffirait alors de désigner quiconque, voire de le faire soi-même pour s'approprier le régime qui va avec, pouvoir notamment d'obtenir qu'autrui obéisse alors même qu'il n'est pas subordonné ou qu'il transmette des informations, alors même qu'il serait concurrent : il faudrait alors rappeler seul le juge pourrait se nommer juge ! et dans ce temps nouveau, voilà que des entreprises seraient juges, procureurs, enquêteurs ! Les temps seraient donc si graves et en si grand désordre qu'il faudrait en revenir à cette tautologie là... !footnote-2092 Mais sommes-nous dans une telle radicalité ? D'ailleurs, les juges ont-ils "l'apanage" du jugement et le Droit n'admet-il pas cela depuis longtemps ? Dès l'instant que la procédure est là en Ex Ante et le contrôle du juge en Ex Post ?  

La seconde raison, interne à l'entreprise, tient à ce que l'entreprise enquête sur elle-même, se juge elle-même, se sanctionne elle-même. Or, la personne morale n'exprimant sa volonté qu'à travers soit ses organes, l'on souligne en pratique les difficultés pour un même être humain de formuler des griefs, en tant qu'il est le mandataire de la personne morale, à la personne physique qu'il est lui-même. Les deux intérêts des deux ne sont pas les mêmes, sont souvent opposés, et comment les secrets de l'un peuvent être tenus à l'égard de l'autre. C'est tout le mystère, voire l'artifice de la personnalité morale qui apparaît et l'on comprend mieux que le Droit de la Compliance ne veut plus utiliser cette notion étrange. Car toues les règles de procédure ne peuvent masquer que se poursuivre soi-même n'a pas plus de sens que de contracter avec soi-même. Ce conflit d'intérêts est impossible à résoudre car nommer un même individu x puis le nommer y, en déclarant ouverte la dispute entre eux n'a pas de sens. 

Ce dualisme impossible à admettre dès l'instant qu'il s'agit de faire jouer ces fonctions à l'égard des mandataires sociaux peut retrouver vie en instituant des tiers de confiance qui vont porter les secrets et les oppositions.  Par exemple par la désignation de deux avocats distincts par l'être humain mandataire et l'être humain dirigeant, chaque avocat pouvant avoir des secrets l'un pour l'autre et s'opposer l'un à l'autre. Ces espaces de reconstitution des oppositions si "naturelles" en procédure entre celui qui juge et celui qui est jugé peuvent aussi avoir prendre la forme technologique des plateformes : là où il n'y a plus personne, là où le process a remplacé la procédure, il n'y a plus non plus de jugement humain. L'on mesure ainsi que la crainte des conflits d'intérêts est si forte que l'on se résigne à dire que seule la machine serait "impartiale", dérisoire conception de l'impartialité contre laquelle il convient de lutter.

Cela permet alors d'aboutir à une dernière question : l'entreprise peut-elle prétendre exercer le pouvoir juridictionnel de poursuivre et de juger et d'enquêter sans même se prétendre ni procureur, ni juge d'instruction, ni tribunal ? L'avantage serait de pouvoir se soustraire au régime juridique que le Droit classique attache à ses mots-là, principalement les droits de la défense, les droits d'action et le principe de publicité de la justice.  Quand Facebook dit "réagir" à la décision du 5 mai 2021 adoptée par ce qui ne serait qu'un Oversight Board pour décider pourtant "en conséquence" une suspension de 2 ans du compte de Donald Trump, l'art des qualifications semble être utilisé afin d'éviter toute contrainte de régime.  Mais cet art de l'euphémisme est bien ancien. Ainsi les Etats, lorsqu'ils voulurent accroître la répression, présentèrent la transformation du système comme un adoucissement de celui-ci à travers la "dépénalisation" du Droit économique, transféré des tribunaux correctionnels aux AAI. L'efficacité en fût grandement accrue, puisque les garanties de la procédure pénales ont cessé de s'appliquer. Mais 20 ans plus tard, les mots retrouvèrent leur chemin vers les choses : sous le Droit pénal, dormait la "matière pénale", qui requière la même "impartialité". Un juge un jour l'affirma et tout fut changé. Attendons donc ce qu'en diront les Cours, puisqu'elles sont les maîtres des qualifications, comme le dit l'article 12 du Code de procédure civil, qu'écrivit Motulsky. 

1

Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Le jugement, ...

Kant, etc.

2

La procédure est ainsi ce qui fonde le procès de Nuremberg, lui-même berceau de la Justice internationale, alors même que l'Ordre juridique international n'existe pas. 

3

Confucius affirmait que la seule mais suffisante façon de rappeler l'ordre dans le Royaume est de nommer "mère" la mère et "fils" le fils.

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Incentives and Compliance, a promising couple to increase the Compliance Law utility, in Frison-RocheM.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Bruylant, 2021, p. 141-148

 

___

Summary of the article: The theory of incentives targets the mechanisms which do not use directly constraint (except to present sanctions themselves as incentives) but which leads nevertheless to expected behaviors. To appreciate the links which must or must not be done between incentives and Compliance, we should proceed in two times. 

First, the association appears natural between incentive mechanisms and "Compliance Law" since the later is defined in a dynamic way. Indeed, if it is defined placing its legal normativity in its "monumental goals", as the end of corruption, the detection of money laundering in order to underlying criminality disappears, or as the effective protection of environment or the concrete care of human beings, then what matters is not the means in themselves but the effective tension towards these "monumental goals". In this perspective, what was related to public policies led by States, because they are definitively not able to do it, the charge is internalized in the firms which are able to tend towards this goals: "crucial operators" because they have the geographical, technological, informational and financial means. 

In this perspective, the internalization of public willingness provoking a split with the concept of State linked to a territory which deprives Politics of its constraint power, incentive mechanisms appear as the most efficient mean to reach these monumental goals. They appear as this "natural" mean both negatively and positively defined. Negatively in which they do not need in Ex Ante institutional localizable sources and sanction power in Ex Post: it is enough to substitute the interest to obligation. Positively, incentives relay through operators' strategies what was the so critical and joked form of public action: the "plan". The duration is thus injected thanks to Compliance mechanisms, as we can see it through the development of it in the care for environment ("plan climat") or through the educational mechanism, which could be conceived only in duration.  

However, the opposition seems radical between Compliance Law and Incentives. And this because of three convictions often developed and that we have to overcome. First, the idea that in a general way, there would be a Law only if there is a mechanism of immediate constraint which is associated to the norm. As long as the incentive is not based on obligation, then it will be nothing... Secondly, and as if that were a kind of consolation ..., Compliance would not be really Law either ... We so often say that it is only about a methodology, a range of processes without sense, procedures to follow without trying to understand, process that algorithms integrate in a mechanic without end and without sense or that on the contrary, Compliance would be full of sense by Ethics and Morality, which are far from Law. While incentives talk to the human spirit which calculate, Compliance would be so a process through which machines will be connected to other machines, so an extra soul, where calculation has no place... Thirdly, solutions would be to be find in Competition Law because it can do without States, submit them and approach what is a-sectorial, especially finance and digital, the world being financialized and digitalized. The violence of Competition Law which comes in Ex Ante thanks to "Compliance sanctions" applying for example to essential infrastructures Law, by continuing to deny the salience of the duration and taking care of the "market power" would be also not compatible with a marriage with incentive mechanisms which rely on duration and power of those to which it is applied, converging towards goals, which are set by what Competition Law ignores: the project. This project which pretends to build the future is the one of politics and of companies, which use their deployed power in time to concretize it. It is without any doubt there that the future of Europe is. 

To overcome this triple difficulty, it is thus necessary, in a second time, to modify our conception of Law, especially thanks to Compliance Law, in which this new branch is autonomous from Competition Law, and even sometimes opposed to it, in order to the insertion of incentive mechanisms permit to unknown or against Competition Law organizations to reach "monumental goals" which are imperative to take into consideration. For example, the taking into consideration of climate challenges or the building of a sovereign identity of the data. This is expressly set by European Commission which supervises such initiatives, supervision being what is articulated with Compliance, in a couple that go beyond Regulation, and replaces in Ex Ante Competition Law, salient branch for Ex Post. All the texts which are in the process of expressing it are based on this reformed couple: Compliance and Incentive.

This couple supposes that we recognize as such the existence of companies as project carriers, project which is the creation of marketed wealth circulating on a market, which could be an industrial project specific to a geographical zone both economical and political. Regulation is deployed to go away from the notion of sector and to transform itself in supervision of crucial firms in the correspondance between the project and the action, what refers to the notion of "plan". In this, banking supervision is just the advanced bastion of all thematic, energetic, climatic and health plans, or more broadly industrial and technological that could by incentive be implemented, this conception of Compliance permitting to build zones which are not reduced to immediate market exchange. The incentive corresponds to the fact that Compliance Law relies on the power of the firm to reach its own political goals, for example fighting against disinformation in the digital space or obtaining a healthy environnement. This supposes that Compliance stops to be only conceived as a model of rules effectivity, for example of Competition Law, to be recognized as a substantial branch of Law. A branch which expresses political goals. A branch which is anchored in crucial firms whose it recognizes the autonomy with regards to markets. This makes it possible, in particular through the coupling with incentive mechanisms leading to long-term collaborative operations supervised by public authorities, not to be governed by simple Competition Law, inapt to bring projects to fruition.

____

 

Read the bilingual work paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks on which this article is based

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which the article has been published.

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

General reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an Obligation and the paradoxe of the "Compliance Risks", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, p. 61-72

 

___

Summary of the article :

There are few synthetic or theoretical studies on Risk Mapping even though it is in fact the Compliance central tool, perhaps because it is more a management tool than a legal one. Risk Mapping is often described but does not receive any other legal qualifications than being a "modality", suffering in this respect from an evil which affects the whole of Compliance, still little understood by Law, attention often so focused on the Ex Post (sanctions) while Compliance is by nature in the Ex Ante. Going from disarray to incomprehension, everyone can note the existence of "compliance risks" among the mapped risks, because if as so many affirm that it would be necessary to speak only of simple conformity as obedience, demonstrated in Ex Ante, to Law, how a sub-set of a tool would therefore have the same object as the set of Law that this tool serves ... This aporia can only be resolved if Compliance Law is defined substantially by its "monumental goals" which exceed obedience to regulations.

Consequently, Law taking up Risk Mapping, this mechanism may first appear as an ancillary obligation to the main obligation consisting in achieving "monumental goals". The ancillary obligation to draw up the maps is an obligation of result, while the main obligation to achieve the monumental goals is an obligation of means. These cartographies being very diverse and being only occasionally targeted by specific laws, it can also constitute only a legal fact or, through the play of various charters, a unilateral legal commitment. But it isnbecoming the basis of an autonomous legal obligation incumbent on enterprises in position to know certain risks, obligation referring to the existence of a subjective right tof knowing and measuring them ("right to be worried") which the third parties who are going to run them would hold, thus allowing them to choose to run them, or not.

____

 

Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based 

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which the article is published

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A..,Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, p. 319-342

 

___

 

Article Summary: In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve. Because every effort must be done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools".

But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law.

We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space.

____

 

Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based 

 

Read the General Presentation of the book in which this article has been published

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

► Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Building by Law the Unicity of Compliance Tools from the Definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, pp. 35-46

 

Summary of the article : The "tools of Compliance" do not stack on top of each other. They form a system, thanks to a unity drawn from the goals that all these multiple and different tools serve: the "Monumental Goals" by which Compliance Law is defined.

All these tools are configured by these goals and for mastering all these techniques, it is essential to put them all in perspective of what Compliance Law is, which is designed teleologically with regard to its goals. Extension of Regulatory Law and like it, Compliance Law is built on a balance between the principle of competition and other concerns that public authorities claim to take care of. Compliance Law has moreover more "pretensions" in this respect, for example in environmental matters. All the means are then good, the violence of the tools marrying without difficulty with the voluntary commitments since it is the goals which govern this branch of Law.

As legal solutions adopted show, a common method of interpretation and common levels of constraint for all Compliance Tools result from this definition. Starting from the goals (in which legal normativity is housed), the interpretation of the different tools is thus unified. Moreover, the different degrees of constraint do not operate according to the consideration of sources (traditional legal criterion) but by the goals, according to the legal distinction between obligations of means and obligations of results which result from the articulation between tools, of which the establishment is an obligation of result, and the goal, of which the achievement is only an obligation of means.

____

 

📝 Read the bilingual working paper on which rely this article.

📝 Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolving the contradiction between "sanction" and "incentive" under the fire of Compliance Law, in Frison-RocheM.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series "Regulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, p. 101-112

 

___

 

Summary of the article: Compliance and Incentives appear at first glance to be totally opposite. For two major reasons. Firstly, because sanctions have a central place in Compliance Law and that the incentives suppose an absence of constraint on the operators. Secondly, because the incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law assumes a strong presence of public authorities. Thus, one should choose: either Compliance or Incentives! Either the effectiveness of one or the effectiveness of the others; either the techniques of one, or the techniques of others; either the philosophy of one or the philosophy of the other. Resign oneself to the waste that such a necessary choice would imply. But to put the terms in this way amounts to thinking poorly about the situations and reducing the fields of the solutions they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, we can on the contrary articulate Compliance and Incentives. From this perspective, sanctions can no longer become what blocks the use of incentives but, on the contrary, what constitutes them. Even more, the coupling between the Incentives and the requirements of Compliance Law must be strongly encouraged, as soon as the public authorities supervise in Ex Ante all the initiatives taken by the "crucial operators".

This working document deals with the first issue. Indeed, the so-called incentive theory targets mechanisms which do not directly resort to constraint. They would therefore have little place in Compliance Law. But it seems saturated with sanction procedures. We can even say that it seems to put them at the center, the public authorities presenting the number of sanctions as a sign of success, while the companies seem obsessed with their prospects, the two concerns ending in such a strange convergence that are the Convention Judiciaire d'Intérêt Public (non-prosecution agreement).

The honest observer cannot help but be immediately uneasy. Indeed, it can only raise the definition of the sanction as a "constraint" triggered Ex Post, at the very heart of a Compliance Law which is presented as a set of Ex Ante mechanisms. Based on this contradiction in terms, should we give up the association and think that it would be wrong against the spirit to think of the sanction as an incentive?

It is undoubtedly in this connection that one perceives most clearly the clash of two cultures, which do not communicate, while technically they apply to the same situations. Indeed, because Compliance was designed by Finance, everything is a tool for it. Therefore, the tendency to think of the sanction only as an incentive is very strong in Compliance Law, manifests itself continuously and will not stop (I). But whatever the reasons for conceiving it this way, the principles of the rule of law cannot disappear and if we do not want them to be erased, then they must be articulated (II). This is an essential game (II).

This is why we can literally say that Compliance has set Criminal Law on fire by its conception, logical but closed in on itself, of sanctions as simple incentives. In order for Law to remain, however, we must hold a very firm definition of Compliance Law centered on its Monumental Goal, which is the protection of the person.

____

 

Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based.

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which this article is published.

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Describing, conceiving and correlating compliance tools, in order to use them adequately, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series Regulation & Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, p. 9-32.

 

____

 

Summary of the article: The article is the general introduction to the book on Compliance tools. In its first part it develops the overall problematic. In its second part, it presents each of the contributions, placed in the overall construction of the work.

 

____

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.

 

 

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Training: content and container of Compliance Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance tools, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, p. 245-264

 

___

 

Summary of the article

Firstly, as Training is a specific Compliance tool, it is supervised by Regulators. It becomes mandatory when it is contained in Compliance programs or sanction decisions. Since effectiveness and efficiency are legal requirements, what is the margin of companies to design them and how to measure the result?

Secondly, as long as each Compliance tool includes, more and more, an educational dimension, we can take each of them to identify this perspective. So even condemnations and prescriptions are so many lessons, lessons given, lessons to be followed. The question is then to know who, in this so pedagogical Compliance Law, are the "teachers"?

 

____

 

This article is based on a bilingual Working Paper, including additional technical developments, pop-up notes and hypertext links.

 

Consult an overview of the volume in which the article was published.

 

 

____

June 2, 2021

Publications

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Bruylant, 2021.

This book in English is the first title of this collection integrally dedicated to Compliance Law, in that it is the extension of Regulation Law

Read the titles of this series in English co-published by Bruylant. 

This collection in English is articulated with a collection co-published between the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz.

Thus, in parallel, a book in French, Les Outils de la Compliance is published. 

Read the titles of the series in French co-published with Dalloz. 

This book is published after a  cycle of colloquiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Partners Universities.

___

General Presentation of the collective book

The political dimension of Compliance Law lies in the goals it aims to achieve. To achieve them, the concern for these goals is internalized in "crucial operators", which may be obliged to concretize "monumental goals" set by public authorities. These public bodies control the Ex Ante reorganization that this implies for these companies and sanction Ex Post the possible inadequacy of the companies, which have become transparent to this end. The effectiveness and efficiency of this internalization, without which the statement of these goals is worth nothing, is based on the Compliance tools that are deployed.

These appear to be very diverse but their substantial unity (topic which will be the subject of a forthcoming book) makes it possible to study the tools put in place from a unique perspective, by not isolating them in a particular branch of Law, Criminal law or International Law for example, but by measuring what is common to them, notably Anticipation, Trust, Commitment, Responsibility, Incentive, and so on. If the Compliance tools vary, it is rather not only according to the sectors, finance and banking appearing then as the advanced point of the general Compliance Law, for example in environmental matters, but also according to the countries and the cultures. It is in fact about them that legal cultures seem to oppose.

The book aims to understand these "tools" by going beyond the description of each instrument, for which we already have many monographs, for analyzing them through the issues of Risks, required Expertises, Training. Sovereignty claims, Incentives, mechanical aptitude of Technologies. It is through these themes that are analyzed by the authors, experts in the field, what we always want to understand better: Compliance Programs, Whistle blowing, Mapping, Sanctions, Extraterritoriality, etc.

 ____

 

 

Read the summary of the book

 

Read the foreword, summarizing all the contributions.  

 

Présentation of the book contributions:

 

 

May 15, 2021

Publications

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. Place and Role of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, Working Paper, May 2021. 

This Working Paper has been elaborated as basis for a conference in the colloquium of Mai 17, 2021 (done in French: Normes publiques et Compliance en temps de crise : les buts monumentaux à l'épreuve.

This video is made with English substitutes. 

It is also the basis for an article in the book Compliance Monumental Goals, the English version of which is co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

Summary: This article has a very topic: the place of private Companies, with regard to the chapter's issue: "the ordeal of a crisis". The crisis constitutes a "test", that is to say, it brings evidence. Let us take it as such.

Indeed, during the health crisis, it appears that Companies have helped the Public Authorities to resist the shock, to endure and to get out of the Crisis. They did so by force, but they also took initiatives in this direction. From this too, we must learn lessons for the next crisis that will come. It is possible that this has already started in the form of another global and systemic crisis: the environmental crisis. In view of what we have been able to observe and the evolution of the Law, of the standards adopted by the Authorities but also by the new case law, what can we expect from Companies in the face of this next Crisis, willingly and strength 

 

Lire ci-dessous les développements.

April 21, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., La formation : contenu et contenant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les Outils de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, pp.. 227-244.

___

 

► Summary of the article: Firstly, as Training is a specific Compliance tool, it is supervised by Regulators. It becomes mandatory when it is contained in Compliance programs or sanction decisions. Since effectiveness and efficiency are legal requirements, what is the margin of companies to design them and how to measure the result?

Secondly, as long as each Compliance tool includes, more and more, an educational dimension, we can take each of them to identify this perspective. So even condemnations and prescriptions are so many lessons, lessons given, lessons to be followed. The question is then to know who, in this so pedagogical Compliance Law, are the "teachers"?

____

 

🚧 This article is based on a bilingual Working Paper, including additional technical developments, pop-up notes and hypertext links.

 

► Consult an overview of the volume in which the article was published.

 

 

____

 

April 21, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les droits subjectifs, outils premiers et naturels du Droit de la Compliance , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les Outils de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 301-323

___

 

► English Summary of this article written in French: In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve. Because every effort must be done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools".

But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law.

We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space.

____

 

 

____

 

April 21, 2021

Publications

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Incitation et Compliance, un couple à propulser pour accroître l'utilité du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-RocheM.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 123-130

 

___

Summary of the article: The theory of incentives targets the mechanisms which do not use directly constraint (except to present sanctions themselves as incentives) but which leads nevertheless to expected behaviors. To appreciate the links which must or must not be done between incentives and Compliance, we should proceed in two times. 

First, the association appears natural between incentive mechanisms and "Compliance Law" since the later is defined in a dynamic way. Indeed, if it is defined placing its legal normativity in its "monumental goals", as the end of corruption, the detection of money laundering in order to underlying criminality disappears, or as the effective protection of environment or the concrete care of human beings, then what matters is not the means in themselves but the effective tension towards these "monumental goals". In this perspective, what was related to public policies led by States, because they are definitively not able to do it, the charge is internalized in the firms which are able to tend towards this goals: "crucial operators" because they have the geographical, technological, informational and financial means. 

In this perspective, the internalization of public willingness provoking a split with the concept of State linked to a territory which deprives Politics of its constraint power, incentive mechanisms appear as the most efficient mean to reach these monumental goals. They appear as this "natural" mean both negatively and positively defined. Negatively in which they do not need in Ex Ante institutional localizable sources and sanction power in Ex Post: it is enough to substitute the interest to obligation. Positively, incentives relay through operators' strategies what was the so critical and joked form of public action: the "plan". The duration is thus injected thanks to Compliance mechanisms, as we can see it through the development of it in the care for environment ("plan climat") or through the educational mechanism, which could be conceived only in duration.  

However, the opposition seems radical between Compliance Law and Incentives. And this because of three convictions often developed and that we have to overcome. First, the idea that in a general way, there would be a Law only if there is a mechanism of immediate constraint which is associated to the norm. As long as the incentive is not based on obligation, then it will be nothing... Secondly, and as if that were a kind of consolation ..., Compliance would not be really Law either ... We so often say that it is only about a methodology, a range of processes without sense, procedures to follow without trying to understand, process that algorithms integrate in a mechanic without end and without sense or that on the contrary, Compliance would be full of sense by Ethics and Morality, which are far from Law. While incentives talk to the human spirit which calculate, Compliance would be so a process through which machines will be connected to other machines, so an extra soul, where calculation has no place... Thirdly, solutions would be to be find in Competition Law because it can do without States, submit them and approach what is a-sectorial, especially finance and digital, the world being financialized and digitalized. The violence of Competition Law which comes in Ex Ante thanks to "Compliance sanctions" applying for example to essential infrastructures Law, by continuing to deny the salience of the duration and taking care of the "market power" would be also not compatible with a marriage with incentive mechanisms which rely on duration and power of those to which it is applied, converging towards goals, which are set by what Competition Law ignores: the project. This project which pretends to build the future is the one of politics and of companies, which use their deployed power in time to concretize it. It is without any doubt there that the future of Europe is. 

To overcome this triple difficulty, it is thus necessary, in a second time, to modify our conception of Law, especially thanks to Compliance Law, in which this new branch is autonomous from Competition Law, and even sometimes opposed to it, in order to the insertion of incentive mechanisms permit to unknown or against Competition Law organizations to reach "monumental goals" which are imperative to take into consideration. For example, the taking into consideration of climate challenges or the building of a sovereign identity of the data. This is expressly set by European Commission which supervises such initiatives, supervision being what is articulated with Compliance, in a couple that go beyond Regulation, and replaces in Ex Ante Competition Law, salient branch for Ex Post. All the texts which are in the process of expressing it are based on this reformed couple: Compliance and Incentive.

This couple supposes that we recognize as such the existence of companies as project carriers, project which is the creation of marketed wealth circulating on a market, which could be an industrial project specific to a geographical zone both economical and political. Regulation is deployed to go away from the notion of sector and to transform itself in supervision of crucial firms in the correspondance between the project and the action, what refers to the notion of "plan". In this, banking supervision is just the advanced bastion of all thematic, energetic, climatic and health plans, or more broadly industrial and technological that could by incentive be implemented, this conception of Compliance permitting to build zones which are not reduced to immediate market exchange. The incentive corresponds to the fact that Compliance Law relies on the power of the firm to reach its own political goals, for example fighting against disinformation in the digital space or obtaining a healthy environnement. This supposes that Compliance stops to be only conceived as a model of rules effectivity, for example of Competition Law, to be recognized as a substantial branch of Law. A branch which expresses political goals. A branch which is anchored in crucial firms whose it recognizes the autonomy with regards to markets. This makes it possible, in particular through the coupling with incentive mechanisms leading to long-term collaborative operations supervised by public authorities, not to be governed by simple Competition Law, inapt to bring projects to fruition.

____

 

Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which the article has been published.

 

____

April 21, 2021

Publications

► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Résoudre la contradiction entre "sanction" et "incitation" sous le feu du Droit de la Compliance , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, series "Regulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, p. 89-98

___

 

► Summary of the article: Compliance and Incentives appear at first glance to be totally opposite. For two major reasons. Firstly, because sanctions have a central place in Compliance Law and that the incentives suppose an absence of constraint on the operators. Secondly, because the incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law assumes a strong presence of public authorities. Thus, one should choose: either Compliance or Incentives! Either the effectiveness of one or the effectiveness of the others; either the techniques of one, or the techniques of others; either the philosophy of one or the philosophy of the other. Resign oneself to the waste that such a necessary choice would imply. But to put the terms in this way amounts to thinking poorly about the situations and reducing the fields of the solutions they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, we can on the contrary articulate Compliance and Incentives. From this perspective, sanctions can no longer become what blocks the use of incentives but, on the contrary, what constitutes them. Even more, the coupling between the Incentives and the requirements of Compliance Law must be strongly encouraged, as soon as the public authorities supervise in Ex Ante all the initiatives taken by the "crucial operators".

This working document deals with the first issue. Indeed, the so-called incentive theory targets mechanisms which do not directly resort to constraint. They would therefore have little place in Compliance Law. But it seems saturated with sanction procedures. We can even say that it seems to put them at the center, the public authorities presenting the number of sanctions as a sign of success, while the companies seem obsessed with their prospects, the two concerns ending in such a strange convergence that are the Convention Judiciaire d'Intérêt Public (non-prosecution agreement).

The honest observer cannot help but be immediately uneasy. Indeed, it can only raise the definition of the sanction as a "constraint" triggered Ex Post, at the very heart of a Compliance Law which is presented as a set of Ex Ante mechanisms. Based on this contradiction in terms, should we give up the association and think that it would be wrong against the spirit to think of the sanction as an incentive?

It is undoubtedly in this connection that one perceives most clearly the clash of two cultures, which do not communicate, while technically they apply to the same situations. Indeed, because Compliance was designed by Finance, everything is a tool for it. Therefore, the tendency to think of the sanction only as an incentive is very strong in Compliance Law, manifests itself continuously and will not stop (I). But whatever the reasons for conceiving it this way, the principles of the rule of law cannot disappear and if we do not want them to be erased, then they must be articulated (II). This is an essential game (II).

This is why we can literally say that Compliance has set Criminal Law on fire by its conception, logical but closed in on itself, of sanctions as simple incentives. In order for Law to remain, however, we must hold a very firm definition of Compliance Law centered on its Monumental Goal, which is the protection of the person.

____

 

📝 read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks on which this article is based.

 

📝 read a general presentation of the book in which this article is published.

____

April 21, 2021

Publications

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Questionnaire de Proust (Proust's Quiz), in Droit & Littérature, n°5, p.37-38, Lextenso, 2021.

The chosen topic for this volume is Proust

 

Read (in French)

 

See its presentation on LinkedIn (in French)

April 21, 2021

Publications

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Dresser des cartographies des risques comme obligation et le paradoxe des "risques de conformité" , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz, 2021, p. 53-62

 

 

___

Summary of the article

There are few synthetic or theoretical studies on Risk Mapping even though it is in fact the Compliance central tool, perhaps because it is more a management tool than a legal one. Risk Mapping is often described but does not receive any other legal qualifications than being a "modality", suffering in this respect from an evil which affects the whole of Compliance, still little understood by Law, attention often so focused on the Ex Post (sanctions) while Compliance is by nature in the Ex Ante. Going from disarray to incomprehension, everyone can note the existence of "compliance risks" among the mapped risks, because if as so many affirm that it would be necessary to speak only of simple conformity as obedience, demonstrated in Ex Ante, to Law, how a sub-set of a tool would therefore have the same object as the set of Law that this tool serves ... This aporia can only be resolved if Compliance Law is defined substantially by its "monumental goals" which exceed obedience to regulations.

Consequently, Law taking up Risk Mapping, this mechanism may first appear as an ancillary obligation to the main obligation consisting in achieving "monumental goals". The ancillary obligation to draw up the maps is an obligation of result, while the main obligation to achieve the monumental goals is an obligation of means. These cartographies being very diverse and being only occasionally targeted by specific laws, it can also constitute only a legal fact or, through the play of various charters, a unilateral legal commitment. But it isnbecoming the basis of an autonomous legal obligation incumbent on enterprises in position to know certain risks, obligation referring to the existence of a subjective right tof knowing and measuring them ("right to be worried") which the third parties who are going to run them would hold, thus allowing them to choose to run them, or not.

 _____

 

Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which the article is published

 

____

April 21, 2021

Publications

► Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Approche juridique des Outils de la Compliance : construire juridiquement  l'unité des outils de la Compliance à partir de la définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses "buts monumentaux", in  Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les outils  de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz, 2021, p. 27-38

 

Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.

___

 

► Summary of the article : The "tools of Compliance" do not stack on top of each other. They form a system, thanks to a unity drawn from the goals that all these multiple and different tools serve: the "Monumental Goals" by which Compliance Law is defined.

All these tools are configured by these goals and for mastering all these techniques, it is essential to put them all in perspective of what Compliance Law is, which is designed teleologically with regard to its goals. Extension of Regulatory Law and like it, Compliance Law is built on a balance between the principle of competition and other concerns that public authorities claim to take care of. Compliance Law has moreover more "pretensions" in this respect, for example in environmental matters. All the means are then good, the violence of the tools marrying without difficulty with the voluntary commitments since it is the goals which govern this branch of Law.

As legal solutions adopted show, a common method of interpretation and common levels of constraint for all Compliance Tools result from this definition. Starting from the goals (in which legal normativity is housed), the interpretation of the different tools is thus unified. Moreover, the different degrees of constraint do not operate according to the consideration of sources (traditional legal criterion) but by the goals, according to the legal distinction between obligations of means and obligations of results which result from the articulation between tools, of which the establishment is an obligation of result, and the goal, of which the achievement is only an obligation of means.

____

 

🚧 Read the bilingual working paper on which this articles relies

 

📕 Read a general presentation of the book in which this article has been published.

 

____