Publications [779]

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Obligation sur Obligation vaut", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", à paraître.

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : La démonstration sur la part de la volonté dans l'Obligation de la Compliance qui est à la charge des entreprises repose sur la distinction et l'articulation entre l'Obligation légale et l'obligation spontanée des entreprises, dans l'usage que les entreprises font de leur volonté pour mettre en oeuvre leur Obligation légale et l'usage qu'elles en font pour produire même de nouvelles ambitions. C'est pourquoi la démonstration est opérée en 3 temps.

Le premier temps de la démonstration consiste à trouver la part de la libre volonté des entreprises dans leur Obligation de Compliance en mettant fin à deux confusions : la première qui, au sein même du Droit des obligations mais aussi au sein du Droit de la compliance, scinde et confond ""libre volonté et consentement, lequel ne requerrait plus d'acceptation librement exprimée ; la seconde qui, propre au Droit de la compliance, confond la "Compliance" et la "conformité", réduisant la première à l'obéissance mécanique ce qui exclurait toute libre volonté.

Ceci éclairci, la suite de l'étude vise les 2 façons dont l'entreprise assujettie par la Loi à une Obligation de Compliance exprime une part de libre volonté, ce que l'étude exprime par cet adage proposé : Obligation sur Obligation vaut, puisqu'à l'obligation légale à laquelle l'entreprise répond par l'obéissance que doit tout assujetti à la loi, peut se superposer sa libre volonté, qui va alors l'obliger.

Le premier cas d'Obligation sur Obligation, étudié dans une deuxième partie, vise les moyens par lesquels l'Obligation légale de Compliance est mise en oeuvre, l'entreprise assujettie au regard des Buts Monumentaux fixés par la Loi demeurant libre de choisir les moyens par lesquels elle va contribuer à atteindre ceux-ci. Sa libre volonté va ainsi s'exercer sur les choix et la mise en oeuvre des moyens. Cela peut concrétiser deux formes juridiques : les contrats d'une part et les "engagements" d'autre part.

Dans une troisième part, le second cas d'Obligation sur Obligation, plus radicale, est celle dans lequel à l'Obligation légale de Compliance l'entreprise va puiser dans sa libre volonté pour répéter les termes de son Obligation légale (car il lui est interdit de contredire celle-ci), répétition qui peut être d'une grande portée, car la nature juridique (et donc le régime juridique) en est changé. L'arrêt rendu par la Cour d'appel de La Haye le 12 novembre 2024, dit Shell, l'illustre. Plus encore, la libre volonté de l'entreprise peut prendre sa part dans l'Obligation de Compliance en accroissant l'Obligation légale. C'est ici que l'alliance est alors la plus forte. L'interprétation des obligations particulières qui en résultent devra demeurer celle des Buts Monumentaux dans une application téléologique qui donne cohérence à l'ensemble.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation de Compliance : construire une structure de compliance produisant des effets crédibles au regard des Buts Monumentaux visés par le Législateur" (Compliance Obligation: build a compliance structure producing credible effects in the perspective of the Monumental Goals targeted by the Legislator), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, forthcoming.

____

► This article is the introduction to the book

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of this article: 

Rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a nascent branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different legal regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they have to apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only sanctioned in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means.

Although it would be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations put by legislation, starting from this observation in the evidentiary system of compliance of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether it is a question of this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would then appear that this plurality will not constitute a definitive obstacle to the constitution of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable "mass of regulations".

Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (effaciety) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the Goal is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else, all of which come under the heading of efficiency.

The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, commensurate with these Goals. In addition, because these structures (alert mechanisms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.)  have real meaning if they are to produce effects and behaviours that lead to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account.

Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the entreprise's position, ultimately Goals at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial company, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le Juge requis pour une Obligation de Compliance effective", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'Obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : Le Juge est un personnage qui parait faible dans un Droit de la Compliance qui lui paraît si puissant dans un monde où la technologie développe une puissance encore plus impressionnante. Mais les cas présents et futurs montrent au contraire sa place centrale et que son rôle doit pourtant être de mettre la force qui lui est propre à demeurer ce qu'il est : le gardien de l'État de Droit, ce qui n'est pas si évident car de nombreux outils de la Compliance, de nature technologique, sont en quelque sorte "insensibles" à ce à quoi nous sommes attachés, la protection des êtres humains qui s'appuie sur les diligences des entreprises (I).  Le deuxième rôle que nous pouvons attendre du Juge est  que non seulement il aide à permettre la permanence de cet État de Droit qui repose en grande partie sur lui face à un monde futur, en ce que celui-ci nous est inconnu, principalement dans sa dimension numérique et climatique, perspectives que le Droit de la Compliance veut, en renouvelant le Droit de la Régulation, saisir, en agissant à l'égard des entreprises dont le rôle est actif, ce qui conduit le Juge à les contrôler et à connaître les prétentions que l'on peut formuler contre celles-ci, sans se substituer au pouvoir de gestion de celles-ci (II). Cela suppose une méthode renouvelée (III), ce sont alors tous les juges, pourtant si divers, qui vont converger dans un dialogue actif des juges, qui va permettre que puisse en premier temps perdurer le rôle classique du juge, lié à l'Etat de Droit, dans un monde en plein mouvement et en second lieu que chaque juge puisse porter ce nouvel rôle qu'implique le Droit de la Compliance (IV).

Se mettra alors en place ce triangle parfait, dont la force et la simplicité permet l'usage du singulier et la conservation des majuscules à chacun de ces trois termes : Régulation Compliance Juge.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le droit processuel, modèle de l'Obligation de Compliance", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : Des réflexions commencent à être disponibles pour décrire les relations à construire entre le Droit processuel et l’Obligation de Compliance, ne serait-ce que pour rendre compte du contentieux émergent en matière de compliance, le Droit de la Compliance se juridictionnalisation. Mais cela ne nous apprend rien de spécifique car tout ce qui est happé par un procès est de ce fait mêlé de droit processuel.

Il apparaît même qu’à première vue le Droit de la Compliance n’engendre aucune obligation processuelle, puisqu’il est conçu pour se développer en Ex Ante, évitant à l'entreprise le juge, la compliance by design devant perfectionner cet allégement, la présence de tout procès n’étant qu’un échec, en soi et par les délais et les incertitudes qui y soient par nature associés. C'est même souvent dans l'espoir d'être à l'abri de tout procès que les entreprises affirment pouvoir "se conformer" à toutes les réglementations, à tout instant, en tous lieux, à travers toutes les personnes dont elles répondent. Cela est évidemment impossible. Si cela était, les entreprises seraient alors condamnées par avance à l'occasion de tous les procès possibles, leurs sanctions étant demandées par chacun, procureur public ou procureur privé. Mais c'est confondre Droit de la Compliance et la "conformité", laquelle n'est qu'un outil de cette nouvelle branche du Droit. 

Il ne suffit pas de dire qu'il convient alors de respecter les droits de la défense et l'accès au juge, ce dont nul ne prétend, ou devrait prétendre, se défaire.

L'objet de cette étude est plus de mesurer en quoi le contentieux lorsqu'il porte sur le Droit de la Compliance, c'est-à-dire la charge pour les grandes entreprises de participer à la concrétisation de buts monumentaux en alliance avec les autorités étatiques, ce dont l'obligation de vigilance est la pointe avancée, est transformé de ce fait, créant des obligations processuelles non seulement nouvelles mais d'un nouveau type à la charge des uns comme des autres.

En effet, pour l'instant l'on admet comme à regret la logique processuelle, la présence des juges, et non pas seulement des organes de poursuite (procureurs et collèges des Autorités de régulation et de supervision), et des avocats en défense et non pas seulement en négociation, pour respecter l'Etat de Droit, sorte de tribut que l’on verse, dose d’inefficacité dans l’efficacité, dressant alors les disciplines les unes contre les autres, ici le Droit d’un côté, l’Economie et la Gestion de l’autre. Le plus souvent, on en reste là, soit pour l’admettre et faire un équilibre, soit pour le regretter et attendre de savoir quelle logique l’emportera, entre les droits et obligations processuels d’une part et les droits et obligations de compliance d’autre part.

Il convient au contraire de récuser cette logique de vases communicants.

En effet, le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation, qu’il déploie au-delà des secteurs et des frontières, dont la normativité est ancrée dans les Buts Monumentaux fixés par les Autorités politiques et publiques qui visent à ce qu’à l’avenir les systèmes ne s’effondrent pas, voire s’améliorent pour que les êtres humains qui en dépendent n’en soient pas broyés mais au contraire en bénéficient.

Il en résulte un « contentieux systémique de la compliance » dont il résulte des principes processuels spécifiques. Il convient tout d’abord de préciser ce qu’est une « cause systémique », notion que j’ai proposée en 2021, et à laquelle correspondent les cas qui sont aujourd’hui portés devant les tribunaux. La spécificité de ces contentieux systémiques émergents de compliance, qui sont des contentieux objectifs, proches de ce que connaît le contentieux administratif, ce qui justifie notamment pleinement la présence du ministère public et pose la question de savoir s’il existerai un « juge naturel » de ce contentieux systémique de la compliance, ont des conséquences processuelles majeures, notamment sur les droits et obligations processuels : notamment le droit d’être partie à l’instant, même si l’on est partie au litige, ce qui est le cas des parties prenantes.

Il en résulte une nouvelle alliance entre l’Obligation de Compliance et le Droit processuel, qui engendre des obligations de compliance de nature processuelle au sein même du Droit de la Compliance. Il convient en effet de ne plus scinder l’Ex Ante et l’Ex Post, mais d’emprunter des principes de compliance pour les insérer dans les procédures juridictionnelles, comme le conçoit le Haut Conseiller François Ancel (passage de l’Ex Ante vers l’Ex Post), tandis qu’il convient d’insérer des principes processuels dans les obligations de compliance au sein des entreprises (passage de l’Ex Post vers l’Ex Ante), comme l’a montré l’ouvrage sur La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance. Cela est particulièrement illustré  à propos de l’Obligation de Vigilance, pointe avancé de l’Obligation de Compliance.

Cela est particulièrement pertinent à propos de trois Obligations processuelles qui désormais doivent structurer les obligations de compliance dans les comportements des entreprises et des parties concernées indépendamment même de tout procès, le juge éventuellement saisi devant vérifier leur accomplissement de part et d'autre et les favoriser, ce qui engendre pour lui un office Ex Ante : l’obligation de discuter (principe du contradictoire), l’obligation d’information (système probatoire) et l’obligation de démontrer (principe de la motivation).

Dans cette évolution non seulement l'obligation processuelle de donner accès, d'organiser des voies de recours, d'écouter l'autre, obligation processuelle qui peut être réciproque surtout lorsqu'il s'agit d'écouter l'autre et de prendre en considération ce qu'il dit, trace devant en être trouvé dans la motivation (par exemple du plan de vigilance), l'obligation processuelle trouve alors sa nature profonde : le prototype de l'obligation de compliance.

Cette alliance change à la fois le Droit de la Compliance et le Droit processuel, puisque cela change plus largement l’office du juge, qui doit veiller à l'effectivité de ces obligations processuelles dans un continuum entre l'Ex Post et l'Ex Ante. Mais cette question de l’office du juge est l’objet d’une contribution autonome.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et Responsabilité civile : comprendre et raison garder", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'Obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : Il est difficile, voire artificiel, de séparer la présentation du rapport entre le Droit de la Compliance et la Responsabilité civile de la considération qu'occupent dans la Compliance la Responsabilité pénale, les sanctions, et toute l'organisation contractuelle. Mais, ne serait-ce que pour des contraintes de caratères, il en sera fait ainsi.

La méthode choisie consiste à partir de décisions rendues soit au titre du Droit de la Compliance, soit au titre des Droits spéciaux de la responsabilité, comme le Droit des sociétés (mais là aussi le champ d'analyse est immense), soit au titre du Droit commun de la responsabilité civile. C'est souvent celui-ci qui est privilégié. 

Il apparaît toujours que Responsabilité civile et Droit de la compliance sont à la fois intimes et ont des rapports difficiles. Pour les comprendre, avant de partir dans des croisades dans un sens ou dans un autres, il faut techniquement voir ce qu'il en est des responsabilités attachées à l'application des "réglementations de compliance" qui s'imposent à des opérateurs économiques, lesquels contractualisent les obligations légales qui en résultent et dont les tiers peuvent également se prévaloir de manquements au titre de la responsabilité civile. C'est le  premier temps de l'analyse. L'on cite beaucoup la technique de Vigilance. Même si celle-ci est la pointe avancée de la Compliance, il faut aussi regarder ce qu'il en est du RGPD, de Sapin 2, de l'Anticorruption, etc. 

Or, la responsabilité civile n'est pas la même selon que l'obligation, légale ou/et contractuelle, par rapport à laquelle elle s'articule au titre du fait générateur, engendre selon les cas, selon les textes et selon les personnes, une obligation dite de moyens ou une obligation de résultat. Il faut donc se garder de propos trop généraux en la matière et s'il est un principe à garder à l'esprit, notamment à l'esprit du Juge, c'est que, sauf à ce qu'un texte ou une clause en dispose autrement, une obligation est une obligation de moyens.

Cette question essentielle renvoie à la nécessité de mieux cerner ce qu'est l'"obligation de compliance", qui consiste à prévenir et à détecter, l'opérateur économique faisant ses "meilleurs efforts" au regard des buts monumentaux dans lesquels les diverses réglementations (trouvant ainsi leur unité) s'ancrent normativement. La dimension probatoire Ex Ante apparaît alors au premier plan.

Dans un  deuxième temps de l'analyse, continuant à prendre appui sur des décisions de justice, il convient de mesurer les "points de contact" entre ces "responsabilités spéciales de compliance" et le Droit commun de la responsabilité civile. En effet, parce qu'il s'agit d'un mouvement profond qui traverse l'ensemble du système juridique exprimant une demande sociale qui distingue le Droit occidental du reste du monde, le Droit commun de la responsabilité porte depuis longtemps une dimension préventive et vise d'une façon différente des opérateurs en raison non seulement de leur puissance, mais encore de leur "mission". Cela ressort expressément de la jurisprudence, ces points de contact ne justifiant pas que l'on oppose les deux branches. Cela ne serait que si l'on confondait le Droit de la Compliance avec son instrument qu'est la "conformité" et si l'on inventait des principes nouveaux dans un Droit commun que des heurts pourraient advenir.

Précisément et dans un troisième temps de l'analyse, pouvant venir aux principes aujourd'hui en jeu, il convient de rappeler que tandis qu'il n'existe pas une obligation générale de compliance dans le Droit commun impliquant de détecter et de prévenir pour soi-même et pour autrui tout manquement à toute réglementation applicable susceptible de nuire à autrui, il existe un principe de liberté, comme le rappelle régulièrement le Conseil constitutionnel. Sauf à changer de système juridique pour ne plus faire des personnes que des assujettis obéissant à toute réglementation et le donnant à voir, le juge n'ayant plus pour rôle que de le punir pour ne pas l'avoir fait. En effet , le principe de Liberté demeure le socle et du Droit commun de la responsabilité (et non de la répression, comme en droit chinois) et du Droit spécial de la compliance (et non de la conformité, comme en droit chinois).

Il apparaît en conclusion que par l'évolution de la Responsabilité civile, notamment du fait de l'esprit d'un Droit de la Compliance qui s'y articule, l'on observe un double mouvement : le mouvement d'une responsabilité Ex Post vers une responsabilité Ex Ante📎!footnote-3856, et le mouvement d'une Responsabilité vers une Responsabilisation.

Pour accompagner ce mouvement, des alliances se nouer et doivent être favoriser, ce qui met le Droit de la Compliance face au Droit de la Concurrence, alliances souvent noués par contrat et pour lesquelles l'office du juge est renouvelé, notamment à travers les techniques de médiation.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La Vigilance, pointe avancée et part totale de l'Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : Le "devoir de vigilance" déchaine d'autant plus de positions radicales et passionnées, parfois chez les professeurs de droit, qu'il n'a pas été défini. L'on emploie un mot pour un autre, par mégarde ou par dessein, par dessein si l'on peut attirer tel ou tel élément d'un régime juridique de l'on convoite, par mégarde car c'est souvent par inadvertance que les mots du Droit sont maltraités.  L'exercice même de définition, notamment celui très périlleux de "devoir" étant mené dans la partie de l'ouvrage visant à "cerner l'obligation de compliance", il s'agit ici de démêler ce que l'on semble utiliser l'un pour l'autre : la vigilance, le duty of care, la due diligence. 

La loi française de 2017 dite "Vigilance" reprenant les dispositifs techniques de la loi de 2016 dite "Sapin 2", avec les plans, les audits, etc., cela renvoie au Droit de la compliance, auquel l'on substitue souvent le terme de "conformité", avec des conséquences pratiques très dommageables, comme on le fit il y a 20 ans quand on affirmait que le "Droit de la Régulation" devait être dénommé le "Droit de la réglementation"!footnote-3440.

Chacun de ces termes renvoient à des notions différentes. Le Législateur n'aide pas puisqu'il les utilisent souvent les uns pour les autres, le passage entre l'anglais et le français valant circonstance atténuante mais laissant le dysfonctionnement entier.

Il convient donc tout d'abord de redonner à chacun de ces termes juridiques leur signification, pour que la Vigilance n'englobe pas plus que la détection et la prévention des risques systémiques et la protection des personnes impliquées, structures et actions mises à la charge d'entreprises visés par des lois spéciales et pour la défaillance desquelles une responsabilité peut être engagée  (I). Il apparaît ainsi que le la Vigilance est la "pointe avancée" du Droit de la Compliance, lequel ayant été distingué de ce qui n'est que son outil, à savoir la "conformité". 

En effet, la Vigilance est une "pointe avancée en ce qu'elle est qui donne plus de visibilité à un système plus vaste qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, ce qui justifie donc un esprit de système et implique une méthode de réalisation du Droit qui est ici de nature téléologique, puisque le Droit de la Complique puise sa normativité dans les Buts Monumentaux, ce dont la technique de vigilance donne un exemple éclatant à travers le souci de l'environnement et des droits subjectifs de la personne (II).

A partir de ces bases méthodologiques, il est possible de s'extraire de la masse réglementaire qui prolifère dans les sujets de vigilance qui ne sont en rien limités à la loi  de 2017, pour traiter les sujets impliqués par la Vigilance en la replaçant dans le système du Droit de la Compliance, sans la pulvériser dans toutes les réglementations sectorielles où elle est déjà très présente ni être suspendu à l'adoption ou pas à la Directive européennes, ni se demander si un juge ou un autre va décider d'une façon ou d'une autre. 

En effet, ce Droit de la Compliance produit ce que j'ai pu qualifier de "causes systémiques", qui sont portées devant le juge, notamment par des parties prenantes, ce qui est en train de produire un renouvellement de l'office du juge (III). En raison d'un activisme judiciaire d'organisations, c'est par cette pointe avancée de la Vigilance que l'ensemble du Droit de la Compliance est en train de mettre le Juge au centre, comme cela fût montré dans l'ouvrage de 2023 La juridictionnalisation de la compliance, puis repris par le Conseil d'Etat et la Cour de cassation dans l'ouvrage à paraître De la Régulation à la Compliance : la place du juge. 

L'évolution du Droit positif confirme que la Vigilance est donc la "part totale" du Droit de la Compliance.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the first part of the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. The second part emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Concevoir l'Obligation de Compliance : faire usage de sa position pour participer à la réalisation des Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance" ("Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2024, to be published

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this contribution has been built, with  more developments, technical references and hyperlinks. 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published 

____

► English summary of this contribution: Rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a incipient branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they must apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only penalised in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means.

Although it might be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations, starting from this observation in the Compliance Evidentiary System of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether we are dealing with this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would appear that this plurality does not constitute a definitive obstacle to the creation of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable mass of regulations.

Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this branch of Law is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (efficacy) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the aim is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else - all of which come under the heading of efficiency.

The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, linked with these Goals. Moreover, because these structures (warning platforms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.) only have meaning in order to produce effects and behaviour leading to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account.

Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the Entreprise's position, ultimately aims at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial economic operator, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Obligation, between Will and Consent: obligation upon obligation works", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the first part of the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. The second part emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): 

________

► Full Reference: J.-Ph. Denis & N. Fabbe-Costes, "Legal Constraints and company Compliance Strategies", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): 

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La volonté, le cœur et le calcul, les trois traits cernant l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2024, to be published

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this contribution has been built, with  more developments, technical references and hyperlinks. 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published 

____

► English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the first part of the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. The second part emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The puzzle of Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law: the example of the European Regulations of 31 May 2024 on AMLA and enterprises compliance obligations​, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 11 January 2024 :

____

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

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

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is built on 2 legs, Institutions on the one hand and substantive rules on the other. For example in the United States, the 1934 Act established at the same time the prohibition and prevention of financial market abuse and the SEC. In Europe, in 2013, the Banking Union established institutions to build this Union and increased the obligations on banks.

This is perfectly illustrated by the 2 European Regulations of 31 May 2024, one creating the AMLA and the other reinforcing the compliance obligations of crucial economic operators, one text referring to the other.

Indeed, Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law are like 2 articulated legs. You have to know both and make them work together.

This is part of the "European puzzle", a positive expression which implies that, when assessing and interpreting a text, we should always bear in mind that it is only one element of a general picture, which is coloured by its Monumental Goal: in this case to obtain a European area where money laundering is efficiently prevented thanks to the action of the companies themselves under the supervision and support of a Supervisory Authority which coordinates the actions of the States.

If we consider only one element, we find everything 'complicated', whereas the overall picture is simple, because the Goal is simple and in Compliance Law, a branch of Teleological Law, everything is in the Monumental Goal.

____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "À quoi engagent les engagements", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'Obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : L'innocent pourrait croire, prenant le Droit et ses mots au pied de leur lettre que les Engagements engagent ceux qui les prennent. Qu'ils doivent faire ce qu'ils disent qu'ils feront. Pourtant, chose étrange, les "engagements", qui sont si fréquents dans les Comportements de Compliance, sont souvent considérés par ceux qui les adoptent comme n'ayant aucune valeur contraignante ! Sans doute parce qu'ils relèveraient d'autres disciplines que le Droit, par exemple de l'art managérial ou de l'éthique. Mais l'on se demande alors pourquoi ils sont devenus si important dans les mécanismes de compliance. (I). 

Si l'engagement est central en Compliance, notamment en Vigilance, c'est parce que le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation📎!footnote-3439. L'entreprise est instituée de force par la Compliance régulateur, notamment dans les chaines de valeur, ou sur les espaces numériques (DSA). Dans l'élaboration d'un plan, l'entreprise exécute son obligation légale. Mais si l'on devait considérer qu'il s'agit d'un engagement, alors il faudrait aussi considérer que le plan résulte de sa volonté, qu'elle doit dans son élaboration consulter les parties prenantes mais que la source du plan est sa volonté : les dispositions ne sont pas des stipulations, ne sont pas des applications de la loi, mais des dispositions volontaires unilatérales, qui ne constituent pas un acte juridique unilatéral mais un acte de gestion et un comportement qui s'insère dans une politique générale du groupe. A ce titre, et parce que sa source est la volonté de l'entreprise (ce qui n'empêche pas sa co-construction), un plan ou une politique de groupe pourrait contenir une "offre graduée" efficace d'arbitrage.

L'on mesure ainsi que les Engagements ne sont pas que des mécanismes de management et d'éthique mais relèvent aussi du Droit. 

Tout d'abord, les Engagements des entreprises apparaissent avec une portée contraignante forte et incontestable lorsqu'ils prennent la forme de contrats (II). En effet, les entreprises s'engagent, soit pour concrétiser leurs obligations légales de Compliance, ce qui n'est alors qu'une obéissance à la loi, soit pour exprimer une volonté propre, soit pour elles-mêmes, soit pour autrui. Les cas sont souvent confondus, alors que les portées ne sont pas les mêmes. Si l'engagement prend la forme d'un contrat, la Compliance est concernée si le contrat est manié comme Outil de Compliance Ex Ante📎!footnote-3436, soit que l'ensemble du contrat ait cet objet, soit qu'une clause de compliance soit insérée, une clause compromissoire pouvant s'y articuler.

Ensuite, les engagements, en tant que paroles ou comportements, constituent des faits qui entrer dans l'ordre juridique par la considération qu'en prend une Autorité publique. Cette décision unilatérale peut être la décision de l'Autorité de la concurrence ou la validation judiciaire de la CJIP (II). C'est une parfaite illustration du lien entre le Droit de la Régulation et le Droit de la Compliance car ce n'est pas l'engagement qui crée l'obligation mais l'acte public qui le prend en considération et l'inscrit pour qu'il modifie le futur en accord avec la mission de l'Autorité publique légitime. En effet, l'engagement, notion venue plutôt de l'Économie de la Regulation, a été pensé entre une Autorité de Régulation et une Entreprise : c'est la décision unilatérale de l'Autorité qui donne une force juridique à l'engagement. La jurisprudence le confirme (Conseil d'État📎!footnote-3437 et Conseil constitutionnel📎!footnote-3438).

Enfin, les engagements peuvent avoir une portée en tant qu'ils constituent des faits, créant une situation de fait. A ce titre, les engagements étant un comportement comme un autre, ils peuvent engager la responsabilité des entreprises qui ont formulé des engagements si la personne qui se présente comme victime peut montrer qu'il y a eu une négligence ou une faute, par exemple s'il y a incohérences, ou mensonges, et que cela lui a causé un dommage (III).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation: a necessity for organizing it​ , Working Paper, December 2024.

____

🎤This working paper was drawn up to serve as the basis for the speech that opened the colloquium L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent, in the cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent," which was held in French on 16 December 2024 at the Paris Court of Appeal.

____

📝It will also constitute the basis of the first contribution to the book to be published in French in 2025, Le contentieux systémique émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation).

____

► Summary of this Working Paper : Systemic Litigation is for the moment a practice that has not been clearly identified. This is a handicap in practice, firstly because it can be confused with other things, such as the "systemic method" that this category of Litigation calls for and to which it cannot be reduced and which this method exceeds, and secondly because if this practice is not conceptualised, secondly, because if this practice is not conceptualised, even if only by a shared definition, it is difficult for the courts to organise themselves and for the potential parties to the dispute and to the proceedings to anticipate the procedural and substantive solutions that will be adopted tomorrow. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that not all emerging disputes are Systemic and not all systemic disputes are emerging. For example, banking regulation litigation and litigation concerning the operation of competitive markets or sectoral regulation are systemic disputes that are not emerging. But it so happens that technological developments have given rise to new systemic litigation, which the courts, judges and parties have had to adapt to because the systems themselves are entering the courthouses.

A series of conferences has been organised to report on this practice, focusing on technology, legislation, management, court organisation, procedure and the role of the judge.

They have thus made it possible to build up common, cross-disciplinary knowledge so that innovations can be developed and expressed in the organisation of the courts, in procedures, particularly in the relationship between judges and lawyers, and in the openness of proceedings, in the conception of the judge's office, which must be singular when the case, because a systemic is implied, is systemic. This specificity leads to judges who are less hierarchical among themselves and more specialised, leading to procedural forms that place dialogue and adversarial proceedings no longer as a desire and support but as the primary guiding principle.

____

🔓read the developments of this Working Paper below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéos Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les conditions requises pour favoriser la "contractualisation" du droit", in G. Cerqueira & A. Schreiber (dir.), La contractualisation du droit. Approches françaises et brésiliennes, Société de législation comparée (SLC), coll. "Colloques", vol. 61, 2024, pp. 435-448

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

► Résumé de l'article : 

_______

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Antitrust, natural field of systemic litigation"", Concurrences, November 2024, No. 4, Art. No. 120776.

____

📝read the article (in English)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of this article: Systemic Litigation is a specific category of Litigation in which beyond the dispute between the parties the interest of a System is involved, in particular its future. Competition Law is a natural and long-standing field for this category, which is now emerging strongly for information, climate and energy systems. 

It should be remembered that a market is not self-regulating and cannot continue to function in the long term unless it has the benefit of a judge, a figure who is specific in that he/she is both external to it and yet apprehends its specific interest. In order to satisfy this double requirement, liberal legal organisations often entrust the competition authority with jurisdiction over this Systemic Litigation. Ordinary courts will also hear such cases, either on appeal or in other proceedings, and it cannot be claimed that courts are excluded, the systemic dimension of the dispute being expressed by the presence of the competition authority in the proceedings. This explains the procedural rules that are hard to justify otherwise.

The Authority, the European Commission for example, must be able to develop and express the specific interests of the competition system. This special role of the competition authority in this type of litigation, because it is systemic, has been in place for decades and should serve as a model for Systemic Litigation, which is being developed for other systems whose sustainability is now referred to the courts.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

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

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of the article:  The study focuses on the various movements that have given rise to Compliance Law, with particular emphasis on Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

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

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance : progresser" ("Duty of Vigilance: the Way Forward"), in Ch. Maubernard & A. Brès (eds.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. L'âge de la maturité ? (The duty of vigilance. The age of maturity?), Bruylant, "Droit & Economie" Serie, 2024, pp. 221-251

____

📝read the article (in French) 

____

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of the article: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le contentieux systémique" ("The Systemic Litigation"), D. 2024, chron., pp. 1633-1635

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

► English Summary of the article: We are seeing the Emergence of a category of its own and must be designated by a singular expression: 'Systemic Litigation' (I). This category is composed of concrete cases, "Systemic Cases", in which a system is entirely involved. The interest in these systems, insofar as they are all a system, unifies the category and justifies its own procedural, institutional and jurisdictional treatment. This type of Litigation is Emerging for three reasons, which are recorded in the Systemic Cases (II). Systemic Litigation must be dealt with in a way that is both specific and unified. This is beginning to happen and must be expanded (III).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, July 2024.

____

📝Ce This Working Paper has been the basis for an article tot be published in French in the Recueil Dalloz.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: We are seeing the Emergence of a category of its own and must be designated by a singular expression: 'Systemic Litigation' (I). This category is composed of concrete cases, "Systemic Cases", in which a system is entirely involved. The interest in these systems, insofar as they are all a system, unifies the category and justifies its own procedural, institutional and jurisdictional treatment. This type of Litigation is Emerging for three reasons, which are recorded in the Systemic Cases (II). Systemic Litigation must be dealt with in a way that is both specific and unified. This is beginning to happen and must be expanded (III).

____

🔓read the developments below

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Antitrust, natural field of Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, July 2024

____

📝This working paper has been prepared as a basis for the article to be published "Antitrust, natural field of Systemic Litigation" in the Review Concurrences in September 2024

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: Systemic Litigation is a specific category of Litigation in which beyond the dispute between the parties the interest of a System is involved, in particular its future. Competition Law is a natural and long-standing field for this category, which is now emerging strongly for information, climate and energy systems. 

It should be remembered that a market is not self-regulating and cannot continue to function in the long term unless it has the benefit of a judge, a figure who is specific in that he/she is both external to it and yet apprehends its specific interest. In order to satisfy this double requirement, liberal legal organisations often entrust the competition authority with jurisdiction over this Systemic Litigation. Ordinary courts will also hear such cases, either on appeal or in other proceedings, and it cannot be claimed that courts are excluded, the systemic dimension of the dispute being expressed by the presence of the competition authority in the proceedings. This explains the procedural rules that are hard to justify otherwise.

The Authority, the European Commission for example, must be able to develop and express the specific interests of the competition system. This special role of the competition authority in this type of litigation, because it is systemic, has been in place for decades and should serve as a model for Systemic Litigation, which is being developed for other systems whose sustainability is now referred to the courts.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Duty of vigilance: the way forward, Working Paper, December 2023/July 2024.

____

🎤 This working paper has been drawn up to serve as a basis for the conclusions of the colloquium Le devoir de vigilance: l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?") organised by the University of Montpellier on 25 May 2023.

_____

📝 Updated and developed, it serves as the basis for the article that concludes the book Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?"), Editions Bruylant, 2024.

____

► Working Paper summary: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

____

🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation, March 2024.

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis for the contribution "The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation", in📘Compliance Obligation.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. It emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

In order to define Compliance's Obligation, the contribution endeavours to recognise the contribution of all these three sources: Will, Heart and Calculation. 

_____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "François Terré. In memoriam", D. 2024, p. 1028

____

🌞read the in memoriam published in the Recueil Dalloz on June 6, 2024 (in French)

________