Publications [784]

🌐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

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► 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, coll. "Régulations & Compliance" 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 : 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, "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.

________

🌐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): 

________

🌐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.

________

🌐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.

________

► 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, "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 sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance, Vigilance et Responsabilité civile : mettre en ordre et raison garder" (Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in Order and keep the sense of Reason), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, forthcoming

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____

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

____

► English summary of this article: The descriptions of the Liability incurred by large companies as a result of their compliance obligations are very diverse, even contradictory, going beyond the wishes that may be expressed as to what this liability should be. The first part of this study therefore sets out the various liabilities incurred by companies, which differ in the conditions under which they are implemented and in their scope, so as not to confuse them.

Indeed, as the various laws establish specific legal compliance obligations, they give rise to liabilities of varying conditions and scope, and it is not possible to avail of the regime of one in a situation that falls within the scope of another. It is therefore necessary to review the various bodies of compliance legislation, the GDPR, the ALM-FT regulations, the French so-called Sapin 2 law, the French so-called Vigilance law , the European IA Act , the European European DGA Act, etc., to recall the inflexion that each of these bodies of legislation has made to the liability rules applied to the companies subject to them. Nevertheless, the unicity of the Compliance Obligation, overcoming this necessary diversity of situations, regulations and liability regimes,  can provide grouping lines to indicate beyond this diversity the extent of the liability incurred by companies.

Once this classification has been made, the second part of the study develops the observation that none of this can create any principle of general liability on large companies in terms of compliance, and in particular not in terms of vigilance. It is not possible to deduce a general principle of specific obligations of liability or specific obligations to reparation, for example in the area of vigilance, as the texts creating specific vigilance obligation refer to the conditions of commun Tort Law (proof damage and causality), and International Public Law does not have the force to generate a general principle binding companies in this respect.

The third part stresses that it is nevertheless always possible to invoke Tort Law, and companies cannot claim to escape this. This may involve contractual liability, a situation  becoming increasingly frequent as companies contractualise their legal compliance obligations, reproducing them but also modifying them, and as Vigilance duty is an obligation that goes beyond the specific situations covered by the regulations. 

But it is essential, and this is the subject of the fourth part, not to make companies pure and simple guarantors of the state of the world, present and future. Indeed, if we were to transform sectoral compliances into illustrations of what would then be a new general principle, but one that applied only to them, they would consequently exercise the other side of this coin, namely power over others.

________

🌐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, "La Vigilance, pointe avancée et part totale de l’Obligation de Compliance" (Vigilance, the cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance" 2025, 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 : The "duty of vigilance" unleashes all the more radical and passionate positions, sometimes among Law professors, because it has not been precisely defined. One word is used for another, either inadvertently or deliberately, deliberately if it can attract this or that element from one legal corpus and import it into another.  The very exercise of definition is therefore required in practice. There are specific obligations of vigilance that come under such and such a body of regulations and are imposed on such and such a category of operators to fulfill such and such a function. These are precise circles which are not confused and must not be confused. This is superimposed on what the French 2017 law so-called "Vigilance law", which is much more encompassing since it applies to all large companies in the operation of the value chains they have set up. The European 2024 directive is in the same way. But there is no general duty or obligation of Vigilance. Such a claim would be based on confusing or shifting each of these 3 levels, which must be avoided because no positive law does support this (I).

If the duty of vigilance is attracting so much attention, whether or not the European CS3D is fully effective, it is because Vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Obligation (II). Vigilance requires companies, by consideration of their power and without reproaching them for it or demanding that it be reduced, to detect risks of damage to the environment and climate, but also to human rights, because they are in a position to do so in order to prevent them from turning into disasters. In this respect, the  Vigilance duty makes clearer the exact legal nature of the Compliance Obligation.

Moreover, Vigilance appears as the Total Part of the Compliance Obligation (III). Indeed, although it is restricted to one area, the value chain, and to two types of risk, deterioration of the environment and deterioration of human rights, it expresses the totality of the Compliance Obligation by means of tools that the 2017 French "Vigilance law" had itself duplicated from the 2016 so-called "Sapin 2 law": to preserve systems today, but above all tomorrow, in order they do not collapse (Negative Monumental Goals), or even consolidate them (Positive Monumental Goals), so that the human beings who are willingly or unwillingly involved in them are not crushed by them but benefit from them. This is why large companies are subject to the Obligation of Compliance and Vigilance, particularly in the humanist conception that Europe is developing.

The result is a new type of Litigation, of a systemic nature, for which the Courts have spontaneously become specialised, and for which the procedures will have to be adapted and the office  of the Judge shall have to evolve.

________

🌐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.

________

🌐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, "La considération par l'arbitrage de l'obligation de Compliance pour une place d'arbitrage durable" (Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a sustainable Arbitration Place), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, 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 : The first part of this study assesses the evolving relationship between Arbitration Law and Compliance Law, which depends on the very definition of the Compliance Obligation (I). Indeed, these relations have been negative for as long as Compliance has been seen solely in terms of "conformity", i.e. obeying the rules or being punished. These relationships are undergoing a metamorphosis, because the Compliance Obligation refers to a positive and dynamic definition, anchored in the Monumental Goals that companies anchor in the contracts that structure their value chains.

Based on this development, the second part of the study aims to establish the techniques of Arbitration and the office of the arbitrator to increase the systemic efficiency of the Compliance Obligation, thereby strengthening the attractiveness of the Place (II). First and foremost, it is a question of culture: the culture of Compliance must permeate the world of Arbitration, and vice versa. To achieve this, it is advisable to take advantage of the fact that in Compliance Law the distinction between Public and Private Law is less significant, while the concern for the long term of contractually forged structural relationships is essential.

To encourage such a movement to deploy the Compliance Obligation, promoting the strengthening of a Sustainable Arbitration Place (III), the first tool is the contract. Since contracts structure value chains and enable companies to fulfill their legal Compliance Obligation but also to add their own will to it, stipulations or offers relating to Arbitration should be included in them. In addition, the adoption of non-binding texts can set out a guiding principle to ensure that concern for the Monumental Goals is appropriate in order the Compliance Obligation to be taken into account by Arbitrators.

________

🌐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, "À quoi engagent les engagements" (In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, forthcoming

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____

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

____

► English summary of this article: The innocents might believe, taking the Law and its words literally, that "commitments" are binding on those who make them. Shouldn't they be afraid of falling into the trap of the 'false friend', which is what the Law wants to protect them from (as stated in the prolegomena)?

Indeed, the innocent persons think that those who make commitments ask what they must do and say what they will do. Yet, strangely enough, the 'commitments' that are so frequent and common in compliance behaviours are often considered by those who adopt them to have no binding value! Doubtless because they come under disciplines other than Law, such as the art of Management or Ethics. It is both very important and sometimes difficult to distinguish between these different Orders - Management, Moral Norms and Law - because they are intertwined, but because their respective standards do not have the same scope, it is important to untangle this tangle. This potentially creates a great deal of insecurity for companies (I).

The legal certainty comes back when commitments take the form of contracts (II), which is becoming more common as companies contractualise their legal Compliance Obligations, thereby changing the nature of the resulting liability, with the contract retaining the imprint of the legal order or not having the same scope if this prerequisite is not present.

But the contours and distinctions are not so uncontested. In fact, the qualification of unilateral undertaking of will is proposed to apprehend the various documents issued by the companies, with the consequences which are attached to that, in particular the transformation of the company into a 'debtor', which would change the position of the stakeholders with regard to it (III).

It remains that the undertakings expressed by companies on so many important subjects cannot be ignored: they are facts (IV). It is as such that they must be legally considered. In this case, Civil Liability will have to deal with them if the company, in implementing what it says, what it writes and in the way it behaves, commits a fault or negligence that causes damage, not only the sole existence of an undertaking. 

________

🌐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, The Contract, a Compliance tool: the Obligation for a platform to control content CE, 27 January 2025, B. c/ CNIL, Working Paper, March 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 29 March 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬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: The ruling handed down on 15 January 2025 by the Commercial, Economic and Financial Chamber of the French Judicial Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides a solution to the issue of content control in the digital environment. It resolves what appears to be the aporia so often emphasised, and even claimed, namely the impossibility of developing an effective controlling technology.

To do this, the Court disregarded the applicable laws and referred to the electronic payment contract between the bank and the platform, which contained a clause on Vigilance against unlawful content, linked to a termination clause. It held that this clause was fully effective. This solution, so simple and so strong, can make a major contribution to regulating the digital space, if the banks so wish, because what platform can do without reliable electronic payment services?

____

🔓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, Who is responsible for making the Compliance provision effective? Is it the company or the public authority? Example of data: CE, 27 January 2025, B. c/ CNIL, Working Paper, February 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 8 February 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬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: In its decision of 27 January 2025, B. v CNIL, the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d'État ) had to provide a solution to a case that the Compliance rules applicable to data had not expressly provided for. Can a person who believes that another person has failed to fulfill their obligations under the GDPR refer the matter to the French Data Protection Regulator (CNIL) and not the data controller?

The Conseil d'État considers that the question is clear and that there is no point in referring a preliminary question to the ECJ. Indeed, the texts require the person alleging that his or her right has been infringed to first contact the data controller to have the information deleted before subsequently referring the matter to the CNIL. Furthermore, this case involved personal information inserted by doctors in an expert report submitted to a court. The Conseil d'Etat agreed with the CNIL that it was not required to review and assess the evidence, which is the role of the court.

This shows that, while the right to alert can be used to refer cases directly to the administrative authorities, here the specific takes precedence over the general, with the spirit of the Law entrusting the direct preservation of rights to the data controller, with the CNIL's supervisory and sanctioning role coming only at a later stage. This illustrates the more general nature of Compliance Law, which relies primarily on the operators themselves. Furthermore, as a melting pot of various subjective rights, in this case the right to erasure but also the right to contribute to the debates, the Conseil d'Etat stresses that it is the role of the judicial judge to ensure the fairness of the debates.

____

🔓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, The French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and the time saved: the Areva and Orano CJIP of 2 December 2024, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 25 January 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬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: On 2 December 2024, Areva/Orano signed a Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP) with the French National Financial Prosecutor's Office, validated by the order of 9 December 2024 of the President of the Paris Judicial Court. The case concerns the bribery of a foreign public official in Mongolia through the use of an intermediary.

This perfectly illustrates the primary advantage of this Compliance Tool, which consists of closing a situation that could deprive a company of the means to act in the future. Even if neither the CJIP nor the validation order constitutes an admission of guilt or a conviction, the acts of bribery of a foreign public official can no longer give rise to prosecution.

However, the future has been taken care of, because as soon as Tracfin passed the first information to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the company cooperated and set up a programme to actively fight corruption ("compliance programme"). The CJIP extends this by a compliance programme supervised by the French Anticorruption Agency.

One month after the CJIP, the Mongolian government and the company, in the presence of the French government, announced on 17 January 2025 the signing of a contract to operate a uranium mine, the same industrial coopération that had given rise to these reprehensible acts. The CJIP made it possible to move forward in time.

____

🔓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, Status and Role of the 'trajectory' in Regulatory and Compliance Law​, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 18 January 2024 : click HERE (in French)

____

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

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

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The notion of Trajectory is a key concept in Compliance Law. This is shown in 4 steps.

- 1. the decisive use of the trajectory in the 3 Grande-Synthe decisions of the French Conseil d'Etat,

- 2. defining the trajectory,

- 3. the application of the trajectory in various sectoral Compliances and Compliance tools,

- 4. the probationary dimension of the trajectory and the consequences for subjected entities 

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐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 ⤵️

🌐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.

________

🌐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/Overhang

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Articulation Droit de la Compliance (RGPD) et Droit commun : illustration par la décision de la CJUE du 4 octobre 2024, ND c/ DR, document de travail, octobre 2024.

____

🎤 Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base tout d'abord :

à la vidéo Surplomb👁 du 20 octobre 2024  : cliquer ICI

____

🎬🎬🎬Dans la collection des Surplomb👁 Il s'insère dans la catégorie des  Actualités.

►Voir la collection complète des Surplombs👁 : cliquer ICI

____

► Résumé du document de travail : 

Sur question préjudicielle, la décision ND c/ DR de la CJUE du 4 octobre 2024 articule le Droit de la concurrence déloyale et protection des données, qui croise la vente de médicaments sur Internet.... Un pharmacien prend des informations personnelles sur la santé des acheteurs, un concurrent se plaint d'une violation du RGPD qui constitue un détournement de clientèle.  Le RGPD n'ouvre pas une telle action. Ne la ferme pas non plus.

Bien que la protection des données soit assurée par des organes nationaux spéciaux et qu'il s'agit de protéger des droits spécifiques des personnes protégées, la Cour pose qu'un tiers peut se baser sur un tel comportement pour se situer sur le droit commun pour s'en plaindre, en tant qu'il est concurrent et qu'il peut alléguer que cela constitue un acte de concurrence déloyale.

Pour affirmer cela, Cour souligne qu'en premier lieu le RGPD ne confère pas de compétence exclusive et que d'autre part la convergence des actions renforce le Droit de l'Union car le RGPD vise aussi le flux des données, principe de liberté que protège aussi le droit de la concurrence déloyale, qui s'applique selon les conditions du droit (faute qualité, dommage, causalité).

____

🔓lire les développements ci-dessous⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang/Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Monumental Goals, normative anchoring of Compliance, Working Paper, February 2025.

____

🎬This working document has been drawn up to serve as basis to

the video Overhang👁 of  the 1st February 2025: click HERE

____

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

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

____

► Summary of this  Working Paper: Compliance, of which conformity is only one instrument (the 2 should not be confused), must be understood through the ‘Monumental Goals’ : political ambitions pursued by the public authorities and internalised in the entities in a position to achieve them, i.e. large companies.

These Goals are Monumental in that they concern systems: ensuring that these systems do not collapse in the future = ‘Negative Monumental Goals’ (e.g. fight against corruption, against climate change); more ambitious still, they may aim to improve systems = ‘Positive Monumental Goals’ (e.g. effective equality between women and men).

Their systemic nature gives rise to Systemic Litigation.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️