Référence complète : Lalande, P.-A., Le pouvoir d’injonction au service de la réparation du préjudice écologique : une mise en œuvre de l’office du juge administratif en matière climatique, Actu-Juridique, 9 décembre 2021.

____

 

Lire l'article. 

_____

► Full Reference: ECHR, 5th sect., 30 March 2023, François Ruffin vs France and Association Fakir vs France, req. n° 29854/22 and 29863/22.

____

🏛️read the decision (in French)

________

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Chair for "The temporal dimension: Imminence and Intertemporally", in Climate Change Cases before National and International Courts Cross-fertilization and Convergence", November 27, 2021, Paris. 

____

 

read the program

 

Summary of the panel presentation: The specific topic of our panel is the “temporal dimension” of the judicial cases of Climate change.

We shall listen to two great experts on this topic, which is Time.

Listening the other previous speakers, I understand how this topic is important, because Climate Change requires an immediate action and it create a political issue, because everyone comes before courts.

A basis and fundamental problem, because the times are not adjusted. 

let's come back to basic notions, to have three times : “past, present, future”.

 

The issue of Climate Change is in the Future, the necessity of Action is in the Present and the basis temporal question is to know if Courts are the bodies adequate to responde ; maybe it is inevitable that Judge must be recreate their office because the time of the classical judicial office is the Past.

Immediately, this simple et huge problem appears : in a classical repartition, the judge is the legal character to intervenir for the Past, the present (maybe is for you and me), and the future is the time for the State, and more precisely for the Parliament.

But the climate change is a huge topic, not in the past, not in the present, but in the future.

Therefore a gap exists between the time of the topic and the time of the court before the case is explained for obtaining a solution : how to give a good answer ? Judge maybe must travel in time, from past to future …. Maybe, he must, but might he?

Classically, the judge can anticipate a very next future, but not the more distant and systemic future. Climate change belongs to the second one.

This is why the title of this panel is non only about the necessity to take in consideration the “imminence” but also the “intertemporally” : maybe court are the sole able to create this intertemporality between Past and Future, and by this way to obtain from States and companies to do something immediately !

 

By two legal ways. 

 

Courts can stay in Past, supervising States, if they dispose of effective legal decisions taken by States in the past about Climate Change (essentially Paris Agreement, for instance transposed in the French legal system by a formal law). This is why an efficient judicial solution would be the possibility for the courts to oblige State to implement their more or less committment they had taken in the past for the future (as the Conseil d’Etat did in the Commune de Grande-Synthe Cas Law).

Even for that, the courts must adopt a creative notion of what is a commitment from a State through a Law... ; as they must do about private companies comitment (in their codes of conduct or soft law of corporate social responsability). 

 

But what to do if States didn’t take such commitment ?

Some can allege Courts are not Parliaments and are not legitimate to rule for the future … It is a political issue, a very classical one but very accurate for Climate change (where States and companies are face to courts...) and maybe  And as our colleague said, judicial system is quite technically weak to concretize human rights.

 

Therefore, the second way, more innovative, est the new use of Tort Law : no more a liability Ex Post, but a responsibility Ex Ante. In every legal system, even in Civil Law systems, Tort Law is conceived by courts (for instance in French Law). 

If the new reasoning is conveived in Ex Ante, Tort Law must be a set of legal tools to reach the monumental tools to reach the "Monumental Goal" (being by nature future) which is the Climate Change stopping. 

In this teleological reasoning, the admissibility and the choice remedies, must be adapted to obtain what is central : the effectivity and the efficiencicy. 

In this sens, the judgement between two parties (which was an Ex Post act) may be conceived as an systemic efficient action (which was an Ex Ante act), because it must be. 

_____

 

 

 

 

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A, Reinforce the judge and the lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law, Working Paper, August 2021.

____

🎤 this working document has been made to prepare some elements of the opening intervention in the symposium Quels juges pour la Compliance) ? (Which judges for Compliance?), co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and the Institut Droit Dauphine, held at the Paris Dauphine University on September 23, 2021, constituting the first part of the intervention.

____

📝it has been also the basis for an article: 

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

 📘published in its English version in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of the Working Paper: One can understand that the compliance mechanisms are presented with hostility because they seem designed to keep the judge away, whereas there is no Rule of Law without a judge. Solid arguments present compliance techniques as converging towards the uselessness of the judge (I). Certainly, we come across magistrates, and of all kinds, and powerful ones, but that would be a sign of imperfection: its ex-ante logic has been deployed in all its effectiveness, the judge would no longer be required... And the lawyer would disappear so with him...

This perspective of a world without a judge, without a lawyer and ultimately without Law, where algorithms could organize through multiple processes in Ex Ante the obedience of everyone, the "conformity" of all our behaviors with all the regulatory mass that is applicable to us, supposes that this new branch of Law would be defined as the concentration of processes which gives full effectiveness to all the rules, regardless of their content. But supposing that this engineer's dream is even achievable, it is not possible in a democratic and free world to do without judges and lawyers.

Therefore, it is imperative to recognize their contributions to Compliance Law, related and invaluable contributions (II).

First of all, because a pure Ex Ante never existed and even in the time of the Chinese legists📎!footnote-2689, people were still needed to interpret the regulations because a legal order must always be interpreted Ex Post by who must in any case answer the questions posed by the subjects of law, as soon as the political system admits to attributing to them the right to make claims before the Judge. Secondly the Attorney, whose office, although articulated with the Judge's office, is distinct from the latter, both more restricted and broader since he must appear in all cases where the judicial figure puts himself in square, outside the courts. However, Compliance Law has multiplied this since not only, extending Regulatory Law, it entrusts numerous powers to the administrative authorities, but it also transforms companies into judges, in respect of which the attorneys must deal with.

Even more so, Compliance Law only takes its sense from its Monumental Goals📎!footnote-2690. It is in this that this branch of the Law preserves the freedom of human beings, in the digital space where the techniques of compliance protect them from the power of companies by the way that the Compliance Law forces these companies to use their power to protect people. However, firstly, it is the Judges who, in their diversity📎!footnote-2691, impose as a reference the protection of human beings, either as a limit to the power of compliance tools📎!footnote-2692 or as their very purpose. Secondly, the Attorney, again distinguishing himself from the Judge, if necessary, reminds us that all the parties whose interests are involved must be taken into consideration. In an ever more flexible, soft and dialogical Law, everyone presenting himself as the "advocate" of such and such a monumental goal: the Attorney is legitimate to be the first to occupy this place.

🔓read the Working Paper developments below⤵️

 It is often observed, even theorized, even advised and touted, that Compliance is a mechanism by which public authorities internalize political (eg environmental) concerns in big companies, which accept them, in Ex Ante, because they are rather in agreement with these "monumental goals" (eg saving the planet) and that this shared virtue is beneficial to their reputation. It is observed that this could be the most successful way in new configurations, such as digital.

But, and the Compliance Mechanism has often been brought closer to the contractual mechanism, this is only relevant if both parties are willing to do so. This is technically true, for example for the Deferred Prosecution, which requires explicit consent. This is true in a more general sense that the company wants to choose itself how to structure its organization to achieve the goals politically pursued by the State. Conversely, the compliance mechanisms work if the State is willing to admit the economic logic of the global private players and / or, if there are possible breaches, not to pursue its investigations and close the file it has opened, at a price more or less high.

But just say No.

As in contractual matters, the first freedom is negative and depends on the ability to say No.

The State can do it. But the company can do it too.

And Daimler just said No.

___

 

Publicly, including through an article in the Wall Street Journal of June 28, 2019.

The company sets out in a warning to the market that it is the object of a requirement on the part of the German Motor Authority (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt)  of an allegation of fraud, by the installation of a software, aimed at misleading instruments for measuring emissions of greenhouse gases on cars using diesel.

It is therefore an environmental compliance mechanism that would have been intentionally countered.

On this allegation, the Regulator both warns the company of what it considers to be a fact, ie compliance fraud, and attaches it to an immediate measure, namely the removal of the circulation of 42,000 vehicles sold or proposed by Daimler with such a device.

And the firm answers : "No".

_____

 

Which is probably only beginning, since a No ends the dialogue of Ex Ante to project in the Ex Post sanction procedures, calls 6 observations:

 

• 1. No doubt Daimler, a German car manufacturing company, has it in mind in this allegation of fraud calculating pollution of its diesel cars what happened to his competitor Volkswagen: namely a multi-billion dollar fine, for lack of compliance in a similar hypothesis (so-called dieselgate). The strategic choice that is then made depends on education through the experience of the company, which benefits as such from a previous case that has had a very significant cost. Thus educated, the question is to measure the risk taken to refuse any cooperation, when the company can anticipate that it will still result in such an amount ....

 

• 2. In addition, we find the difficulty of the distinction of Ex Ante and Ex Post. Indeed, saying No will involve for the company a cost of confrontation with the Regulator, then the peripheral jurisdictions or review courts. But in Germany, the Government itself, concerning a bank threatened with compliance proceedings and almost summoned by the US regulator to pay "of its own free will" a transactional fine, felt that this was not normal, because it must be the judges who punish, after a contradictory procedure with due process and after established facts. 

 

• 3.  However, this is only an allegation, of probable assertions, of what legally allows to continue, but which does not allow to condemn. The confusion between the burden of proof, which presupposes the obligation to prove the facts before being able to sanction, and the burden of the allegation, which only supposes to articulate plausibility before being able to prosecute, is very damaging, particularly if we are committed to the principles of Repressive Law, such as the presumption of innocence and the due process. This distinction between these two probationary charges is at the heart of the probatory system in the Compliance Law. Because Compliance Law always looks for more efficiency, tends to go from the first to the second, to give the Regulator more power, since businesses are so powerful ....

 

• 4. But the first question then arises: what is the nature no so much of the future measure to be feared, namely a sanction that could be taken later, against Daimler, if the breach is proven, or which will not be applied to the firm if the breach is not established; but what is the nature of the measure immediately taken, namely the return of 42,000 vehicles?

 

• This may seem like an Ex Ante measurement. Indeed, the Compliance assumes non-polluting cars. The Regulator may have indications that these cars are polluting and that the manufacturer has not made the necessary arrangements for them to be less polluting (Compliance) or even organized so that this failure is not detected ( Compliance fraud).

 

• This allegation suggests that there is a risk that thiese cars will polluting. They must immediately be removed from circulation for the quality of the environment. Here and now. The question of sanctions will arise after that, having its procedural apparatus of guarantees for the company that will be pursued. But see the situation on the side of the company: having to withdraw 42,000 vehicles from the market is a great damage and what is often called in Repressive Law a "security measure" taken while the evidence is not yet met could deserve a requalification in sanction. Jurisprudence is both abundant and nuanced on this issue of qualification.

 

• 5. So to withdraw these cars, it is for the company to admit that it is guilty, to increase itself the punishment. And if at this game, taken from the "cost-benefit", as much for the company immediately assert to the market that this requirement of Regulation is unfounded in Law, that the alleged facts are not exacts, and that all this the judges will decide. It is sure at all whether these statements by the company are true or false, but before a Tribunal no one thinks they are true prima facie, they are only allegations.
•  And before a Court, a Regulator appears to have to bear a burden of proof in so far as he has to defend the order he has issued, to prove the breach which he asserts exists, which justifies the exercise he made of his powers. The fact that he exercises his power for the general interest and impartially does not diminish this burden of proof.

 

• 6. By saying "No", Daimler wants to recover this classic Law, often set aside by Compliance Law, classic Law based on burden of proof, means of proof, and prohibition of punitive measures - except imminent and future imminente and very serious damages  - before 'behavior could be sanctioned following a sanction procedure.
• Admittedly, one would be tempted to make an analogy with the current situation of Boeing whose aircraft are grounded by the Regulator in that he considers that they do not meet the conditions of safety, which the aircraft manufacturer denies , Ex Ante measurement that resembles the retraction measure of the market that constitutes the recall request of cars here operated.
• But the analogy does not work on two points. Firstly, flight activity is a regulated activity that can only be exercised with the Ex Ante authorization of several Regulators, which is not the case for offering to sell cars or to drive with. This is where Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, which often come together, here stand out.Secundly, the very possibility that planes of which it is not excluded that they are not sure is enough, as a precaution, to prohibit their shift. Here (about the cars and the measure of the pollution by them), it is not the safety of the person that is at stake, and probably not even the overall goal of the environment, but the fraud with respect to the obligation to obey Compliance. Why force the withdrawal of 42,000 vehicles? If not to punish? In an exemplary way, to remind in advance and all that it costs not to obey the Compliance? And there, the company says: "I want a judge".

 

​______

 

La régulation a longtemps été une affaire technique, voire technocratique. Mais les juges ont été présents, d'abord d'une façon périphérique, à travers le contrôle de légalité que les juges administratifs assurent sur la façon dont l'État exerce ses pouvoirs.

Les choses ont vraiment changé lorsque, sous l'influence de l'Europe, le Régulateur lui-même, parce qu'il avait déplacé son centre de gravité de l'ex ante vers l'ex post, a été qualifié par le juge judiciaire de "Tribunal".

Dès lors, la procédure a pénétré d'une façon essentielle dans le système.

Ainsi, les juges eux-mêmes, à l'occasion des recours, voire en premier ressort, ont pu se concevoir eux-mêmes comme des régulateurs.

Cela nous rapproche de la conception anglo-saxonne du rapport entre le droit et l'économie.

Accéder aux slides de la leçon.

Accéder au plan de la leçon

Retourner au plan général du cours.

Retourner à la présentation générale du Cours.

Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.

Consulter la bibliographie générale du Cours.

Consulter la bibliographie de base et approfondie disponibles ci-dessous

Le système probatoire est construit sur la détermination de qui prouve, quoi prouver, comment prouver et quelle recevabilité s’impose aux moyens de preuve. Une fois exposé le système probatoire, peut être étudiée la quatrième question du droit : la personne. Est ici analysée son aptitude à être responsable, la responsabilité ayant pu être analysée comme ce par quoi l’être humain est hissé au niveau de la personnalité. L’on distingue la responsabilité pour faute et la responsabilité pour la garde d’une chose ou d’une personne. Jadis centré sur la personne du responsable, le droit se soucie désormais davantage des victimes.

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche,  «"Entretien autour de l'ouvrage Droits et libertés fondamentaux" , entretien avec Monique Canto, France Culture, Emission Questions d'éthique, 22 novembre  2010.

___

► Présentation synthétique de l'entretien :  L'entretien aborde tout d'abord la définition même des libertés et droits fondamentaux, son évolution et sa diversité. Il montre que leur montée en puissance a été contestée, notamment parce qu’en réalité, faute de moyens, ils seraient vides, mais la critique tombe si l’on pose que ces droits ne visent que les droits essentiels. En outre, le souci des libertés et droits fondamentaux met ceux-ci au cœur du système juridique et par cela le juge. Celui-ci prend plus particulièrement la forme du juge constitutionnel. La montée en puissance du juge est donc corrélative. En ce qui concerne les droits eux-mêmes, ils croisent la notion de dignité, qui trouve un équilibre difficile avec la protection que la liberté assure à la volonté des personnes. De cela aussi, le droit est familier, puisqu’il met sans cesse en balance les contraires. Mais, parce que le juge est au cœur de tout, le droit le plus fondamental est celui d’accéder à un tribunal impartial et d’obtenir de lui un jugement exécuté.

 

► Présentation de la discussion:  

Monique Canto-Sperber débute l’entretien à propos de la définition même des libertés et droits fondamentaux, car les libertés publiques ne sont pas une notion nouvelle et l’on en retrouve l’idée notamment dans la philosophie des Lumières.

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche insiste sur le fait que la notion de droits fondamentaux est elle plus contraignante  en ce qu’il s’agit non plus de possibilité d’action d’un individu dans un espace public ouvert, mais de prérogatives effectives établissant un lien de créance, dont le débiteur sera le plus souvent l’Etat.

La discussion s’engage alors sur l’effectivité de ces droits car la puissance publique ne peut pas tout et la critique des droits fondamentaux leur reproche de ce fait d’être vide. Marie-Anne Frison-Roche répond que les droits fondamentaux sont essentiels en tant qu’ils sont "de base", c’est-à-dire qu’ils visent ce qui est nécessaire à la vie, biologique et sociale, notamment par le rattachement à la notion de vie décente. La question de niveau de protection est ensuite de nature politique et dépend du prix que le groupe social accepte pour satisfaire tel ou tel niveau d’effectivité du droit à la santé, du droit à l’éducation, etc. En outre, les droits fondamentaux, parce qu’ils ne dépendent pas de la seule volonté d’action de l’homme libre, supposent une concrétisation, plus problématique et pourtant plus essentielle. C’est au juge que revient cette tâche, à travers le devoir de l’Etat d’offrir une protection juridictionnel, devoir qu’exprime le fondamental article 16 de la Déclaration des droits de l’Homme de 1789. En cela, le juge est lui-aussi au cœur du système et monte en puissance. Les deux sont liés. Ainsi, la jurisprudence récente sur la garde à vue montre que le Conseil constitutionnel est le maître de l’évolution des principes procéduraux.

Ainsi, l’insertion dans notre système juridique de la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité confie au Conseil constitutionnel le soin de formuler des libertés et droits fondamentaux, d’en être le garant stable, face à un législateur de plus en plus vibrionnant. Par l’intervention de plus en plus forte du juge, les droits fondamentaux changent : ils sont de moins en moins formels, ils se concrétisent. Ainsi, la question du corps humain, généralement occultée par le droit, apparaît et pose la question très difficile de la définition de la dignité.

Monique Canto-Sperber se demande comment définir la dignité et qui doit le faire, notamment n’est-ce pas la personne elle-même qui doit définir ce qui atteint ou non sa propre dignité, notamment en raison de son état de santé ?

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, reprenant les diverses jurisprudences sur la question, celle du "lancer de nain" ou celle de l’exposition Our Body , montre que la volonté n’a pas de prise sur la dignité. L’entretien s’achève sur le constat que par une évolution très forte, le droit français a été bouleversé par les libertés et droits fondamentaux, qui sont au cœur du système juridique et sont en train de faire des juges constitutionnels une Cour suprême, sur le modèle nord-américain. 

_________

 

Référence complète : FRISON-ROCHE, Marie-Anne, Principes et intendance dans l’accès au droit et à la justice, JCP, éd. G., 1997, I, 4051.

 

Accéder à l’article.

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Cultures étrangères et langages judiciaires, approche sociologique, ou L’étrangeté du langage judiciaire, in Colloque du 20° anniversaire du Tribunal de Bobigny, Justice sans frontières, le Juge et l’étranger, 15 septembre 1992, Bobigny.