🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the Nature of things", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 273-28. 

____

📝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 Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

The principal elements of this articles had been presented during the scientific manifestation held on September 23, 2021, at Dauphine University in Paris, coorganised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institute Droit Dauphine. 

In the book this article is placed in the chapter II about the General Procedural Law in the Compliance Law.  

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of regulation & Compliance - JoRC): General Procedural Law is an invention, essentially due to Professor Motulsky, going well beyond the gain that one always has in comparing types of procedures with each other. As he asserted, there is Natural Law in General Procedural Law, in that as soon as there is the Rule of Law Principle there cannot be, whatever the "procedure", even the "process", such and such way of doing things: for example, to decide, to seize the one who decides, to listen before deciding, to contest the one who has decided.

General Procedural Law therefore depends on the nature of things. However, Compliance Law organizes things in a new way. Therefore, both the simple and iron principles of General Procedural Law creep in where we do not expect them at first sight, because there is no judge, this character around whom ordinary procedures fit together. The principles of General Procedural Law are essential in companies. Even if the regulations do not breathe a word about it, it is up to the Judges, in particular the Supreme Courts, to recognize this nature of things because on this effect of nature that  General Procedural Law is built: when compliance mechanisms oblige companies to strike, General Procedural law must oblige, even in the silence of the texts, to arm those who can be hit, even stand up against devices that would set aside too much these defenses that are easily considered contrary to efficiency (I).

But because it is a question of making room for this nature of the things of which the Rule of Law Principle entrusts the custody to the Judge and the Lawyer, the General Procedural Law must also adjust itself to what the extraordinary new branch of Law Compliance Law is. Indeed, Compliance Law is extraordinary in that it expresses the political pretention to act now so that the future will not be catastrophic, by detecting and preventing the realization of systemic risks, or even that it is better, by building effective equality or real concern for others. Because it is the Monumental Goals that defines this new branch of Law, a disputed systemic issue, possibly disputed by several parties before a judge, the procedural principles used by the court must be broadened considerably: they must then include civil society and the future (II).

General Procedural Law thus naturally acquires an even more place than in the classic branches of Law since on the one hand it imposes itself outside of trials, particularly in companies and on the other before the courts it involves people who had hardly any place to speak and thinks themselves, especially the systems entering the "causes" of Compliance now debated before the Judge.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'avenir du Droit de la compliance" (The futur of Compliance Law), in Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), La Nuit du Droit 2023, October 4, 2023. 

____

🎥 Watch the video (in French)

____

🧮read the full programme of this event

The Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation) had presented 4 successive themes insofar as they affect the future of Law: filiation, artificial intelligence, the environment and compliance.

The President of the Chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation (Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation) gave a presentation on Compliance and the essential role played by the Judge. Then, the Parquet général (Prosecutor General's Office) then asked Fabien Raynaud, Conseiller d'État, about the importance of 'systemic cases' in Compliance Law and the dialogue between judges that it implies, using the Youporn case currently being examined by the judges.

____

► General presentation of the speech: As my work has been seminal for Compliance Law, I was asked about the future of Compliance Law.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : demandez le programme !" ("Compliance: ask for the programme!), J.D.E., 2023/7, No. 301, p. 349.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🌐see the LinkedIn post presenting this article

____

► Summary of the article: Compliance programmes are neither constraints imposed by a 'mad regulator' forcing companies to show in advance that they comply with all the regulations applicable to them, nor are they a delegation by the State of tasks it is incapable of accomplishing, such as eradicating corruption or stopping global warming.

On the contrary, they are a tool in the service of the alliance between public authorities and companies in the pursuit of the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law. Through them, the company implements actions to prevent the systemic risks associated with its activity. It thus assists the authorities in regulating new areas (digital, space) while adopting a sustainable strategy. As a result, it does not suffer from regulations, but participates in shaping the future. In this future, the judge plays a central role in shaping the compliance programmes that will be raised or challenged in 'systemic cases'.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & Arnoldo Wald, "Le cas Petrobras, une juste adéquation de la responsabilité pour protéger les personnes impliquées dans des systèmes globaux" ("The Petrobras case: the right balance of responsibility to protect those involved in global systems"), RIDC, July-September 2023, No. 3, pp. 563-582.

____

► Summary of the article: This article briefly outlines the main aspects of corporate liability in the capital market under Brazilian law, arising from the company’s duty to inform shareholders and investors, followed by a commentary on the recent partial award in an arbitration brought by minority shareholders against Petrobras, which underlines the legitimacy of the minority shareholders to engage the company’s liability.

________

♾️suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Présent et avenir des "causes systémiques" : cas des sites pornos (jugement 7 juillet 2023)", Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 8 juillet 2023.

____

📧Lire par abonnement gratuit d'autres news de la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

____

🧱Consécration de la notion proposée de "cause systémique" dans les contentieux de Droit de la compliance : jugement du Tribunal judiciaire de Paris du 7 juillet 2023, "Youporn" (Arcom c/ Orange et autres)

Ce jugement remet de l'ordre et sursoit à statuer pour permettre au Conseil d'État de statuer sur ce qui est la même question impliquant le système numérique, les obligations des plateformes, la technologie. L'office du juge est en pleine transformation lorsque la Compliance est impliquée et que les systèmes eux-mêmes sont en jeu. 

____

📧lire l'article ⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation in the panel "Vigilance (due diligence)", in International Law Association (ILA), 150th Anniversary Symposium of the ILA/ADI, Paris, 19 June 2023.

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut", in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche et J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Université Paris Panthéon-Assas, Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture, Université Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 13 juin 2023.

____

🎤consulter la présentation de l'autre conférence faite lors de la seconde journée de ce colloque : "Compliance et Droit processuel"

____

🧮Consulter le programme de cette manifestation

____

► Présentation de la conférence : Le Droit des contrats noue le "consentement" et la "volonté", puisque le consentement est ce qui manifeste la volonté d'une personne, en marque la liberté et l'engagement, en constitue la trace et la preuve. En 1995, j'ai montré que le Droit économique avait distingué le consentement et la volonté, pour rendre les consentements autonomes et en faire des marchés, notamment dans le Droit de la concurrence et le Droit financier📎!footnote-2980. Or, le consentement si on le transporte en objet, autonome, devient le signe d'une obéissance mécanique, ce qui produit des effets dont le système juridique, si l'on est dans un système libéral et démocratique, doit tenir compte d'une façon centrale. Le Droit économique lui-même doit mettre cela au centre, ce qu'il ne fait guère, notamment par la distinction, néfaste, des branches du Droit.

Puis en rendant hommage à Pierre Godé qui avait fait sa thèse sur la volonté📎!footnote-2982, j'ai montré en 2018 que les "consentements mécaniques" étaient la base de beaucoup d'industries dans l'espace numérique📎!footnote-2981.  Les Autorités publiques de supervision et de régulation mis en place en matière de Compliance, par exemple en France la CNIL, ont eu pour mission et pour jurisprudence de sauvegarder ce lien entre le consentement et la volonté.

Mais la difficulté à comprendre le système général du Droit de la Compliance vient de la confusion souvent faite entre celui-ci et ce qui n'est qu'un de ses outils : la conformité. Or, la conformité est l'obligation pour un sujet de droit, certaines entreprises de donner à voir en Ex Ante qu'elles obéissent activement à la réglementation qui leur est applicable. J'ai montré en 2016📎!footnote-2983 que le Droit de la Compliance ne doit pas se définir par l'obéissance mécanique mais comme la compréhension de la Volonté du Législateur qui vise des Buts, l'entreprise contribuant à la concrétisation de ceux-ci.

Les entreprise qui sont sujets du Droit de la Compliance ne sont alors pas toutes les entreprises, ni celles qui seraient "coupables" par avance, mais celles qui "sont en position" d'atteindre les buts : les "entreprises cruciales", notion que j'ai proposée en 2006📎!footnote-2984. C'est donc dans une perspective systémique et en Ex Ante que le Droit de la Compliance se développe, le Droit de la Compliance étant le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation, comme je l'ai montré en 2017📎!footnote-2985.

Il demeure que les entreprises, qui entrent dans le commerce juridique par leur personnalité juridique, peuvent elles-aussi exprimer leur volonté et non pas seulement consentir. Elles le font non seulement dans la mise en œuvre, ce que la Volonté du Législateur leur demande, mais encore en édictant des Buts, là où se loge la normativité du Droit de la Compliance. 

C'est là où l'on doit affirmer dans un nouvel adage : Obligation sur Obligation vaut.

En effet, si l'entreprise exerce sa puissance juridique non seulement sa capacité à obéir (consentement), ce qui est une puissance faible, mais encore en exerçant leur puissance pour l'effectivité, l'efficacité et l'efficience des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance, les systèmes et les êtres humains qui y sont impliquées en sont les bénéficiaires.

C'est pourquoi dans une conception générale du "pouvoir" que j'ai dessinée pour rendre hommage à Emmanuel Gaillard qui avait consacré sa thèse à cette notion📎!footnote-2986, l'entreprise déploie sa volonté libre et autonome, le consentement, y compris celui des tiers qui dépendent d'elles, convergeant vers la concrétisation des buts. Le contrat devient l'outil premier. 

Le sujet premier devient alors en théorie et en pratique l'articulation entre la Volonté du Législateur (la "réglementation" applicable) et la Volonté des entreprises cruciales. Ce point sera particulièrement développé lors de la conférence. 

La dimension probatoire de la question sera plutôt développée le lendemain dans la conférence qui, dans le cadre de ce cycle portant sur L'Obligation de Compliance, portera sur Compliance et Droit processuel.

_____________________________

La conférence est construite en trois temps :

III. OBLIGATION SUR OBLIGATION VAUT

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law, Working Paper, April  2023.

____

🎤 This working paper was drawn up to serve as the basis for the concluding summary session of the colloquium organised by the Conseil d'Etat (French Administrative Supreme Court) and the Cour de cassation (French Judicial Supreme Court), De la régulation à la compliance: quel rôle pour le juge? ("From Regulation to Compliance: what role for the Judge?") held on 2 June 2023 at the Conseil d'Etat. 

____

📝 This working paper also served as the basis for the article that concludes the book De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge, published by the La Documentation Française, 2024.

____

► Working Paper Summary: It is remarkable to note the unity of conception and practice between professionals who tend to work in administrative jurisdictions and professionals who tend to work in judicial jurisdictions: they all note, in similar terms, an essential movement: what Regulatory Law is, how it has been transformed into Compliance Law, and how in one and even more so in the other the Judge is at the centre of it. Judges, as well as regulators and European officials, explain this and use different examples to illustrate the profound transformation this has brought about for the law and for the companies responsible for increasing the systemic effectiveness of the rules through the practice and dissemination of a culture of compliance. The role of the judge participating in this Ex Ante transformation is renewed, whether he is a public law judge or a private law judge, in a greater unity of the legal system.

____

🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

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

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, Working Paper, October 2021 and April 2022.

____

► This working paper has served as the basis for an introductory speech 🎤L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques (The Hypothesis of the cateory of Systemic Cases), in a more general conference which I coordinated and moderated, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, which is part of a general cycle covering Penser l'office du juge, specific conference attending the 9th May 2002 into the Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation.  

This Working Paper was drawn up in October 2021 to build the conference on the assumption that among the diversity of "cases" brought to the courts by litigants, some constitute a specific category: "systemic cases", justifying treatment that is both specific (in that they are systemic, calling in particular for procedural solutions common to all and distinguishable from the treatment of non-systemic cases) and common treatment beyond the diversity of judges who deal with them (judicial and administrative judges, criminal and non-criminal judges, French and non-French judges, judges of the member-States legal orders and European Union judges, etc.). 

This working paper does not aim to deal with the whole subject, i.e. both to determine this category of "systemic causes" and the consequences that must be drawn from it for the judge's office, since that is the very purpose of the conference, which is built around several presentations: it aims to deal with the first part of the subject, i.e. the very existence of this new processual category, which is "systemic causes", leaving for other work the practical consequences to be drawn from it in the processual treatment that it calls for.

____

📝This Working Paper is also the basis of a forthcoming article

____

► Summary of the Working Paper: xx

________

Read below the developments⤵️