🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

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

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation), Paris, LGDJ, "Droit & Économie" Serie, to be published

____

📚Consult all the other books of the Serie in which this book is published

____

► General Presentation of the Book : 

____

TABLE OF CONTENTS

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

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

____

📝lire l'article

____

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

____

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Choix et embranchements de compétences lorsqu'un enjeu de vigilance est allégué, document de travail, novembre 2024.

____

🧮Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour constituer la base d'une intervention à la conférence Le droit processuel de la vigilance, du 18 novembre 2024

qui fait partie du cycle de conférences sur Le contentieux systémique,

____

📕Ce document de travail sera aussi la base d'une contribution pour l'ouvrage publié en 2025.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : 

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Coordination of the cycle of conference-debates Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

____

► This Cycle in few words: Duty of vigilance, supervision of platforms, non-financial information (CSRD), etc.: as many new texts that bring new types of disputes before the courts.

Despite their diversity, the cases brought before the most diverse judges present a unity: through the dispute that pits the parties against each other, it is a system that is at stake, for example the climate system, digital system, energy system, financial system, etc.
New regulations are just the illustration of this "Emerging Systemic Litigation"; the conference-debates aiming at showing the new fields, new techniques, new standards, etc., in relation to the scale and diversity of stakeholders' expectations. This cycle is designed to encourage cross-fertilisation, so as to provide judges with food for thought ahead of the litigation they will be called upon to deal with.

Les réglementations nouvelles ne sont que l’illustration de ce « contentieux systémique émergent » dont la formation a pour objet de montrer les nouveaux champs, les nouvelles techniques, les nouvelles normes, etc., en lien avec l’ampleur et la diversité des attentes des parties prenantes. Le cycle vise à favoriser les échanges croisés, afin d’alimenter la réflexion des magistrats en amont des litiges qui leurs seront soumis.

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

____

► General Presentation of the Cycle: In 2024, the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) created a new specialised chamber: chamber 5-12 Contentieux émergent – Devoir de vigilance et responsabilité écologique (Emerging litigation - Duty of vigilance and environmental liability). Vigilance litigation is an example of what is emerging more generally: Systemic Litigation, often linked to technologies. This calls for a new way of judging, organising procedures and relations between professionals. A series of conference-debates on Emerging Systemic Litigation (ESL) is being organised jointly by the Paris Court of Appeal, the Versailles Court of Appeal, the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific responsibility of Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

In this context, a series of conference-debates involving professionals from a wide range of backgrounds is being proposed on the following themes:

• 🧮the very notion of "Emerging Systemic Litigation" and the role of the judiciary in it (29 March 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮vigilance, insofar as it gives rise to Systemic Litigation, notably because it takes legal form in numerous contracts, for example in employment relationships (26 April 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮the inclusion in Emerging Systemic Litigation of information reliability techniques, particularly with regard to content available on platforms (27 May 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮the way in which artificial intelligence is generating Systemic Litigation and the influence of new specific texts (24 June 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮sustainability, a principle of systems found in reports and transitively in disputes concerning their development, their standards and even their control (9 September 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮new evidentiary techniques required by Emerging Systemic Litigation, to account for systemic needs, e.g. climate and digital systems, and how firms respond to them (14 October 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮Vigilance General Procedural Law, in that it incorporates the Systemic dimension of Vigilance Litigation (18 November 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮institutional and case law feedback from courts on Emerging Systemic Litigation (16 December 2024): read the programme of this event

____

🧮read below the full programme of this cycle of conference-debates⤵️

► Full Reference: L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Courts Experience in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 16 December 2024, 2pm.-6pm., Cour d'appel de Paris, Première Chambre (First Chamber)

____

► Presentation of the conference: 

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Closing conference-debate of 2024

L'EXPÉRIENCE DES JURIDICTIONS

DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT 

(COURTS EXPERIENCE

IN EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)

Paris Court of Appeal, First Chamber

🕰️2pm.-2.10pm. Présentation (Introduction), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and  Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), Scientific Director of the Cycle of conferences-debates on the Emerging Systemic Litigation - ESL)

I – Comment appréhender le contentieux émergent et/ou systémique ? 

(I - How to deal with Emerging and/or Systemic Litigation?)

🕰️2.10pm.-2.30pm. 🎤L’appréhension par la Cour d’appel de Paris du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (The Paris Court of Appeal's approach to Emerging Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, Première présidente de chambre coordinatrice du pôle économique et commercial, Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of Chamber, Coordinator of the Economic and Commercial Division, Paris Court of Appeal)

🕰️2.30pm.-2.50pm. 🎤Le contentieux émergent vu par l’Observatoire des litiges judiciaires (OLJ) de la Cour de cassation, par 🕴️Sandrine Zientara-Logeay, Présidente de chambre, Directrice du service de documentation, des études et du rapport - SDER, Cour de cassation (President of Chamber, Director of the Department of Documentation, Studies and Reports - SDER, French Court of cassation) 

🕰️2.50pm.-3.20pm. 🎤Le contentieux systémique Eémergent vu par le Tribunal de l’Union européenne (Emerging Systemic Litigation as seen by the General Court of the European Union), par 🕴️Marc van der Woude, President of the General Court of the European Union 

🕰️3.20pm.-4pm. Debate

🕰️4pm.-4.20pm. Break

II – Quelles sont les organisations possibles en matière de contentieux émergent et/ou systémique ? 

(II - How to organise with Emerging and/or Systemic Litigation?)

🕰️4.10pm.-5.10pm. 🎤Table ronde (Round Table)

Moderated by 🕴️Marie-Christine Hébert-Pageot, Présidente de la chambre 5-12 contentieux émergent – devoir de vigilance et responsabilité écologique, Cour d‘appel de Paris (President of the 5-12 Chamber emerging litigation - duty of vigilance and ecological liability, Paris Court of Appeal)

Speakers:

• 🕴️Stéphane Noël, Président du Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (President of the Paris First Instance Civil Court)
• 🕴️Patrick Sayer, Président du Tribunal de commerce de Paris (President of the Paris First Instance Commercial Court)
• 🕴️Jean-François Beynel, Premier président de la Cour d’appel de Versailles (First President of the Versailles Court of Appeal) and 🕴️Benjamin Deparis, Président du Tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre (President of the Nanterre First Instance Civil Court)

🕰️5.10pm.-5.40pm. Debate

🕰️5.40pm.-6pm. 🎤Conclusion. Le Contentieux Systémique Émergent : dialogues (Conclusion. Emerging Systemic Litigation: Dialogues), by 🕴️Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal)

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

________

🌐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, Identifier et anticiper la pratique du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation) ; Presentation of L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Courts Experience in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 16 December 2024, 2pm.-6pm., Cour d'appel de Paris, Première Chambre (First Chamber).

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

⚙️This event has been conceived as a part of the cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

____

► English Summary of the conference: 

________

🌐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⤵️

🌐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, "L'impact du contentieux systémique sur l'office du juge" ("The Impact of Systemic Litigation on the Judge's Office"), Centre de droit privé et Unité de droit judiciaire, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 26 November 2024, Brussels

____

The event was organised by Professors 🕴️Séverine Menetrey, 🕴️Michèle Grégoire and 🕴️Stéphanie Lagasse.

____

🕴️🕴️Before the general debate with the audience, the conference were followed by the speechs of two discussants:

• 🕴️Benoît Frydman, professor of the ULB
• 🕴️Bénédicte Inghels, Advocate General at the Belgian Court of Cassation

 They spoke in a personal point of view and their words are not reported here.

____

► English summary of this conference: The first part of this conference consisted in defining what "systemic litigation" is. This concept was proposed in 2021: it refers to the hypothesis in which a system is involved in a dispute, and the judge's role is to take into account the interests of these systems which, however diverse they may be, all have similar interests. These identical interests are mainly future interests, which consist in not disappearing, the principle of sustainability being common to all the systems involved.

🔴on this notion proposed in 2021: 🕴️mafr, 🚧The Hypothesis of the Category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021

Once this definition has been shared, the challenge for judges, who are often general law judges, particularly civil law judges, is how to deal with this new type of litigation. The first challenge is an institutional one. The emergence of systemic litigation justifies the creation of specialised chambers, which are linked to or reflect the specialisation of judges, itself linked to their ad hoc training.

🔴on the judges training, see the cycle on the Contentieux Systémique Émergent - CSE (Emerging Systemic Litigation - ESL) : 🕴️mafr, 🎤L'Émergence du Contentieux Systémique (Emergence of Systemic Litigation), 2024

The second issue is procedural. Judges need to adapt pre-trial procedures and find ways of knowing and understanding how systems work, before they can listen to their needs. But there are many people who claim to represent these needs: the classic question of the quality and interest for the people to be admitted to go before the court is central in systemic litigation. The first court decisions are rightly cautious, because it is so easy to want to defend the future interests of a system... But the judge must remain in control of the proceedings, and not allow the litigants to appropriate the systemic issue, for which the judge must innovate, in particular through the recourse he may choose to make to amici curiae.

The third issue is the art of judging, in this case the art of deciding, because it is difficult to judge the future, to judge a system, and this need to decide the future is normally the role of the Legislator. However, judges must respond to the new demands built before them, both before the lower courts and the higher courts. Here again, prudence must guide them in deciding.

____

🌐read  the report of this conference published on LinkedIn

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Synthèse" ("Synthesis"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Dans l’espace de justice, les pratiques juridictionnelles au service du futur (In the Space of Justice, Jurisdictional Practices at the Service of the Future), in Cour de cassation, cycle of conferences "Penser les pratiques juridictionnelles au service d’un espace de justice" ("Thinking about jurisdictional practices in the service of an area of justice"), 21 November 2024, 4pm.-6pm.

____

🧮see the program of this manifestation (in French)

____

► English summary of this conference:  The topic covered takes account of the fact that this scientific event comes almost last in this cycle of conferences Penser les pratiques juridictionnelles au service d’un espace de justice ("Thinking about jurisdictional practices in the service of an area of justice"). Indeed, 'jurisdictional practices' have previously been addressed insofar as they are 'at the service of a European area of justice' (February 2023), enlightened (March 2023), attractive (June 2023), interactive (September 2023), peacemaking (December 2023).

The approach here is different and complementary. The conference's starting point is the observation that, today, many new claims are made before Judges that relate directly to the Future. Admittedly, in their traditional role, Judges deal with the Future of disputed situations, but today it is the Future of Systems in their entirety that is sometimes submitted to them through a dispute or a claim. Moreover, they may be asked to find a systemic solution. The possible presence of future generations is just one sign of this change.

The courtroom may seem unsuitable for trials of such gigantic proportions, both in terms of their subject matter and their impact.

No doubt a distinction must be drawn between judges, some of whom may appear more familiar than others with the systemic issues that the Future brings with itself. Perhaps the judge's prudence should guide him/her in the use they make of their powers when they relate to the future, for example in the handling of sanctions, because the future by its very nature contains an element of the unknown, a fundamental prudence that the principle of the legality of offences and penalties expresses.

But the future is not a blank page and Judges, without inventing it, can, indeed must, monitor the coherence of those who write the legal rules, if they are constitutional judges, and of those who write contracts and commitments, if they are civil and commercial judges. In order to fulfill their role, particularly with regard to the demands of stakeholders, judges need to think about and deal with this new systemic object before them: the future.

To understand it, Judges draw on available jurisdictional practices, adjust others and combine them, using new methods.

____

🧮see below the complete programme of this manifestation⤵️

🌐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, "Choix et embranchements de compétences lorsqu'un enjeu de vigilance est allégué" ("Choice and Branching of Jurisdiction when a Vigilance issue is Alleged"), in Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

🕴️An other speaker to this conference is Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor at Côte d'Azur University

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

⚙️This event was conceived as part of the "Emerging Systemic Litigation" cycle of conference-debates, organized by the Paris Court of appeal, in conjunction with the French Court of cassation, the Versailles Court of appeal, the French National School for the Judiciary and the Paris Bar School, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

____

► English Summary of the conference: This speech opens the conference. It therefore logically focuses on the question of "jurisdictional competence". It is divided into successive points which are progressively linked to each other.

The first point consists to insist on this rule : the organisation of the courts and their jurisdiction can never be detached from the substance of the matter in dispute. This explains why the issue of jurisdiction is such a source of passion for as long as the very definition of Vigilance remains so contentious, and why the 2021 legislature's belief that it could put out the fire has only served to exacerbate it.

The second point relates to the first proposed solution, i.e. maintaining the exclusivity of the Paris First Judicial Court, which is acceptable in principle because by specialising judges acquire a "technical competence" but which presents a very damaging "Bibendum risk".

The third point relates to the second solution proposed, namely the reference to the Motulskian notion of the 'basis of demand', which provokes a fork in the road, with the risk of interminable conflicts and divergent interpretations.

The fourth point is the need to find the best solution, i.e. the least bad solution, consisting above all of forming practical alliances, without requiring new texts, for this particular type of litigation which does not come under any branch of Law and which justifies a dialogue between the heads of the courts.

____

🔓read the key points of this speech below ⤵️

________

🌐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, "Les spécificités à concevoir dans l'audience publique des contentieux systémiques de vigilance" ("The Specific Features of Public Hearings to conceive on Vigilance Systemic Litigation"), in Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

🕴️An other speaker to this conference is Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor at Côte d'Azur University

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

⚙️This event was conceived as part of the "Emerging Systemic Litigation" cycle of conference-debates, organized by the Paris Court of appeal, in conjunction with the French Court of cassation, the Versailles Court of appeal, the French National School for the Judiciary and the Paris Bar School, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

____

► English Summary of the conference: 

________

► Full Reference: Les techniques probatoires adéquates dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Appropriate Evidentiary Techniques in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, October 14, 2024, 11am.-12.30pm., Paris Court of Appeal, Masse courtroom

____

► Presentation of the conference: 

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Sixth conference-debate

LES TECHNIQUES PROBATOIRES ADÉQUATES

DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT 

(APPROPRIATE EVIDENTIARY TECHNIQUES

IN EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)

Cour d’appel de Paris, salle Masse

Presentation and moderation by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11am.-11.10am. 🎤La crédibilité (Credibility), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11.10am.-11.30am. 🎤Ce que des entreprises font et les preuves disponibles qui en résultent (What firms are doing and evidence available as a result), by 🕴️Nathalie Fabbe-Costes, Professor of management at Aix-Marseille University 

🕰️11.30am-11.50am. 🎤Les différentes techniques probatoires quand un système est impliqué dans un litige (The various evidential techniques when a system is involved in a dispute), by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Professor of Law at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University, director of the Centre patrimoine et contrats, director of the IEJ de Lyon

🕰️11.50am.-12h30pm. Debate

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

________

🌐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, "Entreprises assujetties au Droit de la Compliance : la charge de prouver la crédibilité de la trajectoire des actions entreprises à partir des structures mises en place" ("Companies subject to Compliance Law: the burden of proving the credibility of the course of action taken on the basis of the structures put in place"), in Les techniques probatoires adéquates dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Appropriate Evidentiary Techniques in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, October 14, 2024, 11am.-12.30pm., Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► English Summary of the conference : As developed below, the presentation shows that Systemic Litigation highlights what is incumbent on systemic companies: first and foremost, a permanent Evidential Obligation that they must satisfy with regard to stakeholders, in particular investors, partners, consumers and public opinion, whether or not there is a lawsuit. But it is essential to determine the purpose of this proof, the burden of which is permanent. It is a question of showing the efforts made on an ongoing basis by the crucial company to ensure that the system in which it operates does not collapse ("Negative Monumental Goal"), or even that it improves ("Positive Monumental Goal"). As these are inherently future factual goals, which is akin to impossible proof, it is a question of demonstrating "Credibility", i.e. showing that the structures put in place by the company and the behaviour already obtained by it, both internally and externally, generate a "trajectory" which can reasonably be expected to produce the effects expected by the Legislator which places obligations on companies. This is relevant whatever the systems involved, be they banking, financial, energy, climate, digital, etc., and whatever the monumental systemic goal targeted, be it the fight against corruption, money laundering, harmful climate change, the establishment of effective equality between human beings, respect for others, etc.

It is in this new conception that the traditional notions of the object of proof, the burden of proof, presumption, means of proof, exemption from proof, and above all the judge's evidentiary role, must be adjusted to the Systemic Litigation that is emerging.

________

► Full Reference: Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligations and Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

► Presentation of the conférence: Sustainability is a new legal concept, the lineaments of which can be found in certain sectors and branches of Law, and which today has both multiple resulting obligations and a definition that is sufficiently unified to allow it to be grasped through the technique and the requirement of the "Sustainability Report", which translates a requirement linked to the systems themselves. The dual materiality mechanism illustrates this.

The Litigation that will ensue shall be imbued with this systemic dimension, since this report was required from this perspective, and the notion of Sustainability itself was conceived in the same way. What is commonly referred to as "ESG" reflects this perspective, which is both structural and long-term: Information is central here, since it is a Report, anchored in  the new conception of Corporate Law that is imbued with Governance, where internal and external stakeholders are present. The various Supervisors and Regulators, who go beyond supervising professionals to regulate activities, are also bound to have a role to play in this Emerging Systemic Litigation.

In order to understand and anticipate this, this conference is built around an analysis of the construction of the Sustainability Report and an analysis of the role of the Regulatory and Supervisory Authority, the French Audit Authority, the Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A. These analyses are carried out with a view to the Systemic Litigation that will arise from these new requirements and practices, in correlation with Litigation linked to other fields of Systemic Litigation such as Vigilance field.

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Fith conference-debate

LE RAPPORT DE DURABILITÉ : OBLIGATIONS ET CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUES ÉMERGENTS

(THE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT: EMERGING SYSTEMIC OBLIGATIONS AND LITIGATION)

Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom

🕰️11am.-11.10am. 🎤Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique (Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

➡️read the presentation of this speech

🕰️11.10am.-11.20am. 🎤Élaboration et esprit de la directive CSRD (Elaboration and spirit of the CSRD), by 🕴️Florence Peybernès, President of the Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A (French High Audit Authority)

🕰️11.20am.-11.40am. 🎤Comment construire un rapport de durabilité ? (How to build a sustainability report?), by 🕴️Alexis Gazzo, Partner, Climate Change & Sustainability leader, EY France

🕰️11.40am.-12pm. 🎤Le contrôle de l'activité d'audit du rapport de durabilité (The control of the audit of the sustainability report), by 🕴️Florence Peybernès, President of the Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A (French High Audit Authority)

🕰️12pm.-12.30pm. Debate

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique" ("Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation"), in Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligation and Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► English summary of the conference: Systemic Litigation refers to a specific category whose proposed category in 2021 refers to "cases" brought before the courts, sometimes specialised, sometimes under ordinary law courts: these are cases in which not only are the parties involved in their dispute but also a system is itself involved, with the procedure and the judge having to allow the interests of the system to be taken into consideration.

However, what is also the subject of new terminology, namely the "Sustainability Report", reflects the same legal revolution: the company must be able to assess not only its economic and financial performance, which is the subject of accounting, but also its development in terms of what it does externally in terms of ESG and what the outside world does about it.

In this perspective, the whole Information System is being transformed, and in different ways depending on the standards adopted, in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, either it is sufficient to obtain Information, no more, so that third parties can adjust their behaviour, mainly investments, or, as in Europe, Law includes a more substantial perspective, so that the company itself adjusts its own behaviour, its Governance, its position in the world, in a renewed relationship with its stakeholders. In Europe, saying and doing are intertwined, CSRD being twinned with CS3D.

Moreover, we can therefore consider that non-financial information, through the sustainability report, its assurance of credibility and the regulation of the audit carried out on it, is itself a system.

The sustainability report, inside the sustainability system, is then interwoven with other systems, which are themselves the subject of Emerging Systemic Litigation: firstly Vigilance, which has been studied as a field of systemic litigation, and then artificial intelligence field, which has been studied in the same way.

The Sustainability Report, insofar as it intersects with the sustainability obligation implied by the duty of Vigilance, may be attracted to the Systemic Litigation to which Vigilance gives rise. In the same way, algorithms can be a tool for data accumulating and matching ESG criteria, which could have the same attraction effect. If this happens, this dimension will have to be present and understood, for example through amici curiae mechanism, in conjunction with the Regulators and the professions concerned.

In addition, as in any emerging mechanism, and as we have seen for example in relation to rating agencies, Tort Law may interfere if the liability of either the company or the person who carried out the audit were to be appreciated, the systemic perspective then having to be integrated into the handling of the case, even before the non-specialised judge.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

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

____

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

____

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

____

🔓read the developments below

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

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

____

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

____

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

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

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

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les deux rencontres entre l'intelligence artificielle et le Contentieux Systémique" ("The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation"), in L’intelligence artificielle, nouveau champ de Contentieux Systémique (Artificial intelligence, new field of Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, June 24, 2024, 11am-12.30pm, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

► English Summary of the conference: In the general presentation on the theme itself, I underlined "The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation".

The focus of this conference is not the state of what is usually called Artificial Intelligence, but rather how to correlate AI and "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL).

This involves recalling what "Systemic Litigation" is (1), then looking at the contribution of Artificial Intelligence to dealing with this type of litigation (2), before considering that the algorithmic system itself can be a subject of Systemic Litigation (3).

1. What is the Systemic Litigation that we see Emerging?

On the very notion of "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL), proposed in 2021, read : M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021

Emerging Systemic Litigation concerns situations that are brought before the Judge and in which a System is involved. This may involve the banking system, the financial system, the energy system, the digital system, the climate system or the algorithmic system.

In this type of litigation, the interests and future of the system itself are at stake, "in the case". The judge must therefore "take them into consideration"📎!footnote-3679.

In this respect, "Emerging Systemic Litigation" must be distinguished from "Mass Litigation". "Mass litigation" refers to a large number of similar disputes. The fact that they are often of "low importance" is not necessarily decisive, as these disputes are important for the people involved and the use of A.I. must not overpower the specificity of each one. The fact remains, however, that the criterion for Systemic Litigation is the presence of a system. It may happen that a mass litigation calls into question the very interest of a system (for example, value date litigation), but more often than not the Systemic Litigation we see emerging is, unlike mass litigation, a very specific case in which one party, for example, formulates a very specific claim (e.g., asking for considerable work to be stopped) against a multinational company, and will thus "call into question" an entire value chain and the obligations incumbent on the powerful company to safeguard the climate system, which is therefore present in the proceedings (which does not, however, entitle it to make claims, but which must be taken into consideration).

2. The contribution of Algorithmic Power in the conduct of a Systemic Litigation

In this respect, AI can be a useful, if not indispensable, tool for mastering such Systemic Litigation, the emergence of which corresponds to a novelty, and the knowledge of which is brought before the Ordinary Law Judge.

Indeed, this type of litigation is particularly complex and time-consuming, with evidentiary issues at the heart of the case, and with expert appraisal following on from expert appraisal. Expert appraisals are difficult to carry out. AI can therefore be a means for the judge to control the expert dimension of Systemic Litigation, in order to curb the increased risk of experts capturing the judge's decision-making power.

The choice of AI techniques presents the same difficulties as those that have always applied to experts. It is likely that certification mechanisms, analogous to registration on expert lists, will be put in place, if we move away from construction by the courts themselves (or by the government, which may pose a problem for the independence of the judiciary), or if we want control over tools provided by the parties themselves, with regard to the principle of equality of arms due to the cost of these tools.

3. When it is the Algorithmic System itself that is the subject of a Systemic Litigation: its place is then rather in defense

Moreover, the algorithmic system itself gives rise to Systemic Litigation, in that individuals may bring a case before the courts claiming to have suffered damage as a result of the algorithmic system's operation, or seeking enforcement of a contract drawn up by the system. It is in the realm of the Ordinary Contract and Tort Law that the system may find itself involved in the jurisdictional proceedings.

It is noteworthy that, compared with the hypotheses hitherto favored in previous conference-debates, notably those of April 26, 2024 on Emerging Systemic Litigation linked to the Duty of Vigilance📎!footnote-3681, the systems involved have been taken into consideration more behind the claims articulated by the plaintiffs, since they allege that a system has been attacked. It would then be "civil society" acting against the company. In the case of the algorithmic system, the initial litigation is made up of allegations that accuse the system of infringing rights (e.g. copyright, right to privacy, etc.).

However, the instance changes if the system is no longer presented as the potential "victim" but rather as the potential "culprit". In particular, it is much less clear what type of intervener in the proceedings, who is not necessarily a party to the dispute, should speak to explain the system's interest, particularly with regard to the sustainability and future of the AI system.

This is an area for further consideration by heads of courts.

________

.🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, 2023-2024.

____

🎤 This working paper was drawn up as a basis for the presentation "Droit de la Compliance et Droit processuel" ("Compliance Law and General Procedural Law") at the colloquium on 13 June 2023, , and then completed for publication.

____

📝It is therefore also the basis for the written contribution, "The General Procedural Obligation, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in the book to be published Compliance Obligation

____

► Working Paper summary: Thoughts are beginning to be available to describe the relationships to be built between General Procedural Law and Compliance Obligation, if only to explain the Emerging Systemic Litigation in compliance matters, Compliance Law becoming jurisdictionalised. But this does not tell us anything specific, because everything that is caught up in a lawsuit is therefore mixed up with General Procedural Law.

It would even appear that, at first sight, Compliance Law does not give rise to any procedural obligations, since it is designed to be developed on an Ex-Ante basis, avoiding the judge for the enterprise, compliance by design being intended to perfect this alleviation, the presence of judicial proceedings being a failure in itself and because of the delays and uncertainties which are inherently associated with them. It is often in the hope of being protected from legal action that enterprises claim to be able to 'be conform' with all regulations, at all times, in all places, through all the people for whom they are responsible. This is obviously impossible. If it were, enterprises would be condemned in advance in all possible legal proceedings, their sanctions being demanded by everyone, public prosecutor or private prosecutor. But this is to make a grave confusion between Compliance Law with 'conformity', which is merely a tool of this new branch of the Law. 

Nor is it enough to say that the rights of the defence and access to the courts must be respected, which no one denies or should not deny.

The purpose of this study is more to measure how Litigation relating to Compliance Law, i.e. the Obligation on large enterprises to participate in the achievement of Monumental Goals in alliance with the state authorities, of which the duty of vigilance is the most advanced, is transformed, creating not only new procedural obligations but also a new type of Obligation on the part of both parties.

But for the moment we reluctantly accept the procedural logic, notably the presence of judges and not just prosecuting bodies (public prosecutors and colleges of regulatory and supervisory authorities), and lawyers in defence and not just in negotiation, in order to respect the Rule of Law principle, as a sort of tribute paid, a dose of inefficiency in efficacy system. This sets the disciplines against each other, in this case Law on the one hand, Economics and Management on the other. More often than not, we leave it at that, either to admit it and strike a balance, or to regret it and wait to see which logic will prevail, between procedural rights and obligations on the one hand and compliance rights and obligations on the other.

On the contrary, we must reject this logic of communicating vessels.

Indeed, Compliance Law is an extension of Regulation Law; Regulatory Law, which extends beyond sectors and borders, and whose normativity is anchored in the Monumental Goals set by political and public authorities, which aim to ensure that in the future systems do not collapse, or even improve, so that the human beings who depend on them are not crushed by them but, on the contrary, benefit from them.

The result is "Systemic Compliance Litigation", which gives rise to specific procedural principles. First of all, it is important to clarify what a "Systemic Case" is, a concept proposed in 2021, and to which the cases that are now being brought before the courts correspond. The specific nature of these Emerging Systemic Compliance Litigation, disputes which are objective disputes, similar to administrative cases, which fully justifies the presence of the public prosecutor and raises the question of whether there would be a 'natural judge' for these systemic compliance disputes, have major procedural consequences, in particular on procedural rights and obligations: in particular the right to be a party to the proceedings, even if you are a party to the dispute, which is the case for the stakeholders.

The result is a new alliance between Compliance Obligation and General Procedural Law, which gives rise to a Compliance Obligations of a procedural nature within Compliance Law itself. It is no longer necessary to divide Ex-Ante and Ex-Post, but to borrow compliance principles and insert them into jurisdictional procedures, as envisaged by Justice François Ancel (moving from Ex Ante to Ex Post), while it is necessary to insert procedural principles into Compliance Obligations within enterprises (moving from Ex-Post to Ex-Ante), as shown in the book on Compliance Jurisdictionalisation. This is particularly illustrated in relation to the Duty of Vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence.

This is particularly relevant in relation to three general procedural obligations which must henceforth structure the compliance obligations in the behaviour of the enterprises and parties concerned, even independently of any legal proceedings requirements, since the judge may be called upon to verify their fulfillment on both sides and to encourage them, which gives rise to an Ex-Ante office of the judge: the obligation to discuss (adversarial principle), the obligation to provide information (evidentiary system) and the obligation to demonstrate (principle of the motivation).

In this development, not only is the procedural obligation to provide access, to organise remedies, to listen to the other party - a procedural obligation which can be reciprocal, especially when it involves listening to the other party and taking into account what they say, a trace of which must be found in the reasons given (for example for the vigilance programs) - the procedural obligation then finds its profound nature: to be the prototype of the Obligation of Compliance.

This alliance changes both Compliance Law and General Procedural Law, since it more broadly changes the office of the judge, who must ensure the effectiveness of these procedural obligations in a continuum between Ex-Post and Ex-Ante. But this question of the office of the judge is the subject of a separate contribution in this book.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Un contentieux systémique in vivo : le cas dit des sites pornographiques", in Les contrôles techniques des risques présents sur les plateformes et les contentieux engendrés, in cycle de conférences-débats "Contentieux Systémique Émergent", organisé à l'initiative de la Cour d'appel de Paris, avec la Cour de cassation, la Cour d'appel de Versailles, l'École nationale de la magistrature (ENM) et l'École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris (EFB), sous la responsabilité scientifique de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 27 mai 2024, 9h-10h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Cassin

____

🧮consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation

____

🧮consulter le programme de l'ensemble du cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent

____

🔲consulter les slides ayant servi de support à l'intervention

____

🌐consulter sur LinkedIn les slides ayant servi de support à l'intervention

____

🎤consulter une présentation de la seconde intervention de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche prononcée lors de cette conférence-débat : "Le contentieux Systémique Emergent du fait du système numérique"

____

🧱consulter la fiche de coordination scientifique de cette manifestation, rendant compte des différentes interventions

____

🌐consulter sur LinkedIn le compte-rendu de cette manifestation, publié dans la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Résumé de cette conférence : 

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Avec l'émergence du contentieux systémique, "le juge intègre le futur"", entretien avec Floriane Valdayron, Journal Spécial des Sociétés (JSS), 23 mai 2024

____

💬lire l'entretien

____

► Présentation de l'entretien par le journal : "Une série de causes systémiques impliquées au coeur d'un cas particulier : voici en quelques mots les fondations du contentieux systémique. Cette notion émerge avec l'apparition de nouvelles structures dans la société, comme le numérique, ou bien de nouvelles consciences politiques face à des systèmes anciens, comme l'environnement. A la croisée du juridique, de la politique et de la société civile, ce phénomène pousse juridictions et magistrats à se spécialiser. Décryptage.".

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Vigilance / sustainability due diligence (CSDD): new field of Systemic Litigation, crossroads of different branches of Law, notably contracts", Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, April 30, 2024

____

📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

____

🧱Vigilance as Systemic Litigation: when Contracts are everywhere

In this conference-debate on 26 April 2024, the systemic litigation that are emerging in vigilance (duediligence), the latest developments in Compliance Law, and the solutions that can be found, were examined by the speakers, and discussed by the audience.

One of the entry points to this Emerging Systemic Litigation is the contract, which is how the enterprise, encouraged by the soft law of the regulators and international organisations, implements its legal obligation. The judge will be confronted with new questions in this new type of litigation, a consequence of this new branch of Law, Compliance Law.

François Ancel, Jean-Christophe Roda and Cyril Cosme have spoken on what is going to happen.

____

📧read the article published on 18 May 2024 on this topic in the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation ⤵️

► Full Reference: La vigilance, nouveau champ de contentieux systémique (Vigilance, new field of Systemic Ligation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 26 April 2024, 11am.-12.30am., Cour d'appel de Paris, Massé courtroom

____

🧮see the full programme of the cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation)

____

🌐see on LinkedIn the report of this event

____

🧱read below the report of this event⤵️

____

► Presentation of the conference: The duty of vigilance imposed by the 2017 French law is being contractualised, either by ad hoc contracts or by stipulations that reproduce the legal provisions, adjust them or go beyond them. This adoption by the Contract and Tort Law is valuable but not without risk. The systemic scope of the underlying law on the one hand and of economic structures on the other, the firm or the value chain, will permeate litigation. The example of labour relations is instructive in this respect.

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Second conference-debate

LA VIGILANCE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE

(VIGILANCE, NEW FIELD OF SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)

Paris Court of Appeal, Massé courtroom

General presentation of the topic and moderation by 🕴️François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation)

🕰️11am.-11.20am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les rapports contractuels (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Contractual Relationships), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University

🕰️11.20am.-11.40am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les relations de travail (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Employment Relationships), by 🕴️Cyril Cosme, Director of the French Office of the International Labour Organization (ILO)

🕰️11.40am.-12.30am. Debate

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

____

🧱read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️

________

► Full Reference: Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Masse room

____

► Presentation of the conference-debate: The "Systemic Litigation" is emerging. Through and beyond the dispute, a system is involved: the banking, financial, digital, health and climate systems. How can such litigation be recognised? How do you make room for a system in a court of law? What can be done when several systems are in conflict? Who represents these systems and their interests? How can the temporality of systems and litigation be reconciled? In practical terms, the magistrate has a new role. Whether they are prosecutors or judges, they deal with systemic litigation in criminal, civil, commercial and other areas.

____

🎤see the detailed presentation of the first speech of 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche : L'émergence du Contentieux Systémique (The Emergence of Systemic Litigation)

____

🧮Programme of this event: 

Inaugural Conference

IMPORTANCE ET SPÉCIFICITÉ DU CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT

(IMPORTANCE AND SPECIFICITY OF THE EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)

Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), Masse room

🕰️11h-11h20. 🎤L’émergence du contentieux systémique (The Emergence of the Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director if the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11h20-11h40. 🎤L’office du magistrat du parquet dans le contentieux systémique (The role of the Public Prosecutor in Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️François Vaissette, Avocat général près la Cour d’appel de Paris (Advocate General at the Paris Court of Appeal)

🕰️11h40-12h30. Debate

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

____

🧮Read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’émergence du Contentieux Systémique" ("Emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), in Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Masse

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🧮see the programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn the report of this speech (in French)

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support this intervention (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this speech

____

► English Summary of the conference: We are seeing the emergence of what should be referred to as a category of its own: the "Systemic Litigation". This concept, proposed in 2021📎!footnote-3521, refers to the hypothesis in which a system is 'involved' in a particular 'case' submitted to the judge. The presence of a system should not be confused with a systemic analysis of a phenomenon. The term 'cause' must be understood in the procedural sense, as used in article 5 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Specifically, the prohibition contained in article 5 of the French Civil Code does not apply because a system thus involved calls for factual responses and solutions and not necessarily general and abstract solutions: the solution of a systemic nature and scope, that the presence of a system in a cause calls for, may be a factual solution, even if it radiates out from the system as a whole. But precisely because the presence of a system in the case often gives rise to a question that is itself systemic, the judge, if he wishes to comply with article 4 of the French Civil Code, must respond not only a minima by not evading the question, for example of systemic risks, but also fully by providing systemic solutions, for example remedies to preserve in the future the solidity and durability of the systems involved in the case. 

These systems may be of different kinds: banking, financial, transport, health, energy, digital, algorithmic or climatic. Their presence in cases brought to the attention of judges, the variety and difficulties of which will be seen in later contributions, leads to basic questions relating to the emergence of Systemic Litigation: firstly, how can Systemic Litigation be defined? Secondly, what makes this category of litigation emerge? The answers to these two questions have essential practical consequences. 

The new solutions must be based on a classic distinction, used in particular in criminal and administrative proceedings, which are more objective, but also in civil proceedings, notably by Hébraud, namely the distinction between the "party to the dispute/litigation" and the "party to the proceedings". Depending on whether it is accepted that the system should be considered as a "party to the litigation", which would allow it, through an entity that is legitimate in expressing it, to allege claims and formulate demands against an adversary, or as a "party to the proceedings", a much broader category, which would allow the judge to hear the interests of the systems involved without individuals being able, on behalf of a system, to formulate claims against or for the benefit of a party to the litigation.

This makes it possible to innovate while preserving the measure of which the judge is the guardian.

________