Thesaurus : Soft Law

Référence complète : Response to the Study on Directors’ Duties and Sustainable Corporate Governance by Nordic Company Law Scholars, octobre 2020.

Lire le rapport

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Full Reference:  André, Ch., Compliance Monumental Goals, vectors of « common » social values.  Perspectives from a Criminal Lawyer, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.



► Article Summary (done par the Author): 

The “Compliance Monumental Goals” serve as vectors for “common” social values: the proposal is simple, but it seems both familiar and strange to a criminal lawyer.

Familiar, because even if compliance transcends the borders of academic disciplines, it shares with criminal law a logic sanctioning attacks on social interests. Strange, because Monumental Goals convey social values by sweeping away all the learned discussions that have been going on since Beccaria about the foundations and axiological functions of punishment. Indeed, the social values promoted by Monumental Goals are “common” in every sense of the word.

First, they are shared and internalized by the largest enterprises in the Western world, without the need for an international treaty on protected values. The question of sovereignty is overshadowed.

Second, they are common in that they are commonplace, ordinary, approved of by most Western consumer-citizens: probity, equality, respect for the environment, who would not be in favour of respecting them? Hence it is in companies’ interest to communicate and diffuse, urbi and orbi, how they respect these Monumental Goals. The question of citizens’ consensus on values is sidestepped, as they are supposed to be derived from the obvious (even if the goals could be achieved by different means, or even contradict each other).

Third, these values are common because they now enlist a multitude of communicants (the “compliance officer”, among others) who, more or less gracefully - the meticulous liturgy of compliance can put off some officiants and incite buffoonery - seek to spread the cult of these values at all levels of business. Since these values are respected, they are necessarily respectable: businesses become moralized by the multitude who respect them. Existence precedes essence, and the values conveyed contribute to the businesses’ raison d’être, beyond the pursuit of profit. The question of effectiveness vanishes, since these values are already there, regularly monitored, both internally and by public authorities. Sovereignty, citizenship, effectiveness: the logic of Compliance supplants the academic debates of criminal lawyers with practical solutions. Perhaps this is how the goals are “monumental”: vast, global, overwhelming. Compliance may not be the best of all worlds, but it is most certainly another world.



📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published




Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence Complète : Europe Economics, Etat des lieux et perspectives des programmes de conformité, Etude réalisée pour le Conseil de la Concurrence, 2008.


Lire l'étude. 

Thesaurus : 07. Cours d'appel

Référence : Grenoble, 5 nov. 2020, I.D. c/ Société Corin France

Lire l'arrêt. 

Thesaurus : Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de résolution (A.C.P.R.)

Référence complète : Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR), commission des sanctions, décision du 29 avril 2021, Cardif Assurance-Vie

Lire la décision

May 9, 2022


Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'office du juge et les causes systémiques (The office of the judge and systemic causes), in Penser l'office du juge, Grand Chambre de la Cour de Cassation, May 9, 2021

Read the program of the conferences cycle 2022 (in French)

See the full conference in video

See the intervention of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in video

Read the working paper on which is based Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's intervention 

April 13, 2022

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Full Reference: Sudres, N., Gel hydroalcoolique, Covid-19 et Compliance :  des insuffisances de la démarche de conformité à l’émergence d’îlots de compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.



► Article Summary (done par the author):  During the Covid-19 Crisis, managing the manufacture, prices, and availability of hydro-alcoholic gel, a key product in the fight against Covid-19 transmission, provides an issue to measure both the limits and resources of Compliance Law.

While the Culture of "conformity" with the Antitrust Law was insufficient to counter the surge in the issue of the prices of   hydro-alcoholic gels and masks, implying the use of tools that seem the opposite of Compliance by State (such as price fixation and requisitioning), mechanisms inspired by them have been put in place to deal with other problems linked to the availability of Essential Goods in times of Health Crisis.

It remains in question whether these mechanisms should inspire the conception of stable Compliance Standards in the future.



📝 go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published.


March 24, 2022

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Augagneur, L.-M., Le traitement réputationnel par et sur les plateformes, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 


 Article Summary (done by the author): The large platforms are in the position of arbiter of the reputation economy (referencing, notoriety) in which they themselves act. Although the stakes are usually low on a unit basis, the jurisdiction of reputation represents significant aggregate stakes. Platforms are thus led to detect and assess reputation manipulations (by users: SEO, fake reviews, fake followers; or by the platforms themselves as highlighted by the Google Shopping decision issued by the European Commission in 2017) that are implemented on a large scale with algorithmic tools.

The identification and treatment of manipulations is itself only possible by means of artificial intelligence tools. Google thus proceeds with an automated downgrading mechanism for sites that do not follow its guidelines, with the possibility of requesting a review through a very summary procedure entirely conducted by an algorithm. Tripadvisor, on the other hand, uses an algorithm to detect false reviews based on "fraud modeling to identify electronic patterns that cannot be detected by the human eye". It only conducts a human investigation in limited cases.

This jurisdictionality of reputation has little in common with that defined by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (legal origin, contradictory procedure, independence, application of the Rules of Law). It is characterized, on the one hand, by the absence of transparency of the rules and even of the existence of rules stated in predicative form and applied by deductive reasoning. It is replaced by an inductive probabilistic model by the identification of abnormal behaviors in relation to centroids. This approach of course raises the issue of statistical bias. More fundamentally, it reflects a transition from Rule of Law, not so much to "Code is Law" (Laurence Lessig), but to "Data is Law", that is, to a governance of numbers (rather than "by" numbers). It also comes back to a form of collective jurisdictionality, since the sanction comes from a computational apprehension of the phenomena of the multitude and not from an individual appreciation. Finally, it appears particularly consubstantial with compliance, since it is based on a teleological approach (the search for a finality rather than the application of principles).

On the other hand, this jurisdictionality is characterized by man-machine cooperation, whether in the decision-making process (which poses the problem of automaticity bias) or in the contradictory procedure (which poses, in particular, the problems of discussion with the machine and the explicability of the machine response).

Until now, the supervision of these processes has been based essentially on the mechanisms of transparency, a limited adversarial requirement and the accessibility of appeal channels. The French Law Loi pour une République Numérique ("Law  for a Digital Republic"), the European Legislation Platform-to-Business Regulation and the Omnibus Directive, have thus set requirements on the ranking criteria on platforms. The Omnibus Directive also requires that professionals guarantee that reviews come from consumers through reasonable and proportionate measures. As for the European Digital Services Act, it provides for transparency on content moderation rules, procedures and algorithms. But this transparency is often a sham. In the same way and for the moment the requirements of sufficient human intervention and adversarial processes appear very limited in the draft text.

The most efficient forms of this jurisdictionality ultimately emerge from the role played by third parties in a form of participatory dispute resolution. Thus, for example, FakeSpot detects false Tripadvisor reviews, Sistrix establishes a ranking index that helped establish the manipulation of Google's algorithm in the Google Shopping case by detecting artifacts based on algorithm changes. Moreover, the draft Digital Services Act envisages recognizing a specific status for trusted flaggers who identify illegal content on platforms.

This singular jurisdictional configuration (judge and party platform, massive situations, algorithmic systems for handling manipulations) thus leads us to reconsider the grammar of the jurisdictional process and its characteristics. If Law is a language (Alain Sériaux), it offers a new grammatical form that would be that of the middle way (mesotès) described by Benevéniste. Between the active and the passive way, there is a way in which the subject carries out an action in which he includes himself. Now, it is the very nature of this jurisdictionality of compliance to make laws by including oneself in them (nomos tithestai). In this respect, the irruption of artificial intelligence in this jurisdictional treatment undoubtedly bears witness to the renewal of the language of Law.



📝 Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article est publié.


Sept. 16, 2021


Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in André C., Frison-Roche, M.-A., Malaurie, M. and Petit, B., Les Buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Laboratoire Dante of Paris-Saclay University,

📅  Septembre 16, 2021.

🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris



📝 Read the program of this colloquium (in French) 

🎥 See Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French)

📝 Read the bilingual working paper on which this conclusion is based 


📅 This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Monumental Goals.  

📘 This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Monumental Goals, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant.

📕 An equivalent book in French, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-edited by the JoRC and Dalloz. 

Aug. 31, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

Par un article publié le 13 juillet 2021, "Targeted ads isolate and divide us even when they’re not political – new research"  des chercheurs ayant mené une étude à propos d'intelligence artificielle et d'éthique , rendent compte des résultats obtenus. Il ressort de cette étude empirique montre que les technologies, mises au point à des fins politiques pour capter les votes afin de faire élire Trump ou pour obtenir un vote positif pour le Brexit, utilisées à des fins commerciales, auraient deux effets sur nous : en premier lieu elles nous isolent ; en second lieu elles nous opposent.


Le seul lien social qui a donc vocation à avoir serait donc l'agression.  

Certes l'usage ainsi fait de nos informations personnelles, auquel nous "consentons" tous, que cela soit pour obtenir notre adhésion à des discours ou à des produits, casse ce qu'Aristote appelait "l'amitiés" comme socle de la Cité Politique.
L'on mesure que la notion de "consentement", qui est une notion juridique, relativement périphérique dans le Droit des Obligations, que beaucoup voudraient mettre comme l'alpha et l'omega, ne nous protège en rien de cette destruction de nous-même et des autres, de cette perspective de la Cité.
Il est important de penser la régulation de la technologie, sur laquelle est construit l'espace digital sur une autre notion que le "consentement".
C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Compliance, qui n'est pas construit sur le "consentement", est la branche du Droit de l'avenir.
#droit #numérique #amitié #consentement #haine #politique

Aug. 30, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

An article from March 3, 2021, Smile for the camera: the dark side of China's emotion-recognition tech, then an article from June 16, 2021, "Every smile you fake" - an AI emotion - recognition system can assess how "happy" China's workers are in the office describes how a new technology of emotional recognition is able, through what will soon be out of fashion to call "facial recognition", to distinguish a smile that reflects a mind state of real satisfaction from a smile which does not correspond to it. This allows the employer to measure the suitability of the human being for his or her work. It is promised that it will be used in an ethical way, to improve well-being at work. But isn't it in itself that this technology is incompatible with any compensation through ethical support?

The technology developed by a Chinese technology company and acquired by other Chinese companies with many employees, allows to have information on the actual state of mind of the person through and beyond his or her facial expressions and bodily behavior.

Previously, the technology of emotional recognition had been developed to ensure security, by fighting against people with hostile plans, public authorities using it for example in the controls at airports to detect the criminal plans which some passengers could have.

It is now affirmed that it is not about fighting against some evil people ("dangerousness") to protect the group before the act is committed ("social defense”) but that it is about helping all workers.

Indeed, the use that will be made of it will be ethical, because first the people who work for these Chinese companies with global activity, like Huawaï, do it freely and have accepted the operation of these artificial intelligence tools (which is not the case with people who travel, control being then a kind of necessary evil that they do not have to accept, which is imposed on them for the protection of the group), but even and above all, the purpose is itself ethical: if it turns out that the person does not feel well at work, that they are not happy there, even before they are perhaps aware, the company can assist.

Let’s take this practical case from the perspective of Law and let’s imagine that it is contested before a judge applying the principles of Western Law.

Would this be acceptable?

No, and for three reasons.

1. An "ethical use" cannot justify an unethical process in itself

2. The first freedoms are negative

3. "Consent" should not be the only principle governing the technological and digital space



These unethical processes in themselves cannot be made "acceptable" by an "ethical use" which will be made of them.

This principle was especially reminded by Sylviane Agacinski in bioethics: if one cannot dispose of another through a disposition of his or her body which makes his or her very person available (see not. Agacinski, S., ➡️📗Le tiers-corps. Réflexions sur le don d’organes, 2018).

Except to make the person reduced to the thing that his or her body is, which is not ethically admissible in itself, that is excluded, and Law is there in order to this is not possible.

This is even why the legal notion of "person", which is not a notion that goes without saying, which is a notion built by Western thought, acts as a bulwark so that human beings cannot be fully available to others, for example by placing their bodies on the market (see Frison-Roche, M.-A., ➡️📝To protect human beings, the ethical imperative of the legal notion of person, 2018). This is why, for example, as Sylviane Agacinski emphasizes, there is no ethical slavery (a slave who cannot be beaten, who must be well fed, etc.).

That the human being agrees ("and what about if it pleases me to be beaten?") does not change anything.



The first freedom is not positive (being free to say Yes); it is negative (being free to say No). For example, the freedom of marriage is having the freedom not to marry before having the freedom to marry: if one does not have the freedom not to marry, then the freedom to marry loses any value. Likewise, the freedom to contract implies the freedom not to contract, etc.

Thus, freedom in the company can take the form of freedom of speech, which allows people, according to procedures established by Law, to express their emotions, for example their anger or their disapproval, through the strike.

But this freedom of speech, which is a positive freedom, has no value unless the worker has the fundamental freedom not to express his or her emotions. For example if he or she is not happy with his or her job, because he or she does not appreciate what he or she does, or he or she does not like the place where he or she works, or he or she does not like people with whom he or she works, his or her freedom of speech demands that he or she have the right not to express it.

If the employer has a tool that allows him or her to obtain information about what the worker likes and dislikes, then the employee loses this first freedom.

In the Western legal order, we must be able to consider that it is at the constitutional level that the infringement is carried out through Law of Persons (on the intimacy between the Law of Persons and the Constitutional Law, see Marais , A., ➡️📕Le Droit des personnes, 2021).




We could consider that the case of the company is different from the case of the controls operated by the State for the monitoring of airports, because in the first case observed people are consenting.

"Consent" is today the central notion, often presented as the future of what everyone wants: the "regulation" of technology, especially when it takes the form of algorithms ("artificial intelligence"), especially in digital space.

"Consent" would allow "ethical use" and could establish the whole (on these issues, see Frison-Roche, M.-A., ➡️📝Having a good behavior in the digital space, 2019).

"Consent" is a notion from which Law is today moving away in Law of Persons, in particular as regards the "consent" given by adolescents on the availability of their body, but not yet on digital.

No doubt because in Contract Law, "consent" is almost synonymous with "free will", whereas they must be distinguished (see Frison-Roche, M.-A., ➡️📝Remarques sur la distinction entre la volonté et le consentement en Droit des contrats, 1995).

But we see through this case, which precisely takes place in China, that "consent" is in Law as elsewhere a sign of submission. It is only in a probative way that it can constitute proof of a free will; this proof must not turn into an irrebuttable presumption.

The Data Regulatory Authorities (for example in France the CNIL) seek to reconstitute this probative link between "consent" and "freedom to say No" so that technology does not allow by "mechanical consents", cut off from any connection with the principle of freedom which protects human beings, from dispossessing themselves (see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Yes to the principle of will, No to pure consents, 2018).

The more the notion of consent will be peripheral, the more human beings will be able to be active and protected.


July 23, 2021


Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Programme de mise en conformité (Compliance), Dictionnaire de droit de la concurrence, Concurrences, Art. N° 12345, 2021

Read the definition (in French)

July 22, 2021


► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionality  and Compliance,  Working Paper, 22nd July  2021.



🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference in the colloquium Compliance and Proportionality. From the control of Proportionality to the proportionality of the control, to be helded in Toulouse, France, on the 14th October 2021.


📝It constitutes the basis for an article: 

📕 this article will be published in its French version in the book  Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancein the Series 📚   Régulations & Compliance

 📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goalsin the Series 📚   Compliance & Regulation


► Working Paper Summary: Measuring the relationship between the Principle of Proportionality and Compliance Law depends entirely on the Definition chosen for Compliance Law. Let us first take the definition of Compliance Law as a simple "mode of effectiveness" of the rules to which we hold (I). The more we stick to this procedural definition of Compliance Law as a mode of effectiveness of the rules, the less it is easy to detect specificities in the application of the Principle of proportionality in compliance mechanisms. There are certainly many examples of the application of the principle of proportionality, but the addition and variety of examples are not enough to sculpt an original relationship between Proportionality and Compliance.


However, this exercise is not wasted. In fact, in the confusion which still marks the emergence of Compliance Law, the legal nature of the compliance mechanisms remains contested. However, the imposition of Proportionality, not only as it is an obligation but as a limitation of powers in this first definition focusing on Efficiency, recalls that Compliance, conceived as " process ", would then in any case be admissible at the very least as a" Procedure ", anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, therefore self-limititation expression.   But Proportionality is then like a cold shower in compliance, since it is defined by self-limitation in a Law which would be defined by effectiveness as its only definition...  Ineffectiveness In Efficiency...: it is no longer a relation, it is then an opposition which is established between the two terms ...

In this definition of Compliance Law, we have no other choice than to put ourselves in this squaring of the circle because in this procedural definition of Compliance, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules that we like more than others, it must however be admitted that any branch of the Law, without denying its very nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law.

Si l'on a cette définition du Droit de la Compliance, l'on n'a pas d'autre choix que de se mettre dans  cette quadrature du cercle car dans cette définition procédurale de la Compliance, comme méthode d'effectivité, d'efficacité et d'efficience des règles que l'on aime plus que d'autres, il faut pourtant bien admettre que toute branche du Droit, sans à dédire sa Nature même, doit s'ancrer dans l'Etat de Droit.

Par le principe de proportionnalité, de force cette branche nouvelle du Droit viennent s'ancrer des solutions classiques venues des Droits constitutionnel, public ou pénal : c'est alors ce qu'on demande au principe de proportionnalité, d'interdire à la Compliance de n'être qu'un process. Le Droit de la répression a une large part dans cette conception et le principe de proportionnalité vient lui rappeler la part que le Droit pénal y prend encore (avec difficulté et pour l'instant...) dans l'admission d'inefficacité que le Droit exige, notamment face aux technologies de la Compliance.

Dans cette première définition, le principe de proportionnalité vient ainsi rappeler à la Compliance, toute entière tenue dans l'idée d'efficacité qu'elle est un "Droit" de la Compliance et qu'en cela ancrée, il lui faut limiter son efficacité. C'est donc une sorte de prix que ces techniques versent, à regret..., à l'Etat de Droit et notamment aux libertés des êtres humains. Une tentation est forte de ne pas vouloir payer ce prix. Par exemple en affirmant qu'il existe un nouveau monde technologique, que le nouveau système, tout entier en algorithmes, va promouvoir dans un éloignement du Droit, rejeté vers l'Ancien Monde. On le lisons déjà, on le voyons en Chine. D'autres affirment qu'il faut "faire la balance".  Mais à faire la balance entre l'efficacité et l'autolimitation, l'on sait très bien qui va l'emporter ...

Mais pourquoi ne pas regarder plutôt du côté d'une définition du Droit de la Compliance où tout au contraire les deux notions, au lieu de s'opposer, s'épaules !  

En effet, le Droit de la Compliance se définit alors dans le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation comme un ensemble de règles, d'institutions, de principes, de méthodes et de décisions prenant leur sens et leur normativité dans des buts qui lui sont spécifiques. Dans cette définition à la fois propre et substantielle, ces "buts monumentaux" sont systémiques et requièrent que tous les moyens soient mobilisés pour qu'ils soient atteints. Futurs et de nature négative (des événements ne devant pas advenir) mais aussi futurs et de nature positive (des évènements devant advenir), le Droit de la Compliance ne s'applique pas à toutes les règles dont nous souhaitons l'efficacité mais ce type particulier de "buts monumentaux", dans une alliance entre les Autorités politiques en charge du futur des groupes humains et les entités en position de mobilise ses moyens. La méthode est alors différente. Il ne s'agit plus de retrancher et la perspective de la répression passe au second plan. 

Une inversion se produit. La proportionnalité cesse d'être ce qui limite l'efficacité pour devenir ce qui devient l'efficacité. Dès l'instant que l'on a un but précis, la proportionnalité n'est pas la conséquence de la limitation (comme dans le principe de "nécessité" de la loi pénale, en tant que celle-ci est une exception), elle est la conséquence du fait que tout mécanisme juridique est un "Outil de la Compliance", qui n'a de sens que par rapport à un "but monumental". Il est alors essentiel de fixer les "Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance". Comme c'est là qu'est logée la normativité juridique de la Compliance, le contrôle doit d'une façon première porter sur cela. Puis tous les outils de la Compliance doivent s'ajuster d'une façon "proportionnée" c'est-à-dire efficace à ses buts : autant qu'il est nécessaire, pas plus qu'il n'est nécessaire. Selon le principe d'économie (que l'on appelle aussi le "principe d'élégance" en mathématique).

La règle contraire au principe de proportionnalité est alors : la règle inutile pour atteindre le but. La règle inutile est la règle disproportionnée : c'est ainsi qu'il faut lire le contrôle judiciaire des sanctions excessives, non pas par la notion de "la limite" mais pas la notion de " l'inutile". 

Tout repose alors sur la qualité juridique du but. De droit - et cela mériterait d'être une exigence de niveau constitutionnel, le but doit toujours être lisible, compréhensible non contradictoire, atteignable.

Cela accroît l'office du juge. Cela renouvelle le pouvoir du législateur dans une conception qui cesse d'être discrétionnaire.

Mais le Législateur garde l'apanage de fixer les Buts Monumentaux, tandis que le juge garde la qualité de la formulation qu'il en fait, afin de pouvoir en mesurer la proportionnalité des moyens qui sont mis en face par l'Etat et par les entreprises, tandis que les entreprises peuvent se rallier aux Buts Monumentaux du Politique en faisant alliance avec lui mais certainement pas en instituer d'autres d'une façon autonome car ce ne sont pas des entités politiques normatives, alors qu'elles sont libres de déterminer les moyens nécessaires pour atteindre ces buts, le juge contrôler le mécanisme de proportionnalité qui fait fonctionner l'ensemble de ce nouveau système.

La jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel allemand exprime cette conception-là. Elle est pleinement conforme à ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance dans ce qu'est le But Monumental qui contient tous les Buts Monumentaux systémiques : la protection de l'être humain.



July 3, 2021


► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law Big Bang, talk show with Jean-Philippe Denis, July 3,  2021. 



🎥 watch the emission totally in French 

🎥 watch the emission with English subtitles

June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Heymann, J., La nature juridique de la "Cour suprême de Facebook", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 


 The summary below describes an article following the colloquium L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021.

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to: The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law.


 Article Summary (done by the author) : Taking place in the general theme aiming at making “words and things coincide”, the article offers some thoughts on the “conditions of the discourse” – in the sense in which Foucault understood it in his Archéologie des sciences humaines – relating to the phenomenon of “jurisdictionalization” of Compliance.

            The thoughts are more specifically focusing on the nature of the so-called “Supreme Court” that Facebook instituted to hear appeals of decisions relating to content on the digital social networks that are Facebook and Instagram. Is this really a “Supreme Court”, designed in order to “judge” the Facebook Group?

            A careful examination of the Oversight Board – i.e. the so-called “Supreme Court” created by Facebook – reveals that the latter, in addition to its advisory mission (which consists of issuing policy advisory opinions on Facebook’s content policies), exercises some form of adjudicative function. This is essentially conceived in terms of compliance assessment, of the content published on the social networks Facebook or Instagram with the standards issued by these corporations on the one hand, of content enforcement decisions taken by Facebook with the Law on the other hand. The legal framework of reference is yet rather vague, although its substantial content seems to be per se evolutive, based on the geographical realm where the case to be reviewed is located. An adjudicative function can therefore be characterized, even if the Oversight Board can only claim for a limited one.

            The author can ultimately identify the Oversight Board as a preventive dispute settlement body, in the sense that it seems to aim at avoiding any referral to state courts and ruling before any court’s judgement can be delivered. Some questions are thus to be raised, relating with both legitimacy and authority of such a Board. But whatever the answers will be, the fact remains that the creation of the Oversight Board by a private law company already reveals all the liveliness of contemporary legal pluralism.



📝 Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article est publié.




June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Référence complète : Bruno, A., C.,  La façon dont les entreprises du secteur bancaire s'organisent et se comportent pour assumer leur rôle de "procureurs et juges d'elles-mêmes, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître. 


 Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : 

Tout d’abord il faut rappeler que la fonction compliance est née au sein de la finance, et qu’en se structurant, elle a évolué pour accompagner le passage du droit de la régulation au droit de la compliance. Par le biais de ces mutations, la compliance est passée d’une fonction contrôlante ex-post à une fonction contraignante ex-ante. La crise du LIBOR illustre imparfaitement la primauté de cette transition. L’évolution de ce rôle est illustrée par des exemples concrets.

Dans un premier temps, est étudiée la gestion du risque de réputation élément fondamental de l’entreprise procureur et juge d’elle-même. Le risque de réputation est un élément non négligeable pour un établissement financier, car celui-ci peut engendrer des conséquences négatives sur sa capitalisation, voire culminer en crise systémique. L’évitement de la crise financière de grande ampleur s’inscrit également dans les buts monumentaux de la compliance.

Afin d’éviter des scénarios complexes et inopportuns, le droit de la compliance intervient le plus en amont possible et identifie les sujets susceptibles d’impacter la réputation. La réglementation impose la mise en place de certains dispositifs ex ante. La loi Sapin 2 exige la mise en place d’outils qui concernent l’ensemble des entreprises (et non pas seulement les banques). En effet, au-delà du risque de réputation, il est essentiel de considérer le risque de corruption. La considération du risque de réputation peut justifier le refus d’exécuter certaines opérations. Dans cette optique la compliance doit évaluer les potentielles conséquences de l’entrée en relation avec un nouveau client en amont, pour parfois décliner la prestation de services. Ainsi la fonction compliance juge de façon unilatérale la relation en vue de gérer son risque de réputation.

En second lieu, le mécanisme de sanction interne institué par le droit de la compliance est également abordé, notamment les sanctions internes adoptées par la compliance dans un établissement financier.

La compliance peut agir en tant que procureur via des comités conduite mis en place au sein des métiers. En outre, la compliance peut déterminer et appliquer des sanctions à l’encontre des collaborateurs. De la sorte, on constate un double rôle de procureur et juge pour la fonction compliance dans le cadre d’un dispositif extraordinaire du droit commun.

Enfin, l’analyse traite du cas du jugeant-jugé : à la suite d’une décision de la banque, le régulateur peut prendre une position d’autant plus stricte en estimant que la banque applique mal ses lignes directrices. Ainsi, le droit de la compliance qui s’installe au sein de l’entreprise bancaire, se retrouve lui-même sous le jugement de son propre régulateur. L’entreprise se retrouve jugée et est amenée à être procureur et juge d’elle-même, de ses clients.



📝 Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article est publié.




June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Lapp, Ch.,  La façon dont l'entreprise fonctionne pour concrétiser le Droit de la Compliance : Les statuts du process ("How a Company works to make Compliance Law a reality: the statues of processes"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître. 



 The summary below describes an article following the colloquium L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Jan-Marc Coulon, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Jean-Marc Coulon's  Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law ).


 Article Summary (done by the Author) : The Company is caught in the grip of Compliance Law, the jaws of which are those of Incitement (1) and Sanction that the Company must apply to ensure the effectiveness of its processes to which it is itself subject (2 ).

First, the Company has been delegated to fabricate reprehensible rules that it must apply to itself and to third parties with whom it has dealings. To this end, the Company sets up "processes", that is to say verification and prevention procedures, in order to show that the offenses that it is likely to commit will not happened.

These processes constitute standards of behavior to prevent and avoid that the facts constituting the infringements are not themselves carried out. They are thus one of the elements of Civil Liability Law in its preventive or restorative purposes.

Second, the sanction of non obedience of Compliance processes puts the Company in front of two pitfalls. The first  dimension place the company, with regard to its employees and its partners, in the obligation to define processes which also constitute the quasi-jurisdictional resolution of their non-compliance, the company having to reconcile the sanction it pronounces with the fundamental principles of classical Criminal Law, constitutional principles and all fundamental rights. The processes then become the procedural rule.

The second dimension is that the Company is accountable for the effectiveness of the avoidance by its processes of facts constituting infringements. By a reversal of the burden of proof, the Company is then required to prove that its processes are efficient. at least equivalent to the measures defined by laws and regulations, the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA), European directives and various communications on legal tools to fight breaches of probity, environmental attacks and current societal concerns. The processes then become the constitutive element, per se, of the infringement.

Thus, in its search for a balance between Prevention and Sanction to which it is itself subject, the Company will not then be tempted to favor the orthodoxy of its processes over the expectations of the Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA , regulators and judges, to the detriment of their efficiency?

In doing so, are we not moving towards an instrumental and conformist Compliance, paradoxically disempowering with regard to the Compliance Monumental Goals of Compliance?



📝 go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published.

June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Siproudhis, J.-B.,, C., The transfer of responsibility from the regulator and the judge to the company: demonstration by the whistleblowing mechanism, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisationseries "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. 



 Article summary (done by the author) : From the practitioner perspective, compliance is geared towards a gradual transfer of responsibilities from both regulators and judges. 

 In France, the whistleblowing mechanism imposed by the so-called "Sapin 2" and "Duty of Vigilance" laws illustrates this evolution. Indeed,  internal alerts management follows key judiciary process milestones : admissibility, investigations, dismissal or sanction.

This turns corporations duties into prosecutors or judges’, provided that they respect a specific framework contributing to respect the rules of a fair trial.

This requirement raises several legal and sociological challenges to which the author devotes his developments.



📝 to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published


June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Bavitot, A., C., Le façonnage de l'entreprise par les accords de justice pénale négociée (("Shaping the company through negotiated Criminal Justice Agreements"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître. 


 Article Summary (done by the author): Negotiated justice is "the situation in which the criminal conflict is the object of a trade in the etymological sense of the term negotio, i.e. a debate between the parties to reach an agreement".

Thus, the French legislator has succumbed to globalized mimicry by creating the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (Public Interest Judicial Agreement), first in matters of probity and then in environmental matters. What is the nature of this deal of justice? Validated by a judge's order, it does not entail any declaration of guilt, has neither the nature nor the effects of a judgment of conviction and is not registered in the judicial record. Possible at the investigation stage as well as at the pre-trial stage, the Public Interest Judicial Agreement is original in that it makes it possible to avoid either the prosecutor's proceedings or the judge's wrath.

A detailed study of the agreements signed shows that in order to negotiate in the best possible way, the company can and must shape itself. The company will shape the facts of its agreement, shape its charge and, finally, shape its sentence. The article offers a concrete analysis of these three dimensions of corporate shaping to better approach understanding the legal nature of negotiated criminal justice agreements.



📝 Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article est publié.


June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Siproudhis, J.-B.,, C.,  Le transfert de responsabilité du régulateur et du juge vers l’entreprise : la démonstration par le système d’alerte ("The transfer of responsibility from the regulator and the judge to the company: demonstration by the whistleblowing mechanism"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître. 



 Article Summary (done by the Author) : From the practitioner perspective, compliance is geared towards a gradual transfer of responsibilities from both regulators and judges. 

 In France, the whistleblowing mechanism imposed by the so-called "Sapin 2" and "Duty of Vigilance" laws illustrates this evolution. Indeed,  internal alerts management follows key judiciary process milestones : admissibility, investigations, dismissal or sanction.

This turns corporations duties into prosecutors or judges’, provided that they respect a specific framework contributing to respect the rules of a fair trial.

This requirement raises several legal and sociological challenges to which the author devotes his developments.



📝 go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published.




This requirement raises several legal and sociological challenges to which the author devotes his developments.



June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Merabet, S., La vigilance, être juge et ne pas juger ("Vigilance, to be a judge and not to judging"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 


 Article Summary (done by the Author) : Vigilance presents two diametrically opposed dangers. The company is caught in the crossfire. On the one hand, there is a risk that it exercises its role at a minimum, so that the obligations imposed on it are ineffective, thereby risking its own liability.   On the other hand, the danger is that the company oversteps its role and takes the place of the Judge. Does Vigilance always present the same dangers? Does it systematically involve the same role of the company? To be vigilant, is it to judge? The answer to these questions depends on the content of the obligations involved in Vigilance. However, these now seem very diverse.

How to distinguish between the various duties of Vigilance? A first approach could consist in considering a formal identification which leads to distinguish stricto sensu Vigilance, that which is envisaged by the French so-called "Sapin 2" law and identified as such, and the related obligations, such as for example the duty of moderation of companies on social networks, which without being baptized "duty of vigilance", nevertheless come close. The extension of Compliance obligations blurs the line between what exactly falls under Vigilance and what not. A more substantial approach should be taken to consider the degree of control exercised by the company. Understood in this way, it is possible to distinguish two categories: Negative Vigilance, which implies the identification of a risk, and Positive Vigilance, which even more supposes the neutralization of the risk. The first assumes a limited role for the company, while the second encourages it to act positively, even before an Authority has spoken. In this case, the role of the company is closer to that of the judge. That shows that all the obligations of vigilance cannot therefore be understood in a unitary manner.

As soon as the company is led - if not to take the place of the Judge - to act before the Judge even has the opportunity to pronounce himself/herself, then it seems legitimate to supervise the implementation of the company's duty of Vigilance, through a form of proceduralisation of Compliance. The company, as its employees or partners, would benefit from more Vigilance supervision. Insofar as all Vigilance obligations do not call the same role of the company, it is necessary to consider guiding principles of Vigilance, more or less intense depending on whether it is Negative or Positive Vigilance. 



📝 go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published.


June 21, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

► It is in its "Risk and Compliance" section that the Wall Street Journal, by its article of June 18, 2021 (➡️📝Europe's Chief Prosecutor Has 300 Cases on Her Plate Already), presents the first steps of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, since June 1, 2021.

This inclusion presupposes that it is through a Compliance Law perspective that this new body must be understood, in order to understand and anticipate its action.

In this perspective :

➡️📧Frison-Roche, M.-A., European Public Prosecutor's Office comes on stage: the company having itself become a private prosecutor, are we going towards an alliance of all prosecutors?, June 2, 2021

➡️ 💬Frison-Roche, « Le parquet européen est un apport considérable au Droit de la Compliance » (“The European Public Prosecutor's Office is a remarkable contribution to Compliance Law"), June 14, 2021



The article of the Wall Street Journal takes the form of an interview with the European Prosecutor. Her responses also confirm the consubstantial link between European Public Prosecutor's Office and Compliance Law.

It is remarkable that she immediately says that she hopes the treatment of many cases, especially on healthcare and infrastructure sectors: "Our expectation is to have more cases, especially in the healthcare system, in public procurement, infrastructure, and also in agriculture ".

However, the 2017 European Regulation which established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office said that its "mandate" is to prosecute offenses affecting the "financial interests of the European Union", without being hampered by the cumbersome procedures for cooperation between States while these offenses are most often cross-border.

But one could think that, knowingly taking the means (corruption, money laundering) for the goal, the European Public Prosecutor's Office would immediately pursue not only the defense of the financial interests of the Union (admittedly financial interests damaged by corruption or money laundering) but these facts themselves: thus the European Public Prosecutor's Office works with the European Supervisory Authorities, in particular banking and financial authorities, which fight in Ex Ante against these offenses and prevent them.



Moreover, it will be noted that the European Prosecutor is targeting three economic sectors which are not "regulated sectors" in the legal sense of the qualification, that is to say not monitored by a sectoral Regulatory and/or Supervision Authority: Health, Infrastructure and Agriculture.

Thus, the power of Regulatory Law, which relies in its Ex Ante, and its weakness, which derives from the pre-required existence of a sectoral Authority, is compensated: the action of the Public Prosecutor's Office is not limited to legally regulated sectors.

While Competition Authorities are mandated (➡️📅La concurrence dans tous ses états, June 25 and 26, 2021) to protect the competitive functioning of the markets, a Public Prosecutor's Office can deal with any infringement without having to determine a market.

For instance, Infrastructures don't constitute pertinent markets but can constitute fields for criminal activities, such as corruption or money laundering, justifying Compliance Law mechanisms. 

What the new European Prosecutor is aiming for, namely Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture, have undoubtedly been damaged both by the sole primacy of the Competition perspective and by a Criminal Law constrained by the difficult inter-State cooperation, even though they are not subject to a supranational Ex Ante Regulation.

The European Public Prosecutor's Office aims to directly improve this, through Entreprises acting in Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture. 



► subscribe to the French Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

June 16, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

 Compliance Law is essential for the future of Africa: this is also a lesson from the Juin 2021 G7 Summit in its Infrastructure Plan. 

It emerges from the G7 summit which ends on June 13, 2021 in Carbis Bay in the United Kingdom, a common desire to increase infrastructures in Africa, in itself and because otherwise China will do it, and will do it differently.

Compliance Law will be determinant in this common action for three reasons.

First and because the issue is about infrastructures, the construction and the management of infrastructures falling more under Regulatory Law than Competition Law (📕Chevalier, J.-M., Frison-Roche, M.-A, Keppler, J.EPPLER, J.H. et Noumba, P. (ed.), Économie et droit de la régulation des infrastructures. Perspectives des pays en voie de développement, 2009). However, Compliance Law is not a simple process for the effectiveness of rules which are external to it, it is the extension in companies of Regulatory Law. Where companies must implement regulatory goals within themselves, they develop Compliance rules (➡️📝see Frison-Roche, M.A., From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017. 

Secondly and because the issue is about Africa, the Rule of Law is sometimes not very solid there. By internalizing Regulatory Law in companies (or even by associating Arbitration with it), Compliance Law makes it possible to get out of this dead end (➡️📝Salah, MM, Conception and Application of Compliance in Africa, in 📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021.

Thirdly and because the topic si about China, Compliance Law in its European conception has the Monumental Goal of defending individuals while in its Chinese conception it aims to obtain their obedience to the rules (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., In China, Compliance Law deploys without, and even against democracy, China seeing Compliance only as an "efficiency process"; in Europe, it deploys with and even for democracy, 2021). On construction sites and in the human management of infrastructures, this changes everything.

G7 members share the first conception.

They must now implement it by their companies and thanks to them, private sector being in alliance with the political authorities which just expressed. Because Compliance Law is an alliance between political authorities and crucial economic operators.


► register to French Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

June 15, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

  Money Laundering, Cryptocurrency and the Art of Saying It: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) statement of June 3, 2021 and the Art of Saying It. Law is softer than ever.


The English have their way of saying things: thus the Financial Conduct Authority -FCA, the British financial market regulator, published on June 3, 2021 a press release whose expression is remarkable. Its subject matter is crypto-assets and, like in an essay plan à la française, it is built in two parts.

 In the part I, it is just mentioned that the deadline for companies in this industry to obtain a registration, which was due to end soon, will be postponed to March 2022. Why? Because almost all of them have not been able to demonstrate their ability not to be resistant to money laundering and other criminal activities. This is in no way presented as a conviction, just the objective cause of a postponement of the date, the time for the Financial Regulatory Authority to better examine the files, themselves to be completed by applicants.

The part II concerns consumer protection. The Authority point out that the consumer can lose everything in an extremely risky products and underlines that it is unlikely that this ruined layman will even be able to access the ombudsman to obtain anything. It is purely informative.

This is how the English bodies formulate their opinion on cryptoasset.

It's elegant (the press is more direct).

This also makes it possible not to be covered with insults by the worshipers of these objects: are expressed just a technical delay granted and not a conviction that cryptoasset could be per se  an instrument of criminality, just a probationary difficulty ; and just a regret on the non-access to the ombudsman for these cryptoassets consumers.

But if the evolution of the bubble leads these investors to ruine shows, the Regulator will have warned and expressed in advance the regrets he had of the lack of legal technique to protect them. And if the facts show that it is massively through cryptocurrency that the crime is whitewashed, the Regulator has shown everyone his prudence, the delay it will have take to examine the files  and its kind foresight.

No one more than a British knows what Liability is. 







June 14, 2021

Compliance: at the moment

► Do Compliance and Democracy have a relationship? China replies: no. Europe responds and must respond: they are intimate. The definition of Compliance Law is therefore essential.

In an interview of great clarity  given in French to the Newspaper Les Echos on June 2, 2021, about Brexit, China and Russia (➡️📝 "Brexit, Chine, Russie : les confidences de la diplomate Sylvie Bermann"), Sylvie Bermann reminds the evolution of China. She sums up the situation as follows: « La Chine ne veut pas dominer le monde, elle veut être la première et surtout qu'on ne puisse pas lui imposer un système, la démocratie » ("China does not want to dominate the world, it wants to be the first and above all that no one can impose on it a system, Democracy,").

This is reflected in China's conception of Compliance Law. If one defines Compliance Law only as a "method" for the effectiveness of rules, consisting of a kind of "Ex Ante enforcement process" leading to 100% effectiveness of regulations by subjects who must show to everyone the respect they have for these regulations and who are rewarded by this proof thus given, then China, in its current use of Law, illustrates exactly this definition: subjects, individuals and companies, prove their "obedience" to rules - whatever the rules" substantial content -, which is evaluated ("rating") and rewarded, in a mechanical reign of the Ex Ante, served by technologies. Democratic mechanisms are not required; they are even disturbed, because they interfere with the efficiency of the system. The technological and purely technocratic conception of Compliance ("Regulation by data", for example) uses the same definition of Compliance Law, which leads to choose algorithms’ efficiency.

Europe must keep going to make another choice: European Compliance was born out of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law, in the 2014 judgment, Google Spain (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2021), to protect the person by inventing a subjective right: the right to be forgotten, in a digital space with infinite memory. Based on the Rule of Law, Compliance Law is then defined by its Monumental Goals, which are the protection of people and puts the judge at the center. It is the reverse of Chinese mechanics.

Therefore, they are definitions that lead the world: about the definition of Compliance Law by "Monumental Goals", see ➡️📅 the 2021 cycle of colloquia co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its university partners on Monumental Goals; on the technical influence of this definition on "Compliance tools" ➡️📕see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal Approach to Compliance Tools: Building by Law the unity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals", 2021.


subscribe to the MaFR ComplianceTech® Newsletter