► Référence Full R complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'appui du Droit de la Compliance pour la maîtrise quotidienne du Droit de la Concurrence, document de travail, octobre 2021.

_____

► This Working paper is the basis  document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une contribution aux Mélanges offerts à Laurence Idot.

____

► Working Paper Summary: Competition Law has become so huge and just "regulations" that one would give up trying to understand it as a whole, preferring to become a specialist in one of its parts. This would be to lose sight of the simple and strong reason which unites the whole and gives it its breath: Freedom. Freedom experienced by the person in his daily economic action, Freedom kept by Competition Law, always returning to its principle: Free Competition. This is why the European Union places a so great emphasis on Competition. To build it and keep it effective, "Competition Policy" is articulated with Competition Law, but if authorities and judges do not blame companies for their power, they do not rely on it. To do this, they must then be supported by Compliance Law, which strongly encourages companies to act for the effectiveness and the promotion of Competition principles. Competition Law thus slips from the Ex Post to the Ex Ante, with the commitments of companies leading them to stop being passive and punished in order to become convinced players and educators of the others. Something pleasant for a great professor of Competition Law, to whom tribute is paid here.

____

Lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵

► Référence complète : Parlement européen, Preventing money laundering in the banking sector reinforcing the supervisory and regulatory framework, 30 septembre 2021.

___

Lire le rapport

________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Instituer l'insécurité juridique comme principe, outil de prévention des crises systémiques catastrophiques totales, document de travail, mars et septembre 2021. 

____

► Ce document de travail fait suite à deux précédents documents de travail, réalisés pour le colloque qui s'est tenu à la Cour de cassation le 22 mars 2021.

Le premier avait été conçu et en partie réalisé  longtemps avant sa tenue pour traiter le sujet selon les canons habituels attendus ; 

Le second a été élaboré le veille de sa tenue sur 4 cas car la disparition de mes serveurs en raison d'un incendie, ayant également touché les copies de ceux-ci ne me permettait pas autre chose, les organisateurs m'ayant demandé de maintenir pourtant ma participation, ce dont je les remercie 📎!footnote-2299.

Le présent document de travail a été élaboré après la tenue du colloque afin que les organisateurs de ce colloque, au thème si aventureux, ne pensent pas qu'ils ne pouvaient pas compter sur moi.

Ce document de travail vise à dépasser ces avanies et à opérer la connexion du sujet pour lequel une contribution m'a été demandée (la crise économique) avec le sujet plus général qui me retient par ailleurs : la construction de la nouvelle branche qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, pourquoi le faire et comment le faire. 

____

Introduction : Comme à tous, ce sujet de "L'insécurité juridique" me pose difficulté. Parce que,  n'étant pas grand personnage solitaire affrontant l'inconnu, comme tous les autres je voudrais plutôt la sécurité que l'insécurité, et tous les mots qui ne commencent pas par une négation : je voudrais le connu plutôt l'inconnu, je voudrais être comprise qu'incomprise, et ce n'est plus par confort que par urgence morale je voudrais vivre dans un monde juste plutôt que dans un monde injuste. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette dernière raison que je vais affronter l'aventure de l'Insécurité juridique comme principe premier, et non pas comme exception au principe de la Sécurité juridique 📎!footnote-2300. 

Cet ajout du "in" signale paradoxalement un retranchement : le "in" montre ce qui manque, comme le monde blessé qu'est le monde injuste. Me voilà invitée à traiter un sujet par avance abîmé,  car l'insécurité juridique c'est déjà comme une agression : un monde amputé de sa sécurité, comme c'est désagréable. 

C'est encore plus vrai pour "l'insécurité juridique". En effet, la notion fait face à la "sécurité juridique", cette sorte d'apport spécifique que le Droit offre au monde.   La "sécurité juridique" est aujourd'hui comme un Totem, qui serait indissociable du Tabou de l'Insécurité. Dans le monde juridique épuisé dans lequel nous ne serions plus aptes qu'à proposer quelques notions procédurales, surtout pas de notions substantielles car immédiatement taxées d'être trop politiques 📎!footnote-2277, la "sécurité juridique" qui n'est qu'une notion procédurale en ce qu'elle permet simplement que tout soit prévisible, que demain soit comme aujourd'hui, lequel est d'ailleurs comme était hier, est promue au rang normatif le plus haut. Les travaux abondent, les hymnes  d'approbation sont unanimes.  On ne demanderait plus que cela au système juridique, mais cela on l'exige : le droit serait une procédure qui garantirait la prévisibilité de la réglementation 📎!footnote-2276 et accroîtrait ainsi la solidité des projets  particuliers que nous avons, les uns et des autres et, grâce au pouvoir du Droit de rendre réel ce qu'il assure, nous savons que nos projets pourront tenir demain dans les mêmes termes choisis hier, puisque le Droit nous l'a promis. 

La sécurité juridique, parce que les systèmes juridiques n'auraient plus que cela à offrir, revendiquant par ailleurs leur neutralité et se rejoignant donc sur cette constance, cette cohérence, et cette confiance produites par cette sécurité, est notre nouveau doudou.

A cela, l'on apporte nuances dans les modalités, en soulignant que les circonstances changeantes de la vie exigent un peu de flexibilité, que le pragmatisme et des situations concrètes et particulières  qui sans cesse varient impliquent de prévoir  dès aujourd'hui que demain le contexte aura changé : il faut organiser de la prévisibilité dans le changement. De cela, le Droit souple s'en charge, les lignes directrices étant les nouvelles voies romaines qui nous montreront le chemin. Sécurité et flexibilité, dans un pragmatisme qui voit dans tout principe substantiel un signe de rigidité, voilà notre nouveau mantra. 

L'insécurité juridique est ainsi notre Tabou, dont les admissions justifiées seraient autant d'hommages rendus au Totem de la sécurité juridique, Totem et Tabou se renforçant toujours. Il y aurait donc imperfection du système juridique si l'on haussait l'insécurité au rang de véritable principe. C'est pourquoi lorsqu'on fait l'effort de parler d'insécurité juridique, on semble ne le faire que sur le mode de l'exception : l'insécurité juridique, cela serait ce qu'il est admissible de supporter comme exception légitime au principe de la sécurité juridique 📎!footnote-2275. 

L'on aura donc tendance à traiter de l'insécurité juridique comme une sorte de principe supportable lorsque quelque chose justifie qu'on porte atteinte au véritable principe premier qu'est la Sécurité juridique. C'est ailleurs ainsi le plus souvent qu'on l'aborde . Ce n'est donc pas le traiter comme un véritable principe, juste comme une exception supportable. 

Voilà pourquoi l'on m'a demandé d'examiner si l'insécurité juridique était supportable, admissible, lorsqu'il y a crise économique. Sans doute parce que lorsqu'il y a crise économique, alors tant pis les principes doivent un peu baisser pavillon et l'on fait avec les moyens du bord en admettant des exceptions, bien qu'avec beaucoup de réticences et de regrets 📎!footnote-2304... Puisque c'est l'hypothèse évoquée, je la suivrai volontiers, et dans un premier temps resterai dans cet enclos-là, mais c'est aller dans l'idée que l'insécurité juridique ne pourrait être qu'une exception faite au principe de la sécurité juridique parce qu'il faut que tout ne change pas vraiment : la crise ne rebat les cartes qu'un temps, le temps de la crise, mais lorsque la crise est passée l'on en revient au normal et à ce qui est bien, à savoir le "vrai principe", celui de la constance et de l'inchangé. Car il n'est supportable de "bafouer" la sécurité juridique qu'un temps 📎!footnote-2303. L'insécurité juridique serait donc ce qui intervient lorsqu'une crise économique s'ouvre afin d'aider à l'efficacité de sa gestion et pour sortir de cette crise. Cela et pas davantage (I).

L'insécurité juridique n'aurait donc qu'un temps, parce que par nature la crise elle-même n'a qu'un temps. La fin de la crise, la fin des problèmes et d'une situation anormale feraient disparaître le principe d'insécurité juridique, lequel serait donc un principe pathologique. 

Mais ce n'est pas parce que cette description semble partagée par beaucoup que ses prémisses soient exacts. En effet, la "crise" est-elle si exceptionnelle que ce qui justifie que l'insécurité juridique, qui permet d'aider à sa résolution, le soit aussi ? Si l'on constate plutôt que la crise est non seulement notre "ordinaire", et qu'en plus notre "ordinaire catastrophique" est "prévisible", voire virtuellement déjà là, et qu'en plus dans le futur, ce qui risque d'arriver est une crise catastrophique totale qui pourrait bien être définitive dans ses effets (ce qui enlève à la crise sa nature temporaire et le retour au "vrai principe" également), alors le principe exceptionnel, cantonné dans la crise, doit sortir de l'hypothèse de celle-ci pour venir  pleinement dans le Droit présent afin d'empêcher que se réalise cet ordinaire catastrophique. 

 Oui, regardons vers le futur : ne sont-ce pas de monumentales crises qui sont devant nous ? Et l'enjeu n'est-il pas d'adopter des principes premiers pour qu'elles n'adviennent pas ? S'il en est ainsi, alors l'absence de changement, la constance et le prévisible, c'est-à-dire le principe même de la Sécurité juridique, si choyé, n'est-ce pas ce qui fait obstacle à la prévention de l'advenance des crises économiques qui nous menacent ? Certes c'est sans doute une crise sanitaire et une crise écologique et climatique qui nous sont devant nous, mais de la même façon la crise économique de 2020 n'est elle-même qu'un accessoire de la crise sanitaire mondiale, prémisses de ce qui pourrait arriver.

Si nous sommes dans cette situation mondiale alors, ce n'est pas une conception procédurale des principes qu'il faut retenir, mais une conception politique. De la même façon, dans cette perspective ce n'est pas en terme d'exception, de "principe exceptionnel" mais bien en terme de principe premier qu'il faut penser l'Insécurité juridique, c'est-à-dire en terme d'éveil et d'aventure, car demain pourrait n'être pas du tout comme aujourd'hui. Seul le principe inverse de l' "Insécurité juridique" pourrait alors exprimer la volonté d'y répondre (II). 

_____

► Lire ci-dessous les développements du document de travail ⤵

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", to be published.

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hypertext links

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► This article is the introduction of the book.  

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

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

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

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

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

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

Full  Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Ne jamais se passer des juges et des avocats dans le Droit de la Compliance ("Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law" ,  in Frison-Roche, M.-A., Morel-Maroger, J. et Schiller, S. (dir.), Quels juges pour la Compliance ("Which Judges for Compliance), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the CR2D of Dauphine University PSL, Raymond Aron Amphy, 23rd September  2021. 

____

📅 Read the Colloquium programme

📅 This colloquium  is a part in the colloquia cycle organized in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and it partners on the  Compliance Juridictionalisation.

____

✏️A bilingual Working Paper  on the topic  "The  role of the Judge in Compliance Law has been prepared to serve a basis for this conference : read this Working Paper 

But for the reason detailed below, I preferred to use the time allotted to the introduction of the colloquium to develop rather what should had be an opening element for making it the entire topic of my intervention. : "Never do without judges and lawyers in Compliance Law".

Because before analyzing the role of judges, they still need to be in the Compliance system; this seems to us to be taken for granted, but it is not.

► Conference Summary: Due in particular to the large number of students and the fact that a long time ago when I arrived at Dauphine University I had created a Master in Economic Law with Martine Lombard in which I had included a course of "Economic Procedural Law" that I was teaching, since it was the moment to make this Colloquium "general introductory report", I therefore preferred to go further and focus the subject on something other than "The role of the judge in Compliance Law" , namely the very question of "the presence of judges and lawyers in Compliance Law".

This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer. It is therefore to this prerequisite that I devoted my speaking time, deferring to publication all the analyzes that I had prepared on "The role of the judge in Compliance Law", to which everyone can refer by consulting the preparatory work.

It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Deffered Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong.

However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only  examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before after this enormous systemic disaster inventing the "general procedural law".

____

The Working Paper which had not be exploited during the conference will be the bais for the article in the book :

📕 in its French version La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance

 📘  in its English version  Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation

___

📅 Ce colloque s'insère dans le cycle de colloques 2021 organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et ses partenaires autour de la Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.

_________

► Full Reference: N. Cayrol, "Procedural Principles in Compliance Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", to be published. 

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): We could be satisfied with examining the reception of the principles of general Procedural Law in compliance litigation and the distortion that compliance techniques justify in procedural mechanisms. But the innovation that constitutes this emerging branch of law that is Compliance Law justifies going to more fundamental.

From this perspective, the pertinent question is the very legitimacy of procedural principles in this branch of law, in that Procedural Law is built on the notion of “Litigation” while Compliance Law deals with situation so enormous, concerning for example the fate of the planet, that this notion of litigation appears inadequate, and consequently the procedural law would be too limited in compliance matters.

If, however, this perspective is maintained of Compliance Law facing, in an almost warlike perspective, the greatest current challenges, general Procedural Law needs to be redesigned, in its very definition. Indeed, compliance trials call into question the future of systems and it is as such that they hold the entities, for instance the enterprises, that are at the heart of these systems. It is in this that liability trials are more “accountability” trials, allowing the judge to demand actions for the future, trials by which commitments are made and the “intentions” of the persons involved are challenged and required.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference complète : Beaussonie, G., Do Criminal Law and Compliance form a system?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

___

► Article Summary:  By nature, Criminal Law is a system that is not intended to develop, principles which limit it being internal to it. Nevertheless if Proportionality is respected, its extension may be legitimate to preserve “fundamental social values” because Criminal Law is the branch of Law concerning what is grave, grave in consequences as in causes.

Not always being concerned by Efficiency, the temptation is important to supplement Criminal Law with other repressive mechanisms , not only Administrative Repression but today Compliance which pursues concordant objectives and aims by the "Goals Monumental ”to what would be most important and therefore for which Efficiency would be required, in particular because victory (for example against corruption) should be global.

Efficiency is obtained by the internalisation in powerful companies, but this efficiency comes at a price and Criminal Law should not impose too many obligations to do maintaining only a potential link with the commission of a "real offense ”. Its association with Compliance can therefore also only be exceptional and must not lead to forget  that Freedom must always remain the principle.

____ 

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

______

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le droit de la Compliance : un outil stratégique pour une Europe souveraine (Compliance law: a strategic tool for a sovereign Europe), interview with Jean-Philippe Denis, recorded on July 3, 2021 and broadcast on September 17, 2021

_____

🎥 Watch the interview, as broadcast on Xerfi Canal channels. 

🎥Watch the interview enhanced with French subtitles

____

►Summary: Compliance Law powerfully and clearly helps to build a sovereign Europe. 
Compliance Law is not the annex of Competition Law; it is another branch of Law, which aims instead to rely on the de facto power of companies, when they are in a position to achieve the "Monumental Goals" that the Political Authorities have decided to achieve, which requires an alliance between them and those companies in a position to achieve these "Monumental Goals".

Companies can do this because they are in a position to do so, in that they are well located to act, have the information, the technology and the adequate financial means.)

Compliance is a construction tool, and not, as it is still sometimes presented, a means to limit the ability of those who are concretely able to build, i.e. the companies. The architect remains and must remain the Politics. But the company remains the master of the means to achieve these goals, and free to duplicate them in its own care, via CSR, "raison d'être" and ethics.

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes pour une synthèse sur le vif pour le colloque "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : radioscopie d'une notion" (Notes for an on the fly synthesis for the Colloquium "The Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy for a Notion"), September 16, 2021. 

____

► Read the general programme of the Colloquium Compliance Law Monumental Goals

► Read the  presentation of the synthesis Report, notably its Summary. 

____

► Methodology: The topic is not treated in a strictly personal point of view, as it will be in the book on The Compliance Monumental Goals, in an article devoted to "Defining Compliance Monumental Goals  and their branch of Law", more personal article. It will be even more clearly the expression of a personal vision of the definition of what is "Compliance" and what is "Compliance Law", with in particular the distinctions that should be done, in particular with "conformity" because these are these "Monumental Goals", a notion proposed in 2016!footnote-2164  which makes it possible to distinguish the procedural notion of "conformity" (just obey) and the substantive notion of "Compliance Law". This article will include the multiple academic and technical references that should be done to do this. 

But in the time allotted in a day's collloquium and because the purpose of a synthesis is to highlight on the spot what was common in the contributions heard, the document is based only on the different speechs made and is not enriched with technical references, nor does it refer to personal works.

____

🔻read below the notes exhaustely taken

► Full Reference: Malaurie, M., Monumental goals of Market Law. Reflection on the method in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published

___

► Article Summary (done par the JoRC editor):  The analysis done by this article is about Competition Law, and the methodology needed to be adopted for the technical functioning of this branch of Law. Taking up the various economic and legal theories on this subject, conceptions which have succeeded and clashed, the author develops that the monumental goal of Market Law is to develop an economic environment favorable to businesses and consumers, then asks the question if it could integrate an ethical dimension and more broadly non-economic considerations, in particular humanistic ones.

____ 

📘 see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published

_______

► Full Reference: Vaquieri, J.-F.,  The "Monumental Goals" perceived by the company. The example of Enedis, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

___

► Article Summary: The article aims to show how a particular company in that it is charged by the State to effectively distribute electricity to everyone in France participates in the Monumental Goals, makes them concrete and integrates them into its functioning itself. The firm Enedis, a French monopolistic State company, operator of the distribution network participates directly in these Goals under the express application of the French Energy Code. 

Under the control of the Regulator, the company is responsible for the continuity of the electricity supply and responds to the challenges of energy transition, Enedis ensuring equal treatment at national and local level, Compliance thus extending Regulatory system to which this firm responds and which it internalizes. The management of personal data, energy being at the heart of the digital revolution, implies a particularly strong internal framework of Compliance. This articulation between this new Compliance in terms of personal information and this classic Compliance as a continuation of the Regulation to serve the citizen, both converging for the benefit of people, explains that Enedis has put Compliance at the heart of its commitments, particularly expressed in its code of conduct, its industrial and human project (Projet industriel et humain - PIH) and its environmental actions.

The Compliance which is specific to Enedis is disseminated by it to various entities, in particular via concession contracts, giving these an original framework. This importance of Compliance for Enedis leads the company through the "Monumental Goals" which unite it to design and maintain balances between the diversity of these so that the values carried by the companies continue to decline, especially locally.

____ 

📝 see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published

______

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,

____

📅  September 16, 2021.

🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris

____

► Conclusions' Summary: Based on the multiple contributions of the day, the first part of this synthesis focuses on the practical interest of having Monumental Goals attached to compliance techniques.Conceptually defining these Monumental Goals as normative legal rules of Compliance Law has the first practical advantage of making clear this scattered and almost incomprehensible material, allowing us to better understand it.  The second practical advantage is to bring together the various branches of law in that they all contain compliance mechanisms, the points of contact thus discerned leading to a unification of technical legal rules.  The third practical advantage is to provide the various sources of law concerned with a means of applying and interpreting the law. The fourth practical advantage is to give meaning to all these technical provisions.

In the second part of this synthesis, it appeared that these practical considerations therefore justify undertaking the "conceptual adventure". This one can take three pillars, in this "cathedral" that Dominique de la Garanderie designed, this "monument" corresponding well to the adjective Monumental which is better suited to these Goals than does the adjective "Fundamental", because it is a question of building, of building for a future which is not fatal. The first conceptual pillar consists in conceptualizing the Monumental Goals so that the Compliance Law finding a substantial meaning thus gives in a normative way a meaning to all the technical provisions which serve it in an instrumental way. The second conceptual pillar consists of giving everyone their place, that of public authority, that of the company and that of the population, each concerned and each not having to take the place of the other in the determination of the monumental goals, the company being in particular free in the design of the means while the political authority being in charge of drawing the Goals, the company being able to copy them on its own account. This conception does not depend on legal systems but on goals and legitimacy, in particular on the definition chosen for what is a company. The third conceptual pillar derives precisely from the humanist conception that one can claim to have of the Compliance Monumental Goal, risk management being only a means to achieve it. Humanism effectively carried by Compliance, taken on their own account by the companies alone capable of making them concrete, is what makes it possible to distinguish texts that are nevertheless technically similar, depending on whether they apply in  Rule of Law systems or in systems which are note governed by the Rule of Law Principle.

This is why the technical future of Compliance Law lies in this conceptual adventure that it is necessary to lead.

_________

📝 read the program of this colloquium 

🎥 see Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French, with English subtitles)

✏️ read the notes translated in English 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-published by the JoRC and Dalloz. 

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur - rapport de synthèse - ( ("Competition Law: political choices for its future state - Conclusion") , in Claudel, E. (ed.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états ("Competition in all its states"), special issue, Gaz. Pal. , 15 Sept. 2021.

This publication is in French, but the Working Paper which is the basis of this article is bilingual. 

____

📅 this article follows the colloquium of the French Association Droit & Commerce in Deauville (France), the 25th  et 26th June 2021.

____

✏️ It is based on  the bilingual Working Paper built on the notes taken during the colloquium for establishing the conclusion which has been provided.

____

Article English Summary: All of these contributions on the issue of the "Competition in all its states" highlighted the choices available for what could be this branch of Law tomorrow: choice of a political nature between various possible definitions of Competition Law. 

In method, the main thing is that this definition be clear. For this, this definition must be based on a principle and that the goal pursued by competition law is simple, so that in a second step, competition law can be easily articulated on the one hand with other branches of law. (by the care of the judge, in particular), on the other hand with "policies", such as "competition policy", then other policies (by the care of political authorities, especially European).

In essence, two conceptions of principle are opposed: either Competition Law will want to appropriate the goals of other branches, such as those of Regulatory and Compliance Law, or Competition Law will have the modesty to remain anchored in its definition as Market Law.

This is the crossroads where we are.

________

► co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), this colloquium) is the core manifestation of the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals.

It will take place on 16th of September 2021, at the Maison du Barreau, in Paris.

This first work is in French but  will be the basis of the book in English : Compliance Monumental Goals,

   This book will be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series, co-published by the JoRC and Bruylant.

► Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.  

These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.

► with : 

🎤 Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris - Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)

🎤 Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University)

🎤 Regis Bismuth, professeur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris)

🎤 Marie-Emma Boursier, doyen  de l'Université Paris - Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University)

🎤 Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris - Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante)

🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris)

🎤 Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)

🎤 Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University)

🎤 Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)

🎤 Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)

🎤Dominique de La Garanderie, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 

🎤 Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris - Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University)

🎤 Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa)

🎤 Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority)

🎤 Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University)

🎤 Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)

🎤 Benoît Petit, maître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University) 

🎤 Jean-François Vaquieri, Secrétaire Général d'Enedis (Secretary General of Enedis)

____

Read a detailed presentation below:

►  La lecture de la ➡️📝 Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public signée le 26 août 2021 par le procureur de la République financier près le tribunal judiciaire de Paris et la filiale française de la banque d'affaire américaine JP Morgan, validée par l'➡️📝Ordonnance rendue par le Président du Tribunal judiciaire de Paris du 2 septembre 2021, est instructive à plusieurs titres.

________

On peut la lire sur le fond et au regard croisé du droit fiscal et du droit des sociétés, entre l'abus de droit et le montage, puisque les faits reprochés concernant un montage très sophistiqué élaboré par les cadres de l'entreprise Wendel ayant abouti à n'être pas soumis à une taxation immédiate, ce à l'égard de quoi l'administration fiscale a réagi en demandant la condamnation des intérêts pour fraude fiscale. 

Prenons plutôt du côté de la Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (CJIP). Elle résulte de discussion entre le Parquet national financier et la banque d'affaire qui a conseillé les cadres dirigeants de Wendel dans "la phase finale des discussions avec les concepteurs de l'opération" et qui a prêté les fonds.

Celle-ci souligne qu'elle n'était pas partie prenante dans le montage et qu'on lui avait soutenu que le risque de requalification en abus de droit était relativement faible. Qu'il ne convient pas de prononcer d'amende à son endroit, puisqu'elle n'a quant à elle tiré aucun profit fiscal de tout cela.

Le ministère public estime que, même si la banque n'a pas été impliquée dans la construction de l'opération, il faut retenir la qualification pénale de "complicité de fraude fiscale par fourniture de moyens".

Il passe donc directement au calcul de l'amende d'intérêt public : il le calcule, selon les termes de l'article 41-1-2 du Code de procédure pénale qui se réfère aux "avantages tirés des manquements", et ce dans la limite de 30% du chiffre d'affaires!footnote-2123. 

I. LE MANIEMENT DU PRINCIPE DE PROPORTIONNALITE DANS LE CALCUL DE L'AMENDE D'INTERET PUBLIC

Le principe de proportionnalité a un rôle central dans le Droit de la compliance. Il requiert que les différents instruments, par exemple les punitions, soient non pas tant limités mais au contraire utilisés pour atteindre efficacement leur but, par exemple dissuader les auteurs de recommencer et les opérateurs qui observent la sanction d'en être dissuadés pareillement (sur le principe de proportionnalité comme technique d'efficacité de la Compliance, v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., ➡️📝Proportionnalité et Compliance, 2021) : c'est pourquoi l'amende d'intérêt public doit être proportionnée à l'avantage retiré du manquement.

Puisque la Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public a pour but de clore l'affaire avant sa phase proprement juridique, le procureur n'étant pas un juge, elle n'a pas pour fonction principale de punir mais de réparer le dommage causé à la société et aux victimes et d'améliorer la situation à l'avenir par la technique du programme de compliance, en évitant le coût de la procédure. Ainsi la Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public fut présentée comme une sophistication du pouvoir d'opportunité des poursuite, le procureur maniant toujours son pouvoir de poursuivre, et donc aussi de ne pas poursuite, sans entamer l'apanage du juge du siège : le pouvoir de juger, le pouvoir de punir.

Il s'agit aussi de créer un effet dissuasif, pour que les tiers voient qu'il n'est pas avantageux de violer la loi, le procureur représentant la loi, la société et l'Etat, le Droit de la Compliance reposant sur la rationalité des acteurs, qui calculent l'opportunité de se conformer à la règle ou de la méconnaître, et non pas sur leur amour de la loi (Sur l'analyse économique des deux branches de cette alternative, qui fait par ailleurs les délices des philosophes, v. Benzoni, L. et Deffains, B., ➡️📝  Approche économique des outils de la Compliance : Finalité, effectivité et mesure de la compliance subie et choisie, 2021).

C'est pourquoi l'article 41-2-1 du Code de procédure pénale dispose donc : " Le montant de cette amende est fixé de manière proportionnée aux avantages tirés des manquements constatés".

Dans la Convention du 26 août 2021 liant la banque Morgan Stanley,  le parquet fait bien référence au ratio de 30% chiffre d'affaire d 'affaire de la banque, à savoir environ 30 millions de dollars, mais c'est aux avantages  financiers non pas retirés par elle mais retirés par ses clients, à savoir environ 78 millions de dollars qu'il se réfère pour calculer la proportionnalité de l'amende.

A partir de ce moment-là, le parquet fait jouer deux autres critères non visés par les textes, l'un classique et en faveur de l'entreprise, à savoir sa faible implication dans le montage, et l'autre moins classique et considéré comme une circonstance aggravante pour l'entreprise, critère t souvent visé en analyse économique du droit, à savoir la "complexité du montage" qui est visée en ces termes, dans le point 36 : "la complexité du montage fiscal justifie la prise en compte d'un facteur aggravant sa responsabilité".  En effet la complexité d'une opération la rend plus difficilement détectable pour le gardien de la règle et il faut donc sanctionner plus fort.

De cela, l'on peut souligner deux choses :

1️⃣L'interprétation que le parquet a de l'article 41-1-2 du Code de procédure pénale, la proportionnalité ne devrait donc pas viser que le profit retiré par la personne partie à la convention judiciaire d'intérêt public ; cela se conçoit car, même si l'interprétation littérale demeure la règle en matière pénale, puisqu'il s'agit encore d'une amende, cette référence à l'avantage retiré se superposant aux considérations classiques que sont l'implication (c'est-à-dire la faute...) et la difficulté à détecter ;

2️⃣ L'avantage retiré peut n'être pas celui de la personne partie à la convention judiciaire public mais, comme ici, l'avantage retiré par les intéressés principaux, clients de la banque.

C'est aller au-delà du texte, et dans sa lettre et dans son esprit, qui ne visait sans doute que les avantages retirés par la personne partie à la Convention. Cela aboutit à un amende de 25 millions, proche du maximum de 31 millions encourus.

Cela rejoint certes la définition de ce qu'est la complicité, puisque le complice encourt la même peine que l'auteur principal. C'est particulièrement sévère de faire jouer ce mécanisme qui va chercher dans les profits d'un autre le calcul de la sanction ainsi supportée et le principe de proportionnalité est d'un autre esprit que celui-ci.

Lors de l'audience qui s'est déroulée le 2 septembre 2021 devant le président du Tribunal judiciaire de Paris qui doit valider la Convention, l'établissement bancaire a indiqué n'avoir aucune remarque à formuler tandis que l'Ordonnance de validation indique que le ministère public "a été en mesure d'expliquer le calcul des avantages tirés des agissements constatés".

L'on ne sait pas à cette lecture si ce sont les agissements de la banque contrainte de payer l'amende d'intérêt public, tandis que ce sont les avantages d'un tiers, la formulation très générale masquant la distinction des deux qui pourtant caractérise ici la situation. 

Elle pourrait être d'importance dans de nombreux cas pour tous ceux qui "conseillent", "aident", "accompagnent", etc.

Mais est-ce que cela est conforme à ce qu'est la proportionnalité en matière de sanction ? Même s'il est difficile de cerner cette notion, il y a cette idée que la personne sanctionnée doit pouvoir supporter ce qu'on lui inflige, que cela ne doit pas être au-dessus de ces forces. C'est bien pour cela qu'au dehors de tout texte la jurisprudence a annulé les engagements "disproportionnés", parce qu'ils excèdent ce qu'une personne peut endurer, même si son consentement n'a pas été vicié!footnote-2125. Ici, le texte vise à amplifier l'amende en la proportionnant à l'avantage retiré, mais précisément c'est un avantage qui est retiré par un autre. Dès lors, la personne qui va payer l'amende n'est plus protégée que par le plafond visé des 30% de son chiffre d'affaire...

II. 10 ANS APRES, LA NON-OUVERTURE D'UNE PROCEDURE PAR LE PROCUREUR, A LA SUGGESTION DU JUGE D'INTRUCTION

Cette sévérité s'explique aussi par le temps qui s'est écoulé depuis les faits qui remontent à 2004, la plainte formée au pénal par l'administration fiscale datant de 2012. 

Après un arrêt de cassation, annulation une partie de la procédure, c'est le juge d'instruction qui, après de multiples investigation, a retransmis au procureur le dossier pour qu'une CJIP soit envisagée. 

Cette procédure a souvent été présentée comme ce qui permet d'éviter efficacement le coût et la lenteur des procédures.

L'on dira qu'il s'agit là d'un contre-exemple, puisque c'est l'Ex Post, par la volonté d'un juge d'instruction, qui aboutira, environ 10 ans, à finalement ne pas ouvrir le dossier. 

_____

► s'inscrire à la Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.,La nouvelle loi de protection des données en Chine est un « anti-RGPD », entretien avec Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, 2 septembre 2021. 

► Lire l'entretien complet. 

____

Les 3 questions posées étaient :

❓ La Chine a adopté fin août une grande loi de protection des données personnelles. Celle-ci est présenté dans les médias comme un équivalent de notre RGPD. Est-ce le cas ?

La réponse est : non.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

❓ S'agit-il de simples effets indésirables ou bien du but poursuivi par le Législateur ?

La réponse est : Le but du Législateur n'est pas d'armer l'individu contre le pouvoir de l'Etat, c'est au contraire d'accroître le pouvoir de l'Etat, éventuellement contre lui.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

❓ Si la compliance peut servir les intérêts d'Etats non-démocratiques, c'est donc qu'elle est potentiellement dangereuse ?

La réponse est : elle n'est dangereuse que définie comme "méthode d'efficacité des règles ; il faut définir le Droit de la Compliance par son "but monumental" qui est la protection des personnes. La contradiction de la loi chinoise nouvelle apparaît alors.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

►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

► 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

I. AN "ETHICAL USE" CAN NEVER LEGITIMATE AN UNETHICAL PROCESS IN ITSELF

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.

II. THE FIRST FREEDOM IS THE ONE TO SAY NO, FOR EXAMPLE BY REFUSING TO REVEAL YOUR EMOTIONS: FOR EXAMPLE HIDING IF YOU ARE HAPPY OR NOT TO WORK

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).

III. CONSENT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND DIGITAL SPACE

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.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, Working Paper, August 2021

____

📝This Working Paper is the basis for the article, "Les buts monumentaux, cœur battant du droit de la compliance", constituting the introduction ⤵

📕in its French version, of the book Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in  the Series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 📘in its English version, of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in the Series 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of the Working Paper:

Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

________

Read the developments below⤵️

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

____

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

____

📝it has been also the basis for an article: 

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

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

🔓read the Working Paper developments below⤵️

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)

►Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Definition of Principe of Proportionality  and  definition of Compliance Law,  Working Paper, 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 Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance

 📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goals, in 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, there is no other choice than to put process in this sort of  squaring circle because in this procedural Compliance Definition, as a method of effectiveness, of effectiveness and efficiency of the rules estimated more important more than others, it must however be admitted that Compliance Law, as any branch of the Law, without denying its very legal nature, must be anchored in the Rule of Law Principle.

By the principle of proportionality, this new branch of Law is forced to anchor classic solutions from Constitutional, Public or Criminal Law,  the Principle of Proportionality prohibiting the Compliance of be just a process. The Repression  Law  has a large part in this conception and the Proportionality Principle reminds it of the part that Criminal Law still takes (with difficulty and for the moment ...) in the admission of ineffectiveness that the Law demands, particularly in the face of Compliance technologies.

In this first definition, the Proportionality Principle thus reminds Compliance, entirely held in the idea of ​​Efficiency that it is a "Law" of Compliance" and anchored in the Rule of Law Principle, it must limit its Effectiveness . It is therefore a kind of "price" that these techniques pay, with regret ..., to the Rule of Law and in particular to the freedoms of human beings. There is a strong temptation not to want to pay this price. For example by affirming that there is a new technological world, which the new system, entirely in algorithms, will promote in a move away from the Law, rejected towards the Old World. Frequently proposed, or set up for instance in China. Others say that we must "do the balance". But when you balance Efficiency performance and Efficiency self-limitation, you know very well who will win ...

But why not look rather on the side of a Definition of Compliance Law where, on the contrary, the two concepts, instead of opposing each other, support each other!

Indeed, Compliance Law is then defined as an extension of Regulatory Law as a set of rules, institutions, principles, methods and decisions taking their meaning and normativity for specific Goals. . In this definition, which is both specific and substantial, these "Monumental Goals" are systemic and require that all means be mobilized for them to be achieved. Future and negative in nature (events that must not happen) but also future and positive in nature (events that must occur), Compliance Law does not apply to all the rules whose  effectiveness required, but this specific type of "Monumental Goals", in an alliance between the political authorities in charge of the future of human groups and the entities in a position to mobilize its means. The method is then different. It is no longer a question of entrenching and the prospect of repression fades into the background.

A reversal occurs. Proportionality ceases to be what limits Efficiency to become what increases Efficiency. As soon as Goals have be precised, Proportionality is not the consequence of the limitation (as in the principle of "necessity" of Criminal Law, insofar as the latter is an exception), it is the consequence of the fact that any legal mechanism is a "Compliance Tool", which only has meaning in relation to a "Monumental Goal". It is therefore essential to set the "Goal Monumental Goals". As this is where the legal normativity of Compliance is housed, the control must first and foremost relate to that. Then all the Compliance Tools must adjust in a "proportionate way", that is to say effective to its goals: as much as it is necessary, not more than it is necessary. According to the principle of economy (which is also called the "principle of elegance" in mathematics).

In consequence, the rule contrary to the Principle of Proportionality is: the rule useless to achieve the goal. The unnecessary rule is the disproportionate rule: this is how the judicial review of excessive sanctions should be understood, not by the notion of "the limit" but not by the notion of "the unnecessary".

Everything then depends on the legal quality of the goal. De jure - and this would deserve to be a requirement at constitutional level, the goal must always be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, attainable.

This increases the office of the Judge. This renews the power of the Legislator in a conception which ceases to be discretionary.

But the Legislator retains the prerogative of determining the Monumental Goals, while the Judge controls the quality of the formulation that he makes of them, in order to be able to measure the proportionality of the means which are put in front by the State and the Companies, while Companies can rally to the Monumental Goals of the Politics by making an alliance with them, but certainly not instituting others in an autonomous way because they are not normative political entities, whereas they are free to determine the means necessary to achieve these goals, the Judge controlling the proportionality mechanism that makes this new system work.

The case law of the German Constitutional Court expresses this conception. It is fully consistent with what Compliance Law is in what is the one Monumental Goal containing all the systemic Monumental Goals: the protection of the human being.

_____________