Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : P.-Y. Gautier, « Contre le droit illimité à la preuve devant les autorités administratives indépendantes », Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Claude Lucas de Leyssac, LexisNexis, 2018, p.181-193.

____

📘 Lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage dans lequel l'article est publié

 

 

Feb. 1, 2023

Publications

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

 Full reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance" ("The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancecoll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p 409-442.

____

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

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

 Summary of the article: the article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork. 

To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the "probatory square" in a "probatory system" that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance.

The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law

In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof.

The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the "round of the burden of proof". But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a "compliance contract" or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law. 

Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof. 

In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with. 

In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools. 

If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law.

________

Aug. 24, 2022

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : E. Vergès, G. Vial, O. Leclerc, Droit de la preuve, 2ième éd., Thémis Droit, PUF, 2022, 780 p.

____

Aug. 2, 2022

Publications

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

 Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The judge, the obligation of compliance and the company. The probationary compliance system, Working Paper, August 2022.

____

📝this Working paper had been made for an article: 

📕 published in its French version ("Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la compliance") in the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 📘published in tis English version in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the series 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

 Summary of this Working Paper: To articulate the probationary system of compliance, it should first be admitted that Evidence is a general system, built on a "probationary square" functioning whatever the situation, and that it seems that Compliance Law rejects it, being incompatible with major probative principles, as soon as Compliance is defined as the obligation that companies would have to show (which is evidence) their respect for all the regulations applicable to them.

But fortunately, Compliance does not have to receive this definition. Compliance Law consists of all the principles, institutions, rules, and decisions which, in an alliance between public authorities and crucial companies, tend in a substantial way to the achievement of Monumental Goals. A branch of Ex Ante Law that protects systems and the human beings involved in them, Compliance Law aims to detect and prevent so that in the future systems will be less harmful than they would be if we do nothing, even will be better.

From this required action of companies, which requires the establishment of structures and series of behaviors, a specific probationary system emerges. It is composed firstly of specific proof objects, constituted on the one hand by the structures and on the other hand by the behaviors. Secondly, the specificity of compliance, often denounced, lies in the burden of proof, the burden of which rests on the company, but it is necessary to analyze the interference with the other branches of law, which compliance cannot have destroyed. . Thirdly, the scope of the probative issues is such that the means of proof have multiplied, according to the triptych of the effectiveness, efficiency and effectiveness expected of the compliance system itself regarding the Monumental Goals (and not the regulations). Fourthly, because Compliance Law is a branch of Ex Ante Law and the Judge is nevertheless at the center, it is logical that all efforts focus on the pre-constitution of evidence.

 

____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

March 17, 2021

Thesaurus : 02. Cour de cassation

Référence complète : Soc., 17 mars 2021, pourvoi n°18-25.597

____

 

Lire l'arrêt. 

 

 

April 4, 2019

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : V. Magnier, Enjeux de la blockchain en matière de propriété intellectuelle et articulation avec les principes généraux de la preuve, Dalloz IP/IP, 2019, p.76 et s.

_____

March 4, 2015

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 

Référence complète : M. Mekki, L. Cadiet et C. Grimaldi (dir.), La preuve : regards croisé, Dalloz, coll. "Thèmes et commentaires", 2015. 
____

Oct. 1, 2010

Publications

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Acte authentique, acte de marché", JCP notarial, 2010, 1290.

____

Résumé de l'article : l’acte authentique est souvent opposé au marché, notamment en ce qu’il appartient au droit civil, alors que le marché relève du droit économique, et qu’il n’est que la forme la plus élevée des actes probatoires, sans contact avec la logique marchande. Ces perspectives ne sont pas exactes.

Tout d’abord, l’acte authentique n’est pas un acte qui prouve, c’est l’inverse ; il dispense de prouver. Cette "anti-preuve" rend le negotium incontestable, sans que l’agent économique n’ait plus à se soucier de son exactitude, diminuant ainsi par cette sécurité purement juridique les coûts de transaction. En cela, l’acte authentique est l’acte normatif par excellence et seul le notaire, rattaché à l’État, qui diminue ainsi les externalités négatives du marché, peut lui donner ce pouvoir. Le notaire est alors le régulateur naturel des marchés ainsi intermédiés, dont il diminue les risques.

____

 

Accéder à l'article.

________