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

Lire le rapport

The notion of "Common Goods" refers to a political conception insofar as it concerns objectively commercial goods such as cultural goods or medical services, but which the community is going to demand that everyone should have access to it even though the individual does not have the ability to pay the exact price. It is then the taxpayer - present or future - or the social partners who bear the cost, or even some companies, through the corporal social social responsibility mechanism.

This protection of Common Goods can be done by the State in the name of the interest of the social group for which it is responsible and whose it expresses the will, particularly through the notion of the general interest. In this now restricted framework which is the State, this reference runs counter to the principle of competition. This is particularly clear in Europe, which is based on a Union built on an autonomous and integrated legal order in the Member States in which competition continues to have a principled value and benefits from the hierarchy of norms. The evolution of European Law has balanced the principle of competition with other principles, such as the management of systemic risks, for example health, financial or environmental risks and the creation of the banking union shows that the principle of competition is no longer an apex in the European system.

But it still remains to an economic and financial conception of Europe, definition that the definition of the Regulatory Law  when it is restricted to the management of the market failures feeds. It is conceivable that Europe will one day evolve towards a more humanistic conception of Regulatory  Law, the same one that the European States practice and defend, notably through the notion of public service. Indeed and traditionally, public services give people access to common goods, such as education, health or culture.

Paradoxically, even though Law is not set up on a global scale, it is at this level that the legal notion of "common goods" has developed.

When one refers to goods that are called "global goods", one then seeks goods that are common to humanity, such as oceans or civilizations. It is at once the heart of Nature and the heart of Human Being, which plunges into the past and the future. Paradoxically, the concept of "global goods" is still more political in substance, but because of a lack of global political governance, effective protection is difficult, as their political consecration can only be effective nationally or simply declaratory internationally. That is why this balance is at present only at national level, which refers to the difficulty of regulating globalization.

Thus, the "common goods" legally exist more under their black face: the "global evils" or "global ills" or "global failures", against which a "Global Law" actually takes place. The notion of "global evils" constitutes a sort of mirror of Common Goods. It is then observed that countries that develop legal discourse to regulate global evils and global goods thus deploy global unilateral national Law. This is the case in the United States, notably in financial regulatory Law or more broadly through the new Compliance Law, which is being born. Companies have a role to play, particularly through Codes of Conduct and Corporate Social Responsibility.

Référence générale, Cohendet, M.-A. et Fleury, M., Droit constitutionnel et droit international de l'environnement, Revue française de droit constitutionnel , PUF, » 2020/2, n°122, p.271-297. 

___

Résumé de l'article : 

► Full Reference: Huglo, Ch.,  Under what conditions could climate law constitute a priority Monumental Goal?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.181-186.

___

► Article  Summary (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance) :  The author considers that the service that Compliance renders to Society can indeed be considered as "Monumental" and, confronting Compliance with the issue of Climate, considers that Climate Law must become not only a "Monumental Goal", but also be the first. He underlines the deep obstacles to even pose this idea, obstacles of two orders, the first being the fact that Law has rather focused on past pollution, while the stake is also the measurement of the future impact and the prevention.  The second is that the many texts and declarations have no direct binding force. It is therefore the courts which today, because of their independence and the place that Science takes in the adversarial debate that takes place before them, Civil Society bringing them the question of the Climate to which they are obliged de jure  to answer , take the decisions on the basis of which the "climate justice" is built. 

In this, Climate Law invested by Courts joins Compliance Law in the objectives pursued, putting knowledge, prevention and action to preserve what climate issue puts at stake today: Human Dignity.

____

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

______

► Référence complète : J. Harrison, "Trade Agreement and Sustainability: Exploring the Potential of Global Value Chain (GVC) Obligations", Journal of International Economic Law,  2023

____

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

____

🦉Les étudiants de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche peuvent avoir accès au texte intégral

________

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Forêts en feu : effectivité de la sanction des auteurs, une logique de compliance environnementale à développer ?", NewsletterMAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 23 septembre 2022.

____

► S'inscrire à la NewsletterMAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation.

____

Dans un article publié le 23 septembre 2023 par le Huffington Post, Feux de forêts : près de 50 personnes interpelées, il apparaît que les feux qui ont détruit des milliers d'hectare de forêt cet été ont, pour 90%, été causés par des êtres humains, pour 30% d'une façon volontaire, que la plupart des auteurs ont déjà été retrouvés, sont déjà l'objet d'une procédure de sanctions pénales, voire ont déjà sanctionnés.

L'on peut se féliciter de l'efficacité du Droit pénal, qui interdit ce comportement, puisque les autorités publiques, gendarmerie, police et magistrature, sont intervenir vite et bien en Ex Post : les auteurs ont été retrouvés et ont été ou seront punis, en application du Droit.

Mais si l'on prend la question des incendies de forêt sous l'angle non pas de l'effectivité du Droit, qui interdit de mettre le feu volontairement, l'acte violant cette interdiction conduisant en Ex Post à la condamnation de l'auteur, mais sous l'angle de l'efficience de la règle, l'on observe que le But qu'il faudrait atteindre serait qu'il n'y ait pas, ou moins, de feu de forêts.

C'est pour cela que les feux de forêts sont sanctionnés, parce que la personne qui brûle une forêt, comme celle qui pollue une rivière, affecte durablement le système dans lequel nous vivons. Et il est encore plus dur et plus long de faire renaître une forêt que de dépolluer les rivières.

Or, dans le cas des pyromanes et des incendiaires, l'auteur cause à lui seul beaucoup de dommages, lesquels sont très difficilement réparables, et dans l'ampleur et dans la durée, la durée (la reconstitution des sols, la pousse des arbres, l'écosystème) étant le souci systémique central : l'enjeu est systémique et se situe sur l'avenir. .

La logique juridique efficace devrait être celle de l'Ex Ante, qui repose sur l'efficience de la mesure : or, celle-ci est-elle applicable, à travers l'effectivité de la sanction ? Justement, non .... Les chiffres et les informations rappelés par cet article le montrent particulièrement bien.

Si l'on prend la perspective de prévention, la meilleure pour éviter les incendies, puisqu'un seul geste cause un très grand dégât, il apparaît dans les informations disponibles, rappelées dans l'article que :

【1】Les auteurs d'infractions à l'origine de feux systémiques ont des profils très variés, à la fois socialement et psychologiquement

【2】Les capacités des auteurs d'infractions à l'origine de feux systémiques à comprendre ce qu'ils font sont très variés, un nombre important n'ayant pas compris les conséquences de ce qu'ils faisaient

Or, si l'on prend une pollution de rivière, qui est de même dimension systémique, l'infraction à l'origine étant le plus souvent commise par une entreprise, ces deux éléments sont inverses :

【1】Les auteurs d'infractions à l'origine de pollutions systémiques ont un profil homogène : le plus souvent une entreprise ayant fait le plus souvent un calcul d'intérêt

【2】Les auteurs d'infractions à l'origine de pollutions systémiques ont une capacité importante à comprendre ce qu'ils font, le caractère volontaire s'intégrant dans une causalité économique

Il en résulte que :

【1】Concernant les feux de forêts, la méthode Ex Ante de l'éducation qui fonctionne bien pour les pollutions systémiques, si l'on apprend aux entreprises qu'il est de leur intérêt à long terme de préserver la nature (la Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public ayant été étendue aux délits en matière environnementale à cette fin) va à l'inverse fonctionner très mal pour les feux de forêts, parce qu'il n'y a pas un groupe social à cibler particulièrement et parce que les personnes qui passent à l'acte ne sont pas toujours aptes à bénéficier d'une campagne éducative

【2】La méthode consistant à faire payer l'auteur pour qu'il répare lui-même le dommage, qui fonctionne sur les entreprises polluantes, condamnées à replanter massivement, à dépolluer les rivières, etc., voire à en prendre soin activement à l'avenir, ne peut pas fonctionner car la personne isolée n'est pas une structure économique, n'en a pas les moyens : on la condamne donc, et c'est normal, au plus à deux ans de prison, ce qui ne fait pas repousser les arbres.

Que faire si l'on veut qu'il y ait une corrélation entre le dommage causé dans le passé, et le souci de prévenir d'une façon systémique son renouvellement ?

Comment intégrer un souci de Compliance, qui fonctionne bien en matière de pollutions engendrées par les entreprises, dans des destructions systémiques de la nature, dont les feux de forêts sont un parfait exemple ?

Certes l'affectation de 3000 gendarmes, décidée par le ministre de l'Intérieur, pour accélérer l'Ex Post est une solution.

Si l'on en revient à ce souci de l'Ex Ante, sans doute une pédagogie générale est bienvenue : c'est toujours la solution proposée pour tout, de la lutte contre la désinformation, de la lutte contre la haine, de la lutte contre les incendies volontaires. C'est vrai, l'éducation de tous pour que naisse le souci d'autrui est l'Alpha et l'Omega, et les danaïdes ne doivent jamais se décourager.

Il ne faut pas se contenter de l'effectivité du Droit pénal.

Il ne faut pas seulement se reposer sur l'éducation de tous à propos des biens communs et de l'avenir du monde, dès le plus jeune âge.

Il faut aussi plus techniquement diffuser largement cette remarquable efficacité de la détection de l'information.

Le Droit de la Compliance, dont le secteur bancaire et financier a été le premier secteur à recevoir la logique et à mettre en place les "outils de la compliance" qui y correspondent, est avant tout un droit de l'information. Or, ce que montre cet article, ce n'est pas tant l'efficacité des sanctions, car elles ne le sont guère (comment punir efficacement des personnes qui ne se rendent pas forcément compte de ce qu'elles font, avec quel type de peine, au regard des dégâts systémiques causés ?).

Ici, les preuves ont été retrouvées sous la cendre, reconstituées, croisées par différents modes de preuve, notamment scientifiques, menant à la personne.

Cette efficacité de collecte d'information a été rendue possible parce que les différentes autorités publiques ont travaillé ensemble : gendarmes, policiers, magistrats, et l'on se souvient à quel point la population et les entreprises, libérant de leur travail au sein de l'entreprise des spécialistes pour que ceux-ci se portent volontaire, aillent immédiatement sur place et aident les autorités publiques.

Cette alliance entre les Autorités publiques, les entreprises en position de le faire (les "opérateurs cruciaux") et la société civile, socle du Droit de la Compliance, produit de l'information.

Cela permet ensuite des procédures rapides.

Comme dans la Compliance bancaire et financière, les systèmes bancaires et financiers étant pareillement "enflammés" par des abus de marché commis par des êtres humains, abus qui sont soit prévenus, soit immédiatement détectés et dénoncés aux autorités publiques, le Droit de la Compliance ayant pour objet de "prévenir et détecter" ces comportements pour protéger le système dans son ensemble et le préserver à l'avenir, il s'agit de perfectionner un système d'information (la loi dite "Sapin 2" n'étant qu'un exemple de cela).

C'est pourquoi dans les peines prononcées lorsqu'un "feux systémique" a été produit, même par quelqu'un qui n'a pas compris ce qu'il faisait, il ne s'agit pas tant de le punir mais peut-être de concevoir, à titre complémentaire une "peine de conformité", telle qu'elle existe en Droit de la Compliance, non pas à travers une Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public puisque l'auteur n'a pas les moyens de cela, mais peut-être à travers un travail d'intérêt général.

Parce que les forêts sont tout autant systémiques que les rivières mais que ceux qui les détruisent les unes ne sont pas du tout ceux qui détruisent les autres, il faut réfléchir à importer les solutions efficientes de la compliance environnementale fonctionnant pour les seconds aux premiers, puisque les punir n'est pas très efficient et les surveiller est impossible.

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A.,, "Faire du Droit pour qu'à l'avenir le monde soit moins injuste" - à propos du projet de directive européenne sur le devoir de vigilance ("Making Compliance Law for a world less unfair in the future" - about the draft European directive on the corporate sustainability due diligence), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique,  March 24, 2022. 

____

💬 read the interview (in French) 

___

► Interview English Summary: This interview comments on the draft directive presented by the European Commission aimed at unifying European Union Law about Corporate Sustainability Due diligence in global supply chains to protect environnement and human rights effectively, putting companies under same legal rules. including non-European companies.

The interview emphasizes that this text and reinforces Compliance Law perspective in that the legal instruments are Ex Ante, aim at the functioning of groups, constitute incentives, and seek effectiveness to prevent violations of human rights and the environment, 80% of which taking place outside the European Union.

The goal is both ethical, for example to fight against child labor and the endangerment of people, and systemic: the promoting of a sustainable economy, through the help of companies which have some power in value chains which are global. 

This future directive clearly shows the difference between simple "conformity" (just obeying all applicable regulations...) and "compliance", illustrated here: aiming to achieve "monumental goals", here fighting against attacks on the climate balance and protect people, to obtain in the future these damages do not occur or are reduced. 

________

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Chair for "The temporal dimension: Imminence and Intertemporally", in Climate Change Cases before National and International Courts Cross-fertilization and Convergence", November 27, 2021, Paris. 

____

read the program

Summary of the panel presentation: The specific topic of our panel is the “temporal dimension” of the judicial cases of Climate change.

We shall listen to two great experts on this topic, which is Time.

Listening the other previous speakers, I understand how this topic is important, because Climate Change requires an immediate action and it create a political issue, because everyone comes before courts.

A basis and fundamental problem, because the times are not adjusted. 

let's come back to basic notions, to have three times : “past, present, future”.

The issue of Climate Change is in the Future, the necessity of Action is in the Present and the basis temporal question is to know if Courts are the bodies adequate to responde ; maybe it is inevitable that Judge must be recreate their office because the time of the classical judicial office is the Past.

Immediately, this simple et huge problem appears : in a classical repartition, the judge is the legal character to intervenir for the Past, the present (maybe is for you and me), and the future is the time for the State, and more precisely for the Parliament.

But the climate change is a huge topic, not in the past, not in the present, but in the future.

Therefore a gap exists between the time of the topic and the time of the court before the case is explained for obtaining a solution : how to give a good answer ? Judge maybe must travel in time, from past to future …. Maybe, he must, but might he?

Classically, the judge can anticipate a very next future, but not the more distant and systemic future. Climate change belongs to the second one.

This is why the title of this panel is non only about the necessity to take in consideration the “imminence” but also the “intertemporally” : maybe court are the sole able to create this intertemporality between Past and Future, and by this way to obtain from States and companies to do something immediately !

By two legal ways. 

Courts can stay in Past, supervising States, if they dispose of effective legal decisions taken by States in the past about Climate Change (essentially Paris Agreement, for instance transposed in the French legal system by a formal law). This is why an efficient judicial solution would be the possibility for the courts to oblige State to implement their more or less committment they had taken in the past for the future (as the Conseil d’Etat did in the Commune de Grande-Synthe Cas Law).

Even for that, the courts must adopt a creative notion of what is a commitment from a State through a Law... ; as they must do about private companies comitment (in their codes of conduct or soft law of corporate social responsability). 

But what to do if States didn’t take such commitment ?

Some can allege Courts are not Parliaments and are not legitimate to rule for the future … It is a political issue, a very classical one but very accurate for Climate change (where States and companies are face to courts...) and maybe  And as our colleague said, judicial system is quite technically weak to concretize human rights.

Therefore, the second way, more innovative, est the new use of Tort Law : no more a liability Ex Post, but a responsibility Ex Ante. In every legal system, even in Civil Law systems, Tort Law is conceived by courts (for instance in French Law). 

If the new reasoning is conveived in Ex Ante, Tort Law must be a set of legal tools to reach the monumental tools to reach the "Monumental Goal" (being by nature future) which is the Climate Change stopping. 

In this teleological reasoning, the admissibility and the choice remedies, must be adapted to obtain what is central : the effectivity and the efficiencicy. 

In this sens, the judgement between two parties (which was an Ex Post act) may be conceived as an systemic efficient action (which was an Ex Ante act), because it must be. 

_____

Référence complète : Kemfouet, E.-D.,  Énergies renouvelables, transition énergétique et enjeux climatiques en droit africain, Revue Africaine de Droit de l’Environnement (African Journal of Environmental Law),n°6, nov. 2021.

___

Lire le volume. 

______

Émile-Derlin KEMFOUET

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'invention de la vigilance : un terme nouveau pour une Responsabilité en Ex Ante, Document de travail, février 2021. 

____

Ce document de travail sert de base à une conférence donnée à Oslo le 9 février 2021.

Pour aller plus loin, ➡️La Responsabilité Ex Ante, 2022

____

Lire ci-dessous le document de travail⤵️

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Environnemental Compliance Law, as an Ex Ante Responsability, for an annexe in a French Report on the liability for the environmental Damages, for the European Commission, janvier 2021. 

_____

Référence complète : Farinetti, A., Psychologie juridique et régulation des espèces. Une illustration des rapports entre la psychologie juridique et le droit de l’environnement , 

Lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, disponible numériquement. 

This working paper is the basis for an article in the French Law Journal Le Clunet.

When we compare the terms "Compliance" and "Extraterritoriality", it is often with dissatisfaction, even anger and indignation. On the momentum, after having expressed a principle of disapproval of such a merger, attention is focused on how we can fight against it, to break the link between Compliance and Extraterritoriality. But do we have to go so fast? Is this negative initial assessment correct?

Indeed, thus gone, it is frequently explained that the binding mechanisms of Compliance are suffered, that they come from abroad!footnote-1750, that they apply with efficiency but in an illegitimate way, without agreement of the one who must submit to it, whose resistance is therefore certainly ineffective but nevertheless justified. In the same spirit, when we start to shell the cases, like so many scars, sort of rosary, even crown of thorns, BNPP case!footnote-1718, Astom case!footnote-1717, etc., the wounds not yet closed turn into reproaches made against the rules, public authorities, even reproaches made against named people.

We are leaving this kind of complaint against X, which targets what would be this appalling "Compliance", this Law which would be both hostile and mechanical which would not have been able to stay within the limits of borders, Compliance being thus placed in contrast to sovereignty and protection, which presuppose staying within its limits!footnote-1716 and being able to protect companies from abroad. More concretely, this presentation targets more directly the United States, which uses "the legal weapon", slipped under what is then designated as "the artifice of the Law" with extraterritorial scope. But this effect would in reality be the very object of the whole: their hegemonic will to better organize at least a global racket, notably through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and at best a world government through notably the embargoes.Those who believed otherwise would be naive or foolish. This silences the opponents because who likes this costume? So the world would be put in a ruled cut; what the mafia could not have done, Compliance Law would have obtained, offering the whole world to the United States thanks to the extraterritoriality of its national Law.

Compliance Law would thus become the very negation of Law, since it has the effect, even the purpose (barely concealed by strategic, powerful and shameless States), of counting borders for nothing, whereas Public International Law, in that it is built between the sovereign subjects of law that are the States presupposes the primary respect for borders to better exceed them while Private International Law takes the same postulate to better welcome foreign Law in situations presenting a foreign element!footnote-1726. Jurists believed in the force of Law; by Compliance, we would return to the sad reality that only the powerful, here the United States, dominate and - ironically - it is under the pretext of Law that they do it. It would be necessary to be well duped, or accomplice, to see there still legal where there is only the balance of powers. When one is more intelligent or skilful than that, one understands that the "small" can only be "subject" to the Compliance Law, one would have to be powerful to be the normative source and its enforcement agent. It is then towards this mis-named Department of Justice (DoJ) that the fearful, hateful and resigned glances turn. 

If you see it that way, what should you do then? The answer is obvious: react!

It is necessary to save the sovereignty, France, companies, the Law itself. If that is how the question is posed, how can we disagree? It is therefore necessary to destroy the Compliance Law and the extra-territoriality of American Law which had found this "Trojan horse", an expression so frequently used. This is the basis for the administrative reports available, for example the Berger-Lellouche!footnote-1719 parliamentary reports and the Gauvainfootnote-1720 report. Both of them broadly develop the two preceding claims, namely that the extra-priority of compliance mechanisms is illegitimate and harmful, since it is a mechanism invented by the Americans and harming the Europeans, or even invented by the Americans to harm Europeans, the description being made in much more violent terms than those used here. The description seems acquired, the reflections therefore relate to the remedies. The reaction is most often to "block" the Compliance Law in its extraterritorial effect.

But without discussing the effectiveness of the remedies proposed downstream, it is necessary to return to this description so widely shared made upstream. Because many elements on the contrary lead to affirm that ComplianceLaw first of all and by nature can only be extraterritorial and that it must be. Whether or not the State in which it was created has malicious intentions. The description which is made to us most often describes particular cases from which we draw generalities, but we cannot reduce Compliance Law to the already cooled cases, as BNPP case, or to the always hot case of the American embargo on Iran. Furthermore, one cannot take the issue of embargoes and draw conclusions, legitimate for it, but which would apply to the whole of Compliance Law. The fact that theCompliance Law is a branch of Law at the stage still of emergence can lead to this confusion which consists in taking the part for the whole, but it is very regrettable because what is justified for the embargoes does not is in no way relevant for all Compliance Law, of which precisely the Law of embargoes is only a small part, even an abusive use. This overlapping is not often perceived, because the definition of Compliance Law and its criterion are not clearly enough defined, namely the existence of a "monumental goal"!footnote-1725, which does not exist in an embargo decided unilaterally by an order decreed by the President of the United States, but which exists in all other cases and fully justifies extraterritoriality, extraterritoriality which is even consubstantial with Compliance Law (I).

Once we have distinguished the embargoes, as an atypical, sometimes even illegitimate part, of Compliance Law, we should continue this work of distinction by emphasizing that the United States has certainly invented Compliance Law!footnote-1721 but only developed a mechanical concept for the prevention and management of systemic risks. Europe has taken up this systemic conception of the protection of systems, for example financial or banking, but superimposed another conception, drawing on its deep humanist tradition!footnote-1722, whose protection of personal data is only an example and whose monumental goal is the protection of the human being. This primary concern then justifies the European use of Compliance mechanisms to interfere with global objects regardless of their location, especially the environment, and to block the entry onto the ground of objects that enter, which is contrary to Competition Law but builds a legitimate barrier under this Compliance Law, in the indifference of an extraterritorial origin (II).

Indeed, this branch of the new Law which is Compliance Law is not reducible to Competition Law!footnote-1723, any more than it is not reducible to a method. It is a substantial, extraterritorial Law because the "monumental goals" which give it substantial unity are extraterritorial. This can directly contribute to the future of a Europe which on the one hand will be able to pursue, in an extraterritorial manner, monumental humanist goals, in the field of the environment or the protection of personal information or access to the Law (in particular by the technique of compliance programs) and which, on the other hand, by the techniques of traceability of products!footnote-1724, will have the means not to bring in products manufactured in an indecent manner, except in countries which do not grant value than in Competition Law to enter the WTO.

Read the developments below.

Reference: Patrick BOLTON - Morgan DESPRES - Luiz Awazu PEREIRA DA SILVA - Frédéric SAMAMA - Romain SVARTZMAN, The green swan: central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change, Banque des Règlements Internationaux, Janvier 2020

Accede to article

 It is often observed, even theorized, even advised and touted, that Compliance is a mechanism by which public authorities internalize political (eg environmental) concerns in big companies, which accept them, in Ex Ante, because they are rather in agreement with these "monumental goals" (eg saving the planet) and that this shared virtue is beneficial to their reputation. It is observed that this could be the most successful way in new configurations, such as digital.

But, and the Compliance Mechanism has often been brought closer to the contractual mechanism, this is only relevant if both parties are willing to do so. This is technically true, for example for the Deferred Prosecution, which requires explicit consent. This is true in a more general sense that the company wants to choose itself how to structure its organization to achieve the goals politically pursued by the State. Conversely, the compliance mechanisms work if the State is willing to admit the economic logic of the global private players and / or, if there are possible breaches, not to pursue its investigations and close the file it has opened, at a price more or less high.

But just say No.

As in contractual matters, the first freedom is negative and depends on the ability to say No.

The State can do it. But the company can do it too.

And Daimler just said No.

___

Publicly, including through an article in the Wall Street Journal of June 28, 2019.

The company sets out in a warning to the market that it is the object of a requirement on the part of the German Motor Authority (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt)  of an allegation of fraud, by the installation of a software, aimed at misleading instruments for measuring emissions of greenhouse gases on cars using diesel.

It is therefore an environmental compliance mechanism that would have been intentionally countered.

On this allegation, the Regulator both warns the company of what it considers to be a fact, ie compliance fraud, and attaches it to an immediate measure, namely the removal of the circulation of 42,000 vehicles sold or proposed by Daimler with such a device.

And the firm answers : "No".

_____

Which is probably only beginning, since a No ends the dialogue of Ex Ante to project in the Ex Post sanction procedures, calls 6 observations:

• 1. No doubt Daimler, a German car manufacturing company, has it in mind in this allegation of fraud calculating pollution of its diesel cars what happened to his competitor Volkswagen: namely a multi-billion dollar fine, for lack of compliance in a similar hypothesis (so-called dieselgate). The strategic choice that is then made depends on education through the experience of the company, which benefits as such from a previous case that has had a very significant cost. Thus educated, the question is to measure the risk taken to refuse any cooperation, when the company can anticipate that it will still result in such an amount ....

• 2. In addition, we find the difficulty of the distinction of Ex Ante and Ex Post. Indeed, saying No will involve for the company a cost of confrontation with the Regulator, then the peripheral jurisdictions or review courts. But in Germany, the Government itself, concerning a bank threatened with compliance proceedings and almost summoned by the US regulator to pay "of its own free will" a transactional fine, felt that this was not normal, because it must be the judges who punish, after a contradictory procedure with due process and after established facts. 

• 3.  However, this is only an allegation, of probable assertions, of what legally allows to continue, but which does not allow to condemn. The confusion between the burden of proof, which presupposes the obligation to prove the facts before being able to sanction, and the burden of the allegation, which only supposes to articulate plausibility before being able to prosecute, is very damaging, particularly if we are committed to the principles of Repressive Law, such as the presumption of innocence and the due process. This distinction between these two probationary charges is at the heart of the probatory system in the Compliance Law. Because Compliance Law always looks for more efficiency, tends to go from the first to the second, to give the Regulator more power, since businesses are so powerful ....

• 4. But the first question then arises: what is the nature no so much of the future measure to be feared, namely a sanction that could be taken later, against Daimler, if the breach is proven, or which will not be applied to the firm if the breach is not established; but what is the nature of the measure immediately taken, namely the return of 42,000 vehicles?

• This may seem like an Ex Ante measurement. Indeed, the Compliance assumes non-polluting cars. The Regulator may have indications that these cars are polluting and that the manufacturer has not made the necessary arrangements for them to be less polluting (Compliance) or even organized so that this failure is not detected ( Compliance fraud).

• This allegation suggests that there is a risk that thiese cars will polluting. They must immediately be removed from circulation for the quality of the environment. Here and now. The question of sanctions will arise after that, having its procedural apparatus of guarantees for the company that will be pursued. But see the situation on the side of the company: having to withdraw 42,000 vehicles from the market is a great damage and what is often called in Repressive Law a "security measure" taken while the evidence is not yet met could deserve a requalification in sanction. Jurisprudence is both abundant and nuanced on this issue of qualification.

• 5. So to withdraw these cars, it is for the company to admit that it is guilty, to increase itself the punishment. And if at this game, taken from the "cost-benefit", as much for the company immediately assert to the market that this requirement of Regulation is unfounded in Law, that the alleged facts are not exacts, and that all this the judges will decide. It is sure at all whether these statements by the company are true or false, but before a Tribunal no one thinks they are true prima facie, they are only allegations.
•  And before a Court, a Regulator appears to have to bear a burden of proof in so far as he has to defend the order he has issued, to prove the breach which he asserts exists, which justifies the exercise he made of his powers. The fact that he exercises his power for the general interest and impartially does not diminish this burden of proof.

• 6. By saying "No", Daimler wants to recover this classic Law, often set aside by Compliance Law, classic Law based on burden of proof, means of proof, and prohibition of punitive measures - except imminent and future imminente and very serious damages  - before 'behavior could be sanctioned following a sanction procedure.
• Admittedly, one would be tempted to make an analogy with the current situation of Boeing whose aircraft are grounded by the Regulator in that he considers that they do not meet the conditions of safety, which the aircraft manufacturer denies , Ex Ante measurement that resembles the retraction measure of the market that constitutes the recall request of cars here operated.
• But the analogy does not work on two points. Firstly, flight activity is a regulated activity that can only be exercised with the Ex Ante authorization of several Regulators, which is not the case for offering to sell cars or to drive with. This is where Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, which often come together, here stand out.Secundly, the very possibility that planes of which it is not excluded that they are not sure is enough, as a precaution, to prohibit their shift. Here (about the cars and the measure of the pollution by them), it is not the safety of the person that is at stake, and probably not even the overall goal of the environment, but the fraud with respect to the obligation to obey Compliance. Why force the withdrawal of 42,000 vehicles? If not to punish? In an exemplary way, to remind in advance and all that it costs not to obey the Compliance? And there, the company says: "I want a judge".

​______

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : avant, maintenant, après", in N. Borga, J. -Cl. Marin et J.-Ch. Roda, J.-Cl. (dir.), Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, Série Régulations & Compliance, Dalloz, 2018, p. 23-36. 

____

📝 Lire l'article 

____

🚧 Lire le document de travail sur la base duquel s'appuie l'article 

🚧 Read the working paper on which the article is based : Compliance : Before, Now, After. 

____

📝Lire l'autre article publié par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : Entreprise, Régulateur, Juge : penser la compliance par ces trois personnages. 

______

► Résumé de l'article : Autant l'admettre. Parce que devant des règles de "Compliance si nombreuses et si disparates l'on a tant de mal à s'y retrouver, l'on est contraint à partir dans des directions si changeantes, que nous nous consolons de leur poids, de leur coût et de l'incompréhension que nous en avons en disant que la "Compliance" est "complexe" et "transdisciplinaire", comme si les mots compliqués pouvaient masquer notre désarroi. Mais la "Compliance" n'est pas un cataclysme, une bombe envoyée par les américains pour anéantir l'Europe, la nouvelle forme d'une Guerre froide en habits juridiques ; c'est une façon de voir des choses qui vient de loin, avec une cohérence qui lui est propre et qu'il faut avant tout comprendre. Pour mieux s'y déployer.

Si l'on comprend d'où vient ce nouveau corpus qui contraint aujourd'hui les entreprises à prouver qu'elles prennent effectivement en charge la concrétisation de certains buts qui les dépassent, notamment la lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent, la fraude fiscale, mais aussi la lutte contre la vente des êtres humains ou la lutte pour la préservation de la nature et de la planète, alors l'on peut continuer l'histoire, dans une nouvelle alliance entre certaines entreprises et les autorités publiques.

En effet, toutes les entreprises ne sont pas visées par une telle internalisation de "buts monumentaux" en leur sein. Une entreprise ordinaire a quant à elle vocation à se développer pour réaliser un but qui est le sien. Le système de Compliance ne peut concerner que des "entreprises cruciales". S'il doit y avoir changement de projet poursuivi par l'entreprise, cela ne peut tenir qu'à sa "position" dans un système. Cette position peut avoir une source objective (entreprise systémique) ou une source subjective, parce que l'entreprise veut concrétiser ces buts globaux car elle veut être "responsable". Dans ce cas, l'entreprise supporte alors la charge de preuve qu'un tel discours de responsabilité nouvelle correspond à un comportement et à une culture effective. Le poids des règles existe déjà aujourd'hui. Et c'est encore comme cela qu'aujourd'hui d'une façon négative et passive que la Compliance est perçue, par ceux qui la "subissent" (entreprises), voire par ceux qui l'appliquent (autorités publiques).

La transformation vers une "culture de confiance, c'est l'enjeu d'un passage entre aujourd'hui et demain. En effet demain, c'est une relation de confiance qui pourrait se construire entre ces entreprises-là et les autorités publiques, parce qu'elles partageaient les informations (enjeu systémique), parce qu'elles seraient d'accord sur les buts monumentaux (tous centrés sur la protection des êtres humains, que le seul fonctionnement marchand ne peut produire, que les seuls États ne peuvent assurer).

En cela, la "Compliance" est avant tout un pari, celui de la place des êtres humains sur des marchés mondialisés.

____

English Summary of the article. We have to admit, because we find it difficult to find ourselves in front of so numerous and disparate rules, going in all directions and constantly changing, we console ourselves with their weight, their cost and our misunderstanding by affirming that Compliance is "complex" and "transdisciplinary", as if complicated words could mask our disarray. But "Compliance" is not a cataclysm, a bomb sent by the Americans to annihilate Europe, the new form of a Cold War in legal dress, it is a way of seeing things that comes from afar, with a coherence of its own and which must first be understood.

If one understands where this new corpus comes from, which now obliges companies to prove that they effectively take on the fulfillment of certain goals that go beyond them, notably the fight against money laundering, tax evasion , but also the fight against the sale of human beings or the struggle for the preservation of nature and the Earth, then we can continue the story.

Indeed, not all companies are targeted by such internalization of "monumental goals" within them." An ordinary enterprise is destined to develop itself in order to achieve a goal which is its own. The concern of these goals can only be for the "crucial enterprises. "If there is to be a change in the corporate project, then it can only depend on its" position "in a system, a financial, economic, social, global system, or because it has itself decided that it would be so. The company then bears the burden of proof that such a discourse of new responsibility corresponds to a behavior and an effective culture. The weight of the rules already exists today. And it is for the moment that now, in a negative and passive way, Compliance is perceived, by those who "undergo" it (companies), even by those who apply it (public authorities).

The transformation towards a "culture of trust" is the issue between today and tomorrow, because tomorrow, it is a relationship of trust that could be built between these companies and the public authorities, because they would share information (systemic issue), because they would agree on the less technical monumental goals (protection of human beings issue).

In this, "Compliance" is above all a bet, that of the place of human beings in globalized markets.

____

📕Lire une présentation générale du livre, Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, dans lequel cet article est publié.

Consulter les autres titres de la Série dans laquelle est publié l'ouvrage.

Il y a quelques jours, dans une réunion j'écoutais Alain Supiot.

Et cela m'a fait penser à un article sous presse que je viens de lire d'une ancienne élève à laquelle j'avais consacré des journées entières pour la guider dans son travail.

Puis ce matin, j'ai lu un extrait d'un livre de Bernard Maris.

Et cela m'a fait penser à des pages de Nietzsche. 

Et je me suis dit : la question n'est-elle pas d'échapper non pas du tout à celle de la dette, qui est une question éthique et juridique fondamentale, une notion vaste et belle, mais à une sorte de piège, étroit et mortifère dans lequel il n'y aurait comme "place de référence" comme la place de "débiteur" ou bien la place de "créancier". A la fois en éthique, en économie et en droit.

Et si l'on a tant de mal à trouver notre place, n'est-ce pas parce qu'être "débiteur" peut renvoyer à deux positions qui n'ont rien à voir l'une avec l'autre ? L'une dans laquelle nous portons une dette qui suppose l'existence d'un créancier (ce qui suppose toujours une exécution à venir, une opposition, une violence), et l'autre dans laquelle nous portons une dette qui pourrait exister sans qu'existe un créancier ? 

Lire ci-dessous

Référence  générale : Sabran-Pontevès de, E., Les transcriptions juridiques du principe pollueur-payeur, préface Jean-Yves chérot, coll." PU Aix-Marseille" , éd. Laboratoire de Théorie du Droit, Marseille, 2007,  441 p.

Lire la table des matières.

Lire la quatrième de couverture.

Cet ouvrage a été publié à la suite d'une thèse soutenue par l'auteur en 2004.

Résumé de l'ouvrage : Le principe pollueur-payeur est un principe d'origine économique s'inscrivant dans une politique économique globale de l'environnement. Il se distingue du principe d'internalisation des coûts environnementaux et a fait l'objet de plusieurs transcriptions en droit.

Dans sa définition stricte, il concerne l'interdiction des aides et subventions en direction des pollueurs. Sur ce plan, ses transcriptions s'avèrent largement inutiles car il n'a pas permis la prise en charge spécifique des problèmes environnementaux dans le droit du libre-échange tant au niveau communautaire qu'international. Dans sa confrontation avec le droit de la responsabilité civile, il n'a pas permis de résoudre les limites de ce mode de réparation et tendrait même à générer des solutions contre-productives par un retour à une exigence de causalité stricte et à l'application de ce dernier critère aux instruments économiques qui seraient les seuls outils susceptibles de permettre une prévention des pollutions diffuses.

Full reference: Godé, P., Le droit de l'avenir (un droit en devenir), in Mélanges en hommage à François Terré, L'avenir du droit, Dalloz, Puf, Éditions du juris-classeur, 1999, p.61-78.

Read a general presentation of the Mélanges in which this article has been publishedi

Sciences Po Students can read this article via the Drive in the folder "MAFR - Régulation".

► Référence complète : B. Edelman, "Restons sauvages !", in M. Vacquin (dir.) La responsabilité. La condition de notre humanité, éd. Autrement, Série Morales, p. 132-144, 1994. 

____

► Résumé de l'article :