Editorial responsibilities : Direction de la collection "Droit et Économie", L.G.D.J. - Lextenso éditions (30)

📚Publication of🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation)

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

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

____

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

____

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

____

► General Presentation of the Book :

____

► general presentation of the book: Compliance is sometimes presented as something that cannot be avoided, which is tantamount to seeing it as the legal obligation par excellence, Criminal Law being its most appropriate mode of expression. However, this is not so evident. Moreover, it is becoming difficult to find a unity to the set of compliance tools, encompassing what refers to a moral representation of the world, or even to the cultures specific to each company, Compliance Law only having to produce incentives or translate this ethical movement. The obligation of compliance is therefore difficult to define.

This difficulty to define affecting the obligation of compliance reflects the uncertainty that still affects Compliance Law in which this obligation develops. Indeed, if we were to limit this branch of law to the obligation to "be conform" with the applicable regulations, the obligation would then be located more in these "regulations", the classical branches of Law which are Contract Law and Tort Law organising "Obligations" paradoxically remaining distant from it. In practice, however, it is on the one hand Liability actions that give life to legal requirements, while companies make themselves responsible through commitments, often unilateral, while contracts multiply, the articulation between legal requirements and corporate and contractual organisations ultimately creating a new way of "governing" not only companies but also what is external to them, so that the Monumental Goals, that Compliance Law substantially aims at, are achieved.

The various Compliance Tools illustrate this spectrum of the Compliance Obligation which varies in its intensity and takes many forms, either as an extension of the classic legal instruments, as in the field of information, or in a more novel way through specific instruments, such as whistleblowing or vigilance. The contract, in that it is by nature an Ex-Ante instrument and not very constrained by borders, can then appear as a natural instrument in the compliance system, as is the Judge who is the guarantor of the proper execution of Contract and Tort laws. The relationship between companies, stakeholders and political authorities is thus renewed.

____

🏗️general construction of the book

The book opens with a substantial Introduction, putting the different sort of obligations of compliance in legal categories for showing that companies must build structures of compliance (obligation of result) and act to contribute with states and stakeholders to reach Monumental Goals (obligation of means).

The first part is devoted to the definition of the Compliance Obligation.

The second part presents the articulation of Compliance obligation with the other branchs of Law, because the specific obligation is built by Compliance Law, as new substantial branch of Law but also by many other branchs of Law.

The third part develops the pratical means established to obtained the Compliance Obligation to be effective, efficace and efficient.

The fourth part takes the Obligation of Vigilance as an illustration of all these considerations and the discussion about the future of this sparehead fo the Compliance Obligation .

The fifth part refers to the place and the role of the judges, natural characters for any obligation.

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le droit processuel, prototype de l'Obligation de Compliance " ("General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance" 2025, pp. 209-233.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this contribution has been built, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks.

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► English summary of this contribution : At first glance, General Procedural Law seems to be the area the least concerned by the Compliance Obligation, because if the person is obliged by it, mainly large companies, it is precisely, thanks to this Ex Ante, in order to never to have to deal with proceedings, these path that leads to the Judge, that Ex Post figure that in return for the weight of the compliance obligation they have been promised they will never see: any prospect of proceedings would be seeming to signify the very failure of the Compliance Obligation (I).

But not only are the legal rules attached to the Procedure necessary because the Judge is involved, and increasingly so, in compliance mechanisms, but they are also rules of General Procedural Law and not a juxtaposition of civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, etc., because the Compliance Obligation itself is not confined either to civil procedure or to criminal procedure, to administrative procedure, etc., which in practice gives primacy to what brings them all together: General Procedural Law (II).

In addition to what might be called the "negative" presence of General Procedural Law, there is also a positive reason, because General Procedural Law is the prototype for "Systemic Compliance Litigation", and in particular for the most advanced aspect of this, namely the duty of vigilance (III). In particular, it governs the actions that can be brought before the Courts (IV), and the principles around which proceedings are conducted, with an increased opposition between the adversarial principle, which marries the Compliance Obligation, since both reflect the principle of Information, and the rights of the defence, which do not necessarily serve them, a clash that will pose a procedural difficulty in principle (V).

Finally, and this "prototype" status is even more justified, because Compliance Law has given companies jurisdiction over the way in which they implement their legal Compliance Obligations, it is by respecting and relying on the principles of General Procedural Law that this must be done, in particular through not only sanctions but also internal investigations (VI).

________

Oct. 2, 2025

Thesaurus : Doctrine

📝Les enjeux présents et à venir de l’articulation des principes de procédure civile et commerciale avec la logique de compliance (Current and future challenges for articulating civil and commercial procedural principles with Compliance Logic), in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕L'Obligation de Compliance

► Full reference : Th. Goujon-Bethan, "Les enjeux présents à venir de l’articulation des principes de procédure civile et commerciale avec la logique de compliance (Current and future challenges for articulating civil and commercial procedural principles with Compliance Logic)", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp.693-719.

____

📕Read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published.

____

► Summary of this article (by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): The author shows that the French Code of Civil Procedure, because it is exceptionally well designed and managed, can respond to the scale of transformation brought about by Compliance Law.

Compliance Law is normatively anchored in its Monumental Goals: these are brought as such before the judge in 'Systemic Cases'.

However, the French Code of Civil Procedure distinguishes between litigation and conflict, as demonstrated by the work of the academic authors of the Code, who were very famous legal scholars. Indeed, in a "Systemic Case" such as Compliance Law, which necessarily takes precedence (climate, protection of internet users, effective equality of human beings, sustainability of banking systems, etc.), it is the parties who are in dispute, while the conflict encompasses the systems themselves and other entities.
The procedure must incorporate not only the dispute but also the conflict. This means, in particular, that we must deal not only with the dispute, but also with the conflict, which does not necessarily end with the dispute and does not find the same solutions as those sought by the dispute. It is particularly in this latter perspective, essentially in a "Systemic Compliance Case" procedure, that the techniques of mediation, amicus curiae, with a judge who takes an ex ante position, etc., are required. They are available through legal dispositions of this French Code of Civil Procedure: judges who understand what "Systemic Compliance Cases" are need only apply them.

____

🦉this article is available in full text for people who follow the professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's teaching

________

Aug. 20, 2025

Editorial responsibilities : Direction of the collection "Cours-Série Droit privé", Editions Dalloz (33)

📚 Publication de : Nicolas Cayrol👤 : 📕Procédure civile. (4ième édition)

►Référence complète : N. Cayrol, Procédure civile, 5ème éd., Coll. "Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé", Dalloz, 2025, 569 p.

____

►Présentation de l'ouvrage : L'étude de la procédure civile est indispensable à tous les étudiants désireux d'embrasser une « carrière judiciaire » : magistrat, avocat, huissier, etc. Par nombre d'aspects, la procédure civile est bien, en effet, un droit professionnel, un droit à l'usage des professionnels du procès. La matière figure d'ailleurs aux épreuves des concours et examens d'accès à ces professions.

Mais la procédure civile n'est pas seulement un droit professionnel : elle traite de problèmes qui intéressent tous les juristes, quels qu'ils soient, qu'ils pratiquent ou non la procédure. La connaissance des notions procédurales de base est nécessaire pour la bonne compréhension de nombreuses questions de droit.

___

📚Voir l'ensemble des ouvrages de la même collection "Cours Dalloz -Série Droit privé", créée et dirigée par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche,

et notamment ceux qui traitent des branches du Droit interférant avec la Procédure civile :

📕 Procédure pénale

📕 Procédures civiles d'exécution

📕 Institutions juridictionnelles

_______

Aug. 15, 2025

Publications

🚧The part of Non-contentious in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

____

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, The role of Discretionary Jurisdictio in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases, working paper, August 2025.

____

📗This working document was prepared as a contribution to the collective book offered to Professor Dominique d'Ambra, to be published and given to her in October 2026.

____

► Summary of the working document : Based on the definition of Judicial Office, the procedural principles that derive from it and the consequent powers that judges exercise, the objet of this study is to measure the degree of discretion that exists in the judicial treatment of compliance, without direct consideration for the dispute between litigants. This part is very ignored, when it should be given top priority. Indeed, because Systems are involved in compliance cases brought before civil or commercial judges, we are seeing a development of this discretionary element in judicial fonction. Discretionary matters differ from unilateral discretionary procedures, and this discretionary element relates to what the judge examines, possibly in the context of a dispute.

The first part of this contribution therefore aims to describe the natural development of the discretionary power of the judge to deal with compliance cases brought before them. This role stems from the fact that, even when triggered by a dispute, what is submitted to the judge is a situation composed of a system, which cannot defend its interests before the civil or commercial judge in this Systemic Litigation arising from the very nature of Compliance Law and the Compliance Obligations it engenders on systemic entites. Moreover, it is the Future whose interests must be considered and protected, which the judge must do directly.

This leads to the second part of the contribution, calling for a rethinking of the procedure and the role of the Compliance Judge, so that ex gratia matters can be dealt with. The judge must therefore verify that there are no conflicts of interest between the litigants, including hidden ones, and must learn about the systems involved. The inquisitorial principle must therefore be strengthened. But at the same time, since the primary aim is not to settle a dispute but to resolve a systemic problematic situation, the judge must facilitate the movements of the parties, and the adversarial principle must also be strengthened. Must be encouraged this activation of a powerful and discretionary approach, not as an exception but as a principle fully articulated with a contentious principle, with the dispute being only a means used by the necessary parties to enable systemic compliance situations to be resolved.

________

March 19, 2025

Interviews

💬« Les juristes doivent et peuvent bloquer Trump »

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, «Les juristes ont le pouvoir et le devoir de dire Non à Trump » », interview réalisée par Olivia Dufour pour Actu-juridique, Lextenso, 19 février 2025

___

► lire l'entretien : 💬 Lire l'interview

🌐lire la présentation de l'entretien sur LinkedIn

____

► présentation de l'entretien par Actu-Juridique : La tension monte entre Donald Trump et la justice américaine. Alors que le président a demandé la destitution d’un juge qui avait prononcé la suspension d’une expulsion de migrants, le président de la Cour Suprême a rappelé mardi dans un communiqué qu’il existait une procédure d’appel quand on n’était pas satisfait d’une décision de justice. Donald Trump s’en prend aussi aux avocats. Face à cet exécutif apparemment tout-puissant, les juristes ont-ils suffisamment de pouvoir pour faire respecter l’État de droit ? Oui, estime le professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

____

Q. Depuis son entrée en fonctions, Donald Trump se positionne au-dessus du droit dans un pays qui pourtant accorde à celui-ci un pouvoir déterminant. Les juristes sont-ils en capacité de résister ?

Résumé de la réponse de MAFR : El

Q. De quels outils disposent-ils ?

Résumé de la réponse MAFR : l'

Q. Les juges peuvent bien invalider les décisions de l'exécutif, c'est celui-ci qui finalement les exécute. Ou pas. N'est-ce pas une limite insurmontable au contrepouvoir des juges ?

Résumé de la réponse MAFR : Le

.

_________

Updated: Feb. 11, 2025 (Initial publication: May 20, 2023)

Publications

🚧General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation

.🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, June 2023 (updated in February 2025).

____

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

____

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

____

► Working Paper summary: At first glance, General Procedural Law seems to be the area least concerned by the Compliance Obligation, because if the person is obliged by it, mainly large companies, it is precisely, thanks to this Ex Ante, in order to never to have to deal with proceedings, these path that leads to the Judge, that Ex Post figure that in return for the weight of the compliance obligation they have been promised they will never see: any prospect of proceedings would be seeming to signify the very failure of the Compliance Obligation (I).

But not only are the legal rules attached to the Procedure necessary because the Judge is involved, and increasingly so, in compliance mechanisms, but they are also rules of General Procedural Law and not a juxtaposition of civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, etc., because the Compliance Obligation itself is not confined either to civil procedure or to criminal procedure, to administrative procedure, etc., which in practice gives primacy to what brings them all together: General Procedural Law (II).

In addition to what might be called the "negative" presence of General Procedural Law, there is also a positive reason, because General Procedural Law is the prototype for "Systemic Compliance Litigation", and in particular for the most advanced aspect of this, namely the duty of vigilance (III). In particular, it governs the actions that can be brought before the Courts (IV), and the principles around which proceedings are conducted, with an increased opposition between the adversarial principle, which marries the Compliance Obligation, since both reflect the principle of Information, and the rights of the defence, which do not necessarily serve them, a clash that will pose a procedural difficulty in principle (V).

Finally, and this "prototype" status is even more justified, because Compliance Law has given companies jurisdiction over the way in which they implement their legal Compliance Obligations, it is by respecting and relying on the principles of General Procedural Law that this must be done, in particular through not only sanctions but also internal investigations (VI).

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

Jan. 1, 2025

Publications

L’Obligation de Compliance : une nouvelle Obligation pour ancrer une nouvelle branche du Droit

🌐 suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’Obligation de Compliance : nouvelle Obligation, manifestation d'une nouvelle branche du Droit", in M.A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", à paraître.

____

► Cet article constitue la conclusion de l'ouvrage ; il est en accès libre.

____

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

____

► Résumé de l'article : Cet article est construit en deux parties.

La première partie explique la façon dont cette "Obligation de Compliance", qui est nouvelle, est elle-même la manifestation de cette branche du Droit nouvelle qu'est le Droit de la Compliance.

En appui de cela, l'article reprend dans sa seconde partie, en reprenant la structuration même de l'ouvrage que j'avais conçue chacune des contributions et la résumant et en la resituant dans la démonstration d'ensemble.

Cet article est en accès libre⤵️

Nov. 18, 2024

Conferences

🎤Choix et embranchements de compétences lorsqu'un enjeu de vigilance est allégué (Choice and Branching of Jurisdiction when a Vigilance issue is Alleged), in 🧮Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law)

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

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

____

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

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

____

🔓read the key points of this speech below ⤵️

________

Nov. 18, 2024

Organization of scientific events

🧱⚙️scientifi organisation and moderation of 🧮Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), in cycle de conférences-débats "Contentieux Systémique Émergent"

► Full Reference: Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom

____

► Presentation of the conférence:

____

🧮Programme of this event:

Seventh conference-debate

LE DROIT PROCESSUEL DE LA VIGILANCE

(VIGILANCE GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW)

Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom

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

🕰️11h-11h20. 🎤, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director ot the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️11h20-11h40. 🎤, by 🕴️Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor of Law at Côte d'Azur University

🕰️11h40-12h30. Debate

____

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

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

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

________

Oct. 29, 2024

MAFR TV : MAFR TV - Overhang

🎬Droit processuel de la Régulation et de la Compliance

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Droit processuel de la Régulation et de la Compliance", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 29 octobre 2024

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

Oct. 3, 2024

MAFR TV : MAFR TV - Overhang

🎬Le Contentieux Systémique, notion nouvelle au-delà des branches traditionnelles du Droit

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le Contentieux Systémique, notion nouvelle au-delà des branches traditionnelles du Droit", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 3 octobre 2024

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

Sept. 25, 2024

Organization of scientific events

🧱⚙️scientific organisation of 🧮L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The impact of the duty of vigilance on commercial litigation)

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, coordination of the conference L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The impact of the duty of vigilance on commercial litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, 25 September 2024, 5.15p.m. to 8p.m.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event (in French)

____

► General presentation of the conference: The Duty of Vigilance reflects the new role of firms in the world. Vigilance sometimes existed on a sectoral basis, but the 2017 French law extended it to large companies that control value chains. The French so-called "confiance" law gave the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) jurisdiction to hear "actions relatives" ("actions relating") to this duty. This does not mean, however, that the commercial courts will no longer have jurisdiction.

Firstly, vigilance may go beyond the scope of the 2017 French law. Secondly, vigilance may concern not only the plan drawn up by the firm, but also Commercial Contract Law or Liability Law, special Distribution Law, etc.

Commercial courts will have to develop a doctrine for dividing up and coordinating disputes, in particular by staying proceedings within certain disputes. To build a unified or at least non-contradictory case law on vigilance, we need to imagine a dialogue between judges and new procedures.

____

🧮Programme of this event:

L'INCIDENCE DU DEVOIR DE VIGILANCE SUR LES LITIGES COMMERCIAUX

(THE IMPACT OF THE DUTY OF VIGILANCE ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION)

Paris First Instance Commercial Court, room 1

🕰️5.15pm.-5.30pm. Welcome

🕰️5.30pm.-5.40pm. 🎤Mots d'ouverture (Opening words), by 🕴️Antoine Diesbecq, President of Droit & Commerce, attorney at the Paris Bar and 🕴️Marie-Hélène Huertas, President of AFFIC, Honorary President of Chamber of the Paris First Instance Commercial Court

🕰️5.40pm.-6pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Une compétence à partager ? (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: A jurisdiction to share?), by 🕴️François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation)

🕰️6pm.-6.20pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Expliciter les notions et qualifications en jeu (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Explain the concepts and qualifications involved?), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University, Director of the Centre de Droit de l’entreprise

🕰️6.20pm.-6.40pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l''incidence" et s’organiser (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🕰️6.40pm.-7pm. 🎤Conclusion (Conclusion), by 🕴️Patrick Sayer, President of the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris First Instance Commercial Court)

🕰️7pm.-7.30pm. Discussion with the audience

🕰️7.30pm.-8pm. Cocktail

________

Sept. 25, 2024

Conferences

🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l'"incidence" et s’organiser (Duty of vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised), in 🧮L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The Impact of the Duty of Vigilance on Commercial Litigation)

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l'"incidence" et s’organiser" ("Duty of vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised"), in L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The Impact of the Duty of Vigilance on Commercial Litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, September 25, 2024, 17.15pm to 20pm

____

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

____

🧮see the full programme of this event (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event (in French)

____

► English Summary of the conference: After listening to the enlightening speeches of François Ancel and Jean-Christophe Roda, I had the great opportunity to emphasise, as they did, that the duty of vigilance, in the respect of French laws of 2017 and 2021, with a view to the transposition of the CS3D, does not imply, so brutally as has been said, a lack of knowledge by judges other than those of the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) of this new Law, which is the extension of Compliance Law, as François Ancel reminded us.

Because Commercial Court judges deal with Contract Law on a daily basis, and because companies build their value chains through contracts that should be described as "regulatory contracts", the duty of vigilance has an "impact" on these disputes.

These disputes may be of a "systemic" nature.

This can only result not in jurisdictional trenches, but in "shared jurisdiction", along the lines drawn by François Ancel. This sharing must be built through a dialogue between judges, a necessary method on which Patrick Sayer concluded this elaborate conference on an essential and forward-looking subject.

________

April 4, 2024

Thesaurus : Doctrine

📝Quel rôle pour le juge aujourd’hui dans la compliance ? Quel office processuel du juge dans la compliance ?, in 🏛️Conseil d'État et 🏛️Cour de cassation, 📗De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ?

► Référence complète : F. Ancel, "Quel rôle pour le juge aujourd’hui dans la compliance ? Quel office processuel du juge dans la compliance ?", in Conseil d'État et Cour de cassation, De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? Regards croisés du Conseil d'Etat et de la Cour de cassation - Colloque du 2 juin 2023, La Documentation française, coll. "Droits et Débats", 2024, pp. 101-119

____

► Résumé de l'article :

________

April 4, 2024

Publications

📝Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance (The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law), synthesis in 🏛️Conseil d'État and 🏛️Cour de cassation, 📗De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ?

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance" ("Synthesis: The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law"), Synthesis in Conseil d'État (French Council of State) and Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? Regards croisés du Conseil d'Etat et de la Cour de cassation - Colloque du 2 juin 2023, La Documentation française, "Droits et Débats" Serie, 2024, pp. 173-182

____

🎥this article follows the closing speech of the biannual symposium organised by the Council of State and the Court of cassation, which in 2023 was entitled De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? (From Regulation to Compliance, what role for the judge ?)

____

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

____

► Presentation of this concluding article: It is remarkable to note the unity of conception and practice between professionals who tend to work in administrative jurisdictions and professionals who tend to work in judicial jurisdictions: they all note, in similar terms, an essential movement: what Regulatory Law is, how it has been transformed into Compliance Law, and how in one and even more so in the other the Judge is at the centre of it.

Judges, as well as Regulators and European officials, explain this and use different examples to illustrate the far-reaching changes it brings to the Law and to the companies responsible for increasing the systemic effectiveness of the rules through the practice and dissemination of a Culture of Compliance.

The role of the judge participating in this Ex Ante transformation is renewed, whether he/she is a judge of Public Law or a judge of Private Law, in a greater unity of the legal system.

____

► English Summary of this article: The tug-of-war between 'Compliance' and 'conformity', which is exhausting us, obscures what is essential, i.e. the great novelty of a branch of law that assumes a humanist vision expressing the ambition to shape the future so that it is not catastrophic (preventing systems from collapsing), or even better (protecting human beings in these systems).

The article begins by describing the emergence of Compliance Law, as an extension of Regulatory Law and going beyond it. This new branch of law takes account of our new world, brings its benefits and seeks to counter these systemic dangers so that human beings could be their beneficiaries and are not crushed by them. This branch of Ex Ante Law is therefore political, often supported by public Authorities, such as Regulatory Authorities, but today it goes beyond sectors, as shown by its cutting edge, the Obligation of Vigilance.

The "Monumental Goals" in which Compliance Law is normatively anchored imply a teleological interpretation, leading to an "empowerment" of the crucial operators, not only States but also companies, responsible for the effectiveness of the many new Compliance Tools.

The article goes on to show that Judges are increasingly central to Compliance Law. Lawsuits are designed to make companies more accountable. In this transformation, the role of the judge is also to remain the guardian of the Rule of Law, both in the protection of the rights of the defence and in the protection of secrets. Efficiency is not what defines Compliance, which should not be reduced to a pure and simple method of efficiency, which would lead to being an instrument of dictatorship. This is why the principle of Proportionality is essential in the judge's review of the requirements arising from this so powerful branch of Law.

The courts are thus faced with a new type of dispute, of a systemic nature, in their own area, which must not be distorted: the Area of Justice.

____

📝read article (in French)

________

March 28, 2024

Publications

🚧L'émergence du Contentieux Systémique

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, L'émergence du Contentieux Systémique, document de travail, mars 2024.

____

🎤 Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à la 1ière intervention, relative à "L'émergence du Contentieux Systémique", dans la conférence-débat sur Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent , qui s'est tenue à la Cour d'appel de Paris le 29 mars 2024.

____

📝Il est aussi la base de l'article qui s'en suivra.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Nous voyons émerger ce qu'il convient d'émerger un "Contentieux Systémique". Cette notion, proposée en 2021, vise l'hypothèse dans laquelle un système est "impliqué" dans une "cause" particulière soumise au juge. Il ne faut confondre présence d'un système et analyse systémique d'un phénomène. Le terme de "cause" doit être entendu au sens procédurale, tel que l'article 5 du Code civil l'utilise. Précisément, la prohibition portée par l'article 5 du Code civil ne s'applique pas parce qu'un système ainsi impliqué appelle des réponses et des solutions de fait et non pas nécessairement des solutions générales et abstraites : la solution de nature et de portée systémique que la présence d'un système dans une cause appelle peut être une solution de fait, même si elle irradie l'ensemble du système en cause. Mais précisément parce que la présence d'un système dans la cause entraîne souvent une question elle-même systémique, le juge s'il veut respecter l'article 4 du Code civil y répondre, non pas seulement a minima en n'éludant pas la question, par exemple celles des risques systémiques, mais encore pleinement en apporter des solutions systémiques, par exemple des remédiations pour préserver à l'avenir la solidité et la durabilité des systèmes impliqués dans le cas.

Ces systèmes peuvent être de différente nature : bancaire, financier, transport, sanitaire, énergétique, numérique, algorithmique ou climatique. Leur présence dans des cas portés à la connaissance des juges, dont la variété et les difficultés seront vus dans des contributions ultérieures, amènent à des questions de base relative à l'émergence du Contentieux Systémique : en premier lieu, comment peut-on définir le Contentieux Systémique ? En second lieu, qu'est-ce qu'il fait émerger cette catégorie de contentieux ? Des réponses apportées à ces deux questions découlent des conséquences pratiques essentielles.

Les solutions nouvelles doivent être conçues suivant que l'on admet que le système doit être considéré comme une "partie au litige", qui lui permettrait par une entité étant légitime à l'exprimer, d'alléguer des prétentions et de formuler des demandes contre un adversaire, ou comme une "partie à l'instance", catégorie beaucoup plus vaste, qui permettrait au juge d'entendre les intérêts des systèmes impliqués sans que des personnes ne puissent pour autant au nom d'un système formuler des prétentions à l'encontre ou au bénéfice d'une partie au litige.

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

Feb. 15, 2024

Publications

📝Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the nature of things, in🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the Nature of things", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 273-28.

____

📝read the article

____

🚧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, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

The principal elements of this articles had been presented during the scientific manifestation held on September 23, 2021, at Dauphine University in Paris, coorganised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institute Droit Dauphine.

In the book this article is placed in the chapter II about the General Procedural Law in the Compliance Law.

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of regulation & Compliance - JoRC): General Procedural Law is an invention, essentially due to Professor Motulsky, going well beyond the gain that one always has in comparing types of procedures with each other. As he asserted, there is Natural Law in General Procedural Law, in that as soon as there is the Rule of Law Principle there cannot be, whatever the "procedure", even the "process", such and such way of doing things: for example, to decide, to seize the one who decides, to listen before deciding, to contest the one who has decided.

General Procedural Law therefore depends on the nature of things. However, Compliance Law organizes things in a new way. Therefore, both the simple and iron principles of General Procedural Law creep in where we do not expect them at first sight, because there is no judge, this character around whom ordinary procedures fit together. The principles of General Procedural Law are essential in companies. Even if the regulations do not breathe a word about it, it is up to the Judges, in particular the Supreme Courts, to recognize this nature of things because on this effect of nature that General Procedural Law is built: when compliance mechanisms oblige companies to strike, General Procedural law must oblige, even in the silence of the texts, to arm those who can be hit, even stand up against devices that would set aside too much these defenses that are easily considered contrary to efficiency (I).

But because it is a question of making room for this nature of the things of which the Rule of Law Principle entrusts the custody to the Judge and the Lawyer, the General Procedural Law must also adjust itself to what the extraordinary new branch of Law Compliance Law is. Indeed, Compliance Law is extraordinary in that it expresses the political pretention to act now so that the future will not be catastrophic, by detecting and preventing the realization of systemic risks, or even that it is better, by building effective equality or real concern for others. Because it is the Monumental Goals that defines this new branch of Law, a disputed systemic issue, possibly disputed by several parties before a judge, the procedural principles used by the court must be broadened considerably: they must then include civil society and the future (II).

General Procedural Law thus naturally acquires an even more place than in the classic branches of Law since on the one hand it imposes itself outside of trials, particularly in companies and on the other before the courts it involves people who had hardly any place to speak and thinks themselves, especially the systems entering the "causes" of Compliance now debated before the Judge.

________

Dec. 27, 2023

Thesaurus : Doctrine

📗Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Loïc Cadiet

► Référence complète : Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Loïc Cadiet, LexisNexis, 2023, 600 p.

____

📗lire la 4ième de couverture de l'ouvrage

____

📗lire le sommaire de l'ouvrage

____

► Résumé de l'ouvrage (fait par l'éditeur) : "Maître incontesté du droit du procès, auteur d'innombrables livres et articles de référence sur la matière, le Professeur Loïc Cadiet est aussi l'homme du dépassement. Dépassement de sa terre d'origine, la Bretagne, même s'il ne s'en est jamais vraiment départi, pour conquérir Paris puis le monde. Dépassement de sa discipline d'origine, le droit de la responsabilité civile, auquel il a consacré sa thèse de doctorat et un livre majeur. Dépassement de sa discipline d'adoption, le droit judiciaire privé, en investissant sans cesse d'autres champs voisins, comme la sociologie, la philosophie, l'économie et bien sûr l'histoire. Dépassement de sa discipline encore, en la projetant, avant tout le monde, vers de nouveaux horizons, comme la contractualisation du procès, ou en la réorganisant autour de principes directeurs modernes et inédits . Dépassement de l'Université enfin, par les nombreuses missions qu'il a remplies hors les murs et notamment la dernière comme membre du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature.

Mais le Professeur Loïc Cadiet est aussi un universitaire dévoué, infatigable directeur de master, de mémoires et de thèses, ayant occupé de nombreuses responsabilités dans les universités où il a été en poste, jusqu'à la présidence du jury d'agrégation de droit privé et sciences criminelles en 2021, après avoir déjà siégé deux fois comme membre. Cette vie d'universitaire accomplie a été merveilleusement relatée dans la leçon magistrale de clôture qu'il a dispensée le 6 avril 2023 pour ce qui fut son dernier cours comme professeur titulaire et qui est publiée en ouverture de ces Mélanges.

Ceux-ci reflètent la vitalité intellectuelle de leur dédicataire. Avec 119 contributions, rédigées par des universitaires et par des praticiens, par des auteurs français et des auteurs étrangers qu'il a connus comme président de l'Association internationale de droit processuel, en droit judiciaire privé ou en d'autres disciplines, ces Mélanges feront évidemment date dans la littérature juridique, à l'image de celui à qui ils sont dédiés et qui occupe une place sans égale dans le monde académique et celui de la justice.

Nul doute que ce beau livre, magnifique témoignage de respect et d'amitié, obtiendra auprès des lecteurs le succès qu'il mérite et que justifie la personnalité, aussi discrète qu'exceptionnelle, de son récipiendaire.".

____

📝lire une présentation de l'article de Muriel Fabre-Magnan, "Critique de la convergence des responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle. L'exemple du devoir de vigilance"

________

Nov. 30, 2023

Conferences

🎥 5 leçons en conclusions ouvertes (5 Lessons in Open Conclusions), in 🧮Compliance, vigilance et médiation

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conclusion", in M. Boissavy, H. Dehghani-Azar, and M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Conseil national des Barreaux (CNB), Compliance, vigilance et médiation (Compliance, Vigilance and Mediation), Amphitheatre of the Conseil national des Barreaux, November 30, 2023.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

________

June 14, 2023

Conferences

🎤Compliance et droit processuel (Compliance and Procedural Law), in🧮Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et droit processuel" ("Compliance and Procedural Law"), in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche and J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (Compliance : obligation, duty, power, culture), University Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 14 June 2023.

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

🎤see the other speech made during the first day of this symposium : "L'obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut" ("Compliance Obligation, between will and consent: obligation on obligation works")

____

► Summary of the conference: After referring to the chapter in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, which deals more specifically with Procedural Law!footnote-2987, the conference is built around 5 developments, each of which represents a progression.

The first development relates to the fact that the relationship between Compliance Law and Procedural Law is very difficult because it is often said that they simply have nothing to do with each other, or that they have everything to dislike each other. This is because Compliance is often reduced to processes, and to the mechanical place that algorithms could take in it, in taking care of everything.

Compliance would even have the purpose and effect of ensuring that the company and its managers never come into contact with a judge, the public prosecutor being their best ally in this respect.

Secondly, I recalled the very common idea that Procedural Law is a kind of 'tribute' that the rule of Law demands, which certainly weighs down companies when compared with companies living in systems in which there's not not such a price.

But many stress that Procedural Law could become a model. This can be justified and technically anticipated because it has already happened in Regulation Law, and Compliance Law is the deployment of it!footnote-2988.

In the third stage, I worked on the alliance between the two, with the procedure (rather than the process) modifying compliance and thereby reinforcing it, evoking the way in which this can manifest itself technically!footnote-2989.

In the fourth step, I looked for what would be the "naturally appropriate procedure" for Compliance: one that takes into account the duration and the development of "solutions", to which the notion of "sustainability", which is central in the substantive Law of Compliance, refers.

In a fifth stage, and devoting more time to this, I have pointed out where innovation should be the strongest: the proof, the probatory obligation being the "part totale" ("total part") of the compliance obligation. This major issue will be the subject of a series of symposiums held in 2024.

________

1

See the articles that are part of the Second chapter of the book 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance jurisdictionalisation, 2023 :

🕴️N. Cayrol, 📝General Procedural Law in Compliance Law,
🕴️F. Ancel, 📝The procedural principle of compliance, a new trial leading principle?,
🕴️B. Sillaman, 📝Privilege and Cooperation: Procedural Lessons Learned from the U.S. for Global Application,
🕴️A. Linden, 📝Motivation and publicity of the decisions of the restricted committee of the French Personal Data Protection Commission (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés-CNIL) in a compliance perspective,
🕴️S. Scemla and 🕴️D. Paillot, 📝The supervisory Authorities face difficulties to apprehend the Rights of the Defense,
🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Adjusting by the nature of things General Procedural Law to Compliance Law.

2

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017.

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🎤Le rôle du Juge dans le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation en Droit de la Compliance (The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law in Compliance Law), in 🧮De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ?, 2023.

3

Notably in this perspective, 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche and 🕴️M. Boissavy, 📕Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne - CJIP - CRPC (Compliance and Due Process. Internal Investigation - DPA), 2024.

Feb. 2, 2023

Thesaurus : Doctrine

📝Un juge unique en cas de manquement international à des obligations de compliance ?, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance

► Full Reference: S. Schiller, "Un juge unique en cas de manquement international à des obligations de compliance ?" ("A single judge in the event of an international breach of compliance obligations?"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 453-464.

____

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

____

► Summary of the article (done by the author, translated by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Given the very international nature of the topic apprehended, the actors involved and therefore the compliance disputes, it is essential to know if a person can be implicated before several judges, attached to different states or even if he can be condemned by several jurisdictions. The answer is given by the non bis in idem principle, which is the subject of a abondant case law on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol n°7 of the ECHR, clearly inapplicable for jurisdictions emanating from different States.

To assess whether breaches of compliance obligations may be subject to multiple sanctions in different states, it will first be necessary to ascertain whether there is a textual basis to be invoked.

At European level, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights now allows the principle of ne bis in idem to be invoked. Applicable to all areas of compliance, it provides very strong protection which covers not only sanctions, but also prosecutions. Like its effects, the scope of Article 50 is very broad. The procedures concerned are those which have a repressive nature, beyond those pronounced by criminal courts in the strict sense, which makes it possible to cover the convictions pronounced by one of the many regulatory authorities competent in matters of compliance.

Internationally, the situation is less clear. Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be invoked, if several obstacles are overcome, including the decision of 2 November 1987 of the Human Rights Committee which restricted it to the internal framework, requiring a double conviction by the same State.

Even if these principles are applicable, two specificities of compliance situations risk hampering their application, the first related to the applicable procedural rules, in particular the rules of jurisdiction, the second related to the specificities of the situation.

The application of the non bis in idem rule is only formally accepted with regard to universal jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, that is to say extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is only part of the jurisdiction. . The Cour de cassation (French Judiciary Supreme Court) confirmed this in the famous so-called “Oil for food” judgment of March 14, 2018. The refusal to recognize this principle as universal, regardless of the jurisdiction rule in question, deprives French companies of a defense. Moreover, the repression of breaches of compliance rules is more and more often resolved through transactional mechanisms. The latter will not always fall within the scope of European and international rules laying down the non bis in idem principle, for lack of being sometimes qualified as "final judgment" under the terms of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This results from prescriptions the starting point of which is delayed at the last event and a facilitated jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Judicial Convention of Public Interest (CJIP) of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this.

Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This causes delays in the starting point of prescriptions, starting point delayed at the last event, and this facilitates judicial jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public -CJIP (French Judicial Convention of Public Interest) of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this.

________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Seventh conference-debate

LE DROIT PROCESSUEL DE LA VIGILANCE

(VIGILANCE GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW)

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

L'INCIDENCE DU DEVOIR DE VIGILANCE SUR LES LITIGES COMMERCIAUX

(THE IMPACT OF THE DUTY OF VIGILANCE ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION)

Get our newsletters

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Seventh conference-debate

LE DROIT PROCESSUEL DE LA VIGILANCE

(VIGILANCE GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW)

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

L'INCIDENCE DU DEVOIR DE VIGILANCE SUR LES LITIGES COMMERCIAUX

(THE IMPACT OF THE DUTY OF VIGILANCE ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION)