June 23, 2021

Thesaurus : Doctrine

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

___

 

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

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

____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____

 

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

Nov. 16, 2019

Publications

The Finance Bill has proposed to the Parliament to vote an article 57 whose title is: Possibilité pour les administrations fiscales et douanières de collecter et exploiter les données rendues publiques sur les sites internet des réseaux sociaux et des opérateurs de plateformes (translation: Possibility for the tax and customs administrations to collect and exploit the data made public on the websites of social networks and platform operators).

Its content is as is in the text voted on in the National Assembly as follows:

"(1) I. - On an experimental basis and for a period of three years, for the purposes of investigating the offenses mentioned in b and c of 1 of article 1728, in articles 1729, 1791, 1791 ter, in 3 °, 8 ° and 10 ° of article 1810 of the general tax code, as well as articles 411, 412, 414, 414-2 and 415 of the customs code, the tax administration and the customs administration and indirect rights may, each as far as it is concerned, collect and exploit by means of computerized and automated processing using no facial recognition system, freely accessible content published on the internet by the users of the online platform operators mentioned in 2 ° of I of article L. 111-7 of the consumer code.

(2) The processing operations mentioned in the first paragraph are carried out by agents specially authorized for this purpose by the tax and customs authorities.

 

(3) When they are likely to contribute to the detection of the offenses mentioned in the first paragraph, the data collected are kept for a maximum period of one year from their collection and are destroyed at the end of this period. However, when used within the framework of criminal, tax or customs proceedings, this data may be kept until the end of the proceedings.

(4) The other data are destroyed within a maximum period of thirty days from their collection.

(5) The right of access to the information collected is exercised with the assignment service of the agents authorized to carry out the processing mentioned in the second paragraph under the conditions provided for by article 42 of law n ° 78-17 of January 6, 1978 relating to data processing, the files and freedoms.

(6) The right to object, provided for in article 38 of the same law, does not apply to the processing operations mentioned in the second paragraph.

(7) The terms of application of this I are set by decree of the Council of State.

(8) II. - The experiment provided for in I is the subject of an evaluation, the results of which are forwarded to Parliament as well as to the National Commission for Data Protection at the latest six months before its end. "

 

This initiative provoked many comments, rather reserved, even after the explanations given by the Minister of Budget to the National Assembly.

What to think of it legally?

Because the situation is quite simple, that is why it is difficult: on the one hand, the State will collect personal information without the authorization of the persons concerned, which is contrary to the very object of the law of 1978 , which results in full disapproval; on the other hand, the administration obtains the information to prosecute tax and customs offenses, which materializes the general interest itself.

So what about it?

Read below.

Nov. 27, 2018

Publications

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la concurrence et droit de la compliance ("Competition Law and Compliance Law), November 2018,  in Revue Concurrences n° 4-2018, Art. n° 88053, pp. 1-4. 

_____

 

 Summary: Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, still under construction. One can have a “narrow definition” of seeing it as the obligation of businesses to show that they are constantly and actively complying with the law. One can have a richer definition, of a substantive nature, defining it as the obligation or the own will of certain companies to achieve “monumental goals” that go beyond economic and financial performance. Competition Law partly integrates its two conceptions of Compliance: Precursor, Competition Law concretizes dynamically the first conception of Compliance Law. It is with more difficulties but also much more future that Competition Law can express in dialectic the second conception of Compliance Law as internationalization of these “monumental goals”, especially in the digital space.

 

📝 read the article (in French)

📝 read the Working Paper on which this Article is based, with footnotes, technical references and hypertext links.  

 

________

Updated: March 20, 2015 (Initial publication: Jan. 28, 2015)

Publications

La répression est indissociable de la façon de réprimer. C'est pourquoi les difficultés de procédure sont des révélateurs de problèmes de fond. Actuellement, le problème de fond mis à jour par les batailles autour des procédures de sanctions en matière financière est ce pour quoi sont faites les sanctions.

Pour le régulateur, la sanction est un outil parmi d'autres pour réguler les marchés financiers. La sanction, dans un continuum avec son pouvoir normatif, sont ses dents et ses griffes grâce auxquelles les marchés financiers se développent. Cette finalité de politique financière justifie une répression objective avec un système probatoire reposant souvent par présomption conduisant à imputer des manquements à des opérateurs dans certaines positions sur ou à l'égard des marchés. Le régulateur doit avoir cette carte en main et l'utiliser selon cette méthode.

Par ailleurs, s'il arrive que des personnes commettent des fautes reprochables et ressenties comme telles par le groupe social, il convient qu'elles soient punies, jusqu'à la prison. Seule la justice pénale est légitime à le faire, légitimement alourdie par la charge de prouver l'intentionnalité, etc.

Il faut distinguer ces deux catégories d'incrimination. C'est à partir de là que les deux procédures et les deux systèmes probatoires peuvent se dérouler en même temps, mais sur des incriminations différentes. Pour l'instant cela n'est pas le cas, car les "manquements financiers" ne sont que le décalque des "délits financiers", allégés des charges de preuve qui protégeaient la personne poursuivie et qui doit pour l'instant répondre deux fois.

Problème de procédure ? Non, problème d'incrimination, dont on ne sortira pas par des solutions procédurales, la plus hasardeuse étant de créer une nouvelle institution, la plus calamiteuse était d'affaiblir le système en supprimant une des voies de poursuites,  mais en distinguant dans les incriminations qui sont pour l'instant redondantes.

Ainsi, la répression comme outil de régulation utilisée par le régulateur est au point, mais le véritable droit pénal financier demeure à consolider pour atteindre son objectif propre et classique : punir les fautes, y compris par de la prison.

C'est au législateur de remettre de l'ordre. Il est possible que la décision dite "EADS" du 18 mars 2015 rendue par le Conseil constitutionnel l'y pousse.