Judge

  - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance et Contrat (“Compliance and Contract”), “Régulations & Compliance” series, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Editions Lefebvre-Dalloz, to be published. -  At the same time, a book in English, Compliance & Contract, is published in the collection copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Editions Lefebvre-Bruylant. - 🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia organised in 2026 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner Universities - this volume is one of a series of books devoted to Compliance in this collection. ► Read below the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), Compliance et vigilance bancaire (Compliance and Banking Vigilance), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, Le système juridique global des noms de domaine. Structure multi-acteurs et durabilité de l’Internet (The Global Legal System of Domain Names. Multi-Stakeholder Structure and Sustainability of the Internet), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L’Obligation de Compliance (Compliance Obligation), 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), 2024 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance (Compliance Jurisdictionalisation), 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les outils de la Compliance (Compliance Tools), 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance (For the Europe of the Compliance), 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge (Compliance: the Company, the Regulator and the Judge), 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance (Regulation, Supervision, Compliance), 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Internet, espace d’interrégulation (Internet, Space of Interregulation), 2016 see the global presentation of all the books of the collection. - ► General presentation of this book: The book, published in 2025 in the same series “Regulations & Compliance” series, demonstrates that the Obligation of Compliance (Compliance Obligation)—which falls upon crucial operators and those concerned with the future of systems and the present and future individuals involved in them—derives from laws and regulations, and is upheld by these operators themselves, regulators and judges. The role played by contracts has already been discussed therein, since contracts are both a means by which operators perform their legal compliance obligation and an autonomous source of obligation (which places the question of liability at the heart of the subject). This book specifically examines the role that contracts play and will play in the conception, development and implementation of Compliance Law.   This aspect is underestimated because Compliance Law is often analysed through the prism of laws and regulations designed to achieve Monumental Goals set by states and public authorities, to the realisation of which systemic economic operations contribute through compliance tools, rather than through the actors themselves. When they do act, this is referred to outside the realm of Law, generally to Ethics. However, the Contract, the binding Ex Ante legal instrument par excellence, will play an increasingly significant role within global and interconnected compliance systems. In the European construction of Compliance Law, which places human beings at the heart of efforts to ensure the sustainability of systems, the Contract serves not only as the means by which the entity fulfils its legal obligations, forges relationships with stakeholders and implements the necessary innovations, but also as the means by which it exercises its autonomy to contribute to the realisation of the systemic ambitions in question, may go beyond public ambitions, enrich them, anchor them territorially, and identify them with its own activity and its overall corporate strategy, etc.  To describe and anticipate the practice and rules that link Compliance Law and Contracts, the book first examines how this new branch of Law, insofar as it draws on the political ideas of the Social Contract, renews Contract Law by embedding it within the strategy of economic operators, a task made all the easier for them as they have built value chains through contracts. These are ‘regulatory contracts’. This demonstrates that Public Law Contracts exemplify the incorporation by General Contract Law of the overarching perspective of compliance, normatively anchored in the Monumental Goals (Title I). That explained, the book examines how General Contract Law interfaces with the techniques and objectives of Compliance Law. Whether through mandatory requirements, incentives or support, Compliance Law plays a role in contracts, helping to shape them in part, whether they relate to regulated or unregulated activities, with the points of contact with the principle of liberalism – and the limits to it – being determined by the courts. Conversely, however, General Contract Law contributes to Compliance Law and will do so increasingly. This applies equally to the stages of formation, execution, and sanctions, which may take the form of consolidations (Title II).  In practical terms, the Contract itself serves as a Compliance Tool. As such, the company may choose to outsource the compliance function, which it is free to do provided it remains accountable for its performance to the legislator and the persons concerned: this is the concept of the ‘Compliance Contract’, which appears as a specific contract.  Furthermore, compliance can be incorporated into multiple contracts—contractual arrangements through which the contracting parties establish one or more obligations that will facilitate or enhance their legal obligations. In doing so, legal entities exercise their freedom, as permitted by general law, as can be seen in practice “clause by clause”, and this is also recognised by the Regulator, Supervisor and/or Judge in light of the normative Monumental Goals of Compliance Law (Title III).  Precisely, a new field of ‘contractual compliance litigation’ is emerging. The primary topic here is to examine contractual judicial disputes in which an element of Compliance Law features in the proceedings. Indeed, a dispute concerning a claim for mandatory execution, termination or contractual liability may involve, in the claim itself or in an procedural exception or defence raised, an element of compliance law, ranging from an allegation of lack of jurisdiction to a request for the court to take into account a systemic teleological norm that the contract judge should consider. Secondly, in certain emerging systemic compliance litigation, because the role of the judge is transformed and the procedure must be adapted, the contract appears as a particularly suitable tool, either as a ‘procedural framework’ through the contractualisation of the whole, or as a technique used in the strict sense, its ex ante nature allowing, in disputes concerning the future, the development of new adequate techniques (Title IV).              - ► First presentation of the provisional Table of Contents  :  - PROVISIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS   RENDRE COMPTE DES PRATIQUES CONTRACTUELLES DANS LE SYSTÈME DE COMPLIANCE ET ACCROÎTRE L’EFFICACITÉ ET L’HUMANISME DE CELUI-CI (REPORTING ON CONTRACTUAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM AND ENHANCING ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND HUMANITY)     TITRE I. CONTRAT SOCIAL, DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE ET STRATÉGIE DES OPÉRATEURS ÉCONOMIQUES (SOCIAL CONTRACT, COMPLIANCE LAW AND THE STRATEGY OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS)   CHAPITRE I : CONTRAT SOCIAL ET DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (SOCIAL CONTRACT AND COMPLIANCE LAW) Section 1 ♦️ Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, guide d’action pour des opérateurs économiques au service de politiques globales (The Monumental Goals of Compliance, a guide to action for economic operators serving global policies), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 ♦️ Compliance et Contrat social (Compliance and the Social Contract), by 🕴️René Sève   CHAPITRE II : AMBITIONS POLITIQUES ET STRATÉGIES D’ENTREPRISE DANS L’ORGANISATION CONTRACTUELLE DES CHAÎNES DE VALEUR (POLITICAL AMBITIONS AND CORPORATE STRATEGIES IN THE CONTRACTUAL ORGANISATION OF VALUE CHAINS) Section 1 ♦️ Dynamiques des chaînes de valeur et Compliance (Value Chain Dynamics and Compliance), by 🕴️Étienne Maclouf Section 2 ♦️ La contractualisation au sein de chaînes de valeurs intégrées (Contractualisation within Integrated Value Chains), by 🕴️Véronique Chanut Section 3 ♦️ Au-delà de la clause : l’audit social et la contractualisation du travail décent dans les chaînes de valeur (Beyond the Clause: Social Auditing and the Contractualisation of Decent Work in Value Chains), by 🕴️Guillaume Delalieux Section 4 ♦️ Risques émergents, souveraineté et vulnérabilités des chaînes de valeur (Emerging Risks, Sovereignty and Vulnerabilities of Value Chains), by 🕴️Rémy Février Section 5 ♦️ Structuration des chaînes de valeur : vecteur d’efficacité économique et de stratégie et responsabilité politique (Structuring Value Chains: a Driver of Economic Efficiency and Strategy, and a Matter of Political Responsibility), by 🕴️Stanislas Pottier Section 6 ♦️ En quoi le contrat fait part à la stratégie dans les entreprises saisies par la Compliance (How Contracts Take Part in Strategy in Companies Seized by Compliance), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   CHAPITRE III : LES CONTRATS PUBLICS, PARANGONS DE L’ACCUEIL DES AMBITIONS POLITIQUES DANS LES STRATÉGIES ET L’ALLIANCE DES INSTITUTIONS (PUBLIC CONTRACTS, PARAGONS OF THE INCORPORATION OF POLITICAL AMBITIONS INTO STRATEGIES AND OF THE ALLIANCE OF INSTITUTIONS) Section 1 ♦️ Les instruments contractuels facilitant l’insertion de l’obligation de compliance (Contractual instruments facilitating the insertion of the compliance obligation), by 🕴️Marion Ubaud-Bergeron Section 2 ♦️ Les obligations d’évaluation des tiers dans les contrats publics (Third-party assessment obligations in public contracts), by 🕴️Valentin Lamy Section 3 ♦️ L’exemplarité dans les contrats publics (Exemplarity in public contracts), by 🕴️Ugo Assouad and 🕴️Léon Boijout Section 4 ♦️ Le contrôle des pouvoirs exorbitants délégués aux personnes privées (Monitoring Exorbitant Powers Delegated to Private Persons), by 🕴️Nedjma Kontoukas Section 5 ♦️ Externaliser la supervision de la compliance – Renoncer en chaîne (Outsourcing Compliance Supervision – Chain Renunciation), by 🕴️Yanisse Benrahou Section 6 ♦️ Le devoir de vigilance est-il soluble dans le droit des contrats administratifs ? À propos des articles L. 2141-7-1 et L. 3123-7-1 du Code de la commande publique (Is the Duty of Vigilance Soluble in the Law of Administrative Contracts? On Articles L. 2141-7-1 and L. 3123-7-1 of the French Public Procurement Code), by 🕴️Antoine Oumedjkane   TITRE II. LE DROIT COMMUN DES CONTRATS CONFRONTÉ AU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (GENERAL CONTRACT LAW FACED WITH COMPLIANCE LAW)   CHAPITRE I : DISTINGUER LE CONTRACTUEL DE CE QUI S’EN RAPPROCHE DANS LE SYSTÈME DE COMPLIANCE (DISTINGUISHING WHAT IS CONTRACTUAL FROM WHAT RESEMBLES IT IN THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM) Section 1 ♦️ Autonomie de la volonté, Engagements et Compliance (Autonomy of the Will, Commitments and Compliance), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   CHAPITRE II : L’EMPRISE DU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE SUR LE DROIT COMMUN DES CONTRATS (THE HOLD OF COMPLIANCE LAW OVER GENERAL CONTRACT LAW) Section 1 ♦️ Les contrats de régulation engendrés par la compliance (Regulatory contracts generated by compliance), by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Barbièri Section 2 ♦️ Les tiers aux contrats comprenant une dimension de compliance (Third parties to contracts that include a compliance dimension), by 🕴️Philippe Stoffel-Munck   CHAPITRE III : L’APPORT DU DROIT COMMUN DES CONTRATS AU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (THE CONTRIBUTION OF GENERAL CONTRACT LAW TO COMPLIANCE LAW) Section 1 ♦️ Compliance : des clauses relevant du droit commun des contrats ? (Compliance: Clauses Falling under General Contract Law?), by 🕴️Laurent Aynès   TITRE III. CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE, CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE (COMPLIANCE CONTRACT, COMPLIANCE CLAUSES)   CHAPITRE I : LE « CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE » (THE “COMPLIANCE CONTRACT”) Sous-chapitre 1 : L’ÉMERGENCE DU « CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE » ET DU MARCHÉ DE LA COMPLIANCE (THE EMERGENCE OF THE “COMPLIANCE CONTRACT” AND OF THE COMPLIANCE MARKET) Section 1 ♦️ L’industrialisation et l’externalisation par le « contrat de compliance » d’une fonction essentielle par l’entreprise (The industrialisation and outsourcing by the company of an essential function through the “compliance contract”), by 🕴️Étienne Maclouf and 🕴️Bruno Deffains Section 2 ♦️ Définition juridique du « contrat de compliance » (Legal definition of the “compliance contract”), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Sous-chapitre 2 : EXEMPLES DE « CONTRATS DE COMPLIANCE » (EXAMPLES OF “COMPLIANCE CONTRACTS”) Section 3 ♦️ Les contrats d’enquête interne (Internal investigation contracts), by 🕴️Dominique de la Garanderie Section 4 ♦️ Les contrats passés avec les structures d’audit (Contracts concluded with audit firms), by 🕴️Antoinette Gutierrez-Crespin Sous-chapitre 3 : LA RÉACTION PAR LE DROIT À L’INDUSTRIALISATION ET LA STANDARDISATION DU « CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE » (THE LAW’S RESPONSE TO THE INDUSTRIALISATION AND STANDARDISATION OF THE “COMPLIANCE CONTRACT”) Section 5 ♦️ L’appréhension de la standardisation et l’industrialisation du « contrat de compliance » par le droit de la concurrence afin de réguler (How competition law grasps the standardisation and industrialisation of the “compliance contract” in order to regulate), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda Section 6 ♦️ Les aspects internationaux du « contrat de compliance » (The international aspects of the “compliance contract”), by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine   CHAPITRE II : LES CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE (COMPLIANCE CLAUSES) Section 1 ♦️ Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance (Uniqueness and Diversity of Compliance Clauses), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 ♦️ Utilité comparée des clauses de conformité et des clauses de Compliance (Compared usefulness of conformity clauses and Compliance clauses), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda Sous-chapitre 1 : LES CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE VISANT L’INFORMATION (COMPLIANCE CLAUSES CONCERNING INFORMATION) Section 3 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à la transmission de l’information (Compliance clauses relating to the transmission of information), by 🕴️Thibaut Duchesne Section 4 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à la confidentialité et à la non-transmission d’information (Compliance clauses relating to confidentiality and the non-transmission of information), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda Section 5 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à l’audit (Compliance clauses relating to audit), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Sous-chapitre 2 : LES CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE VISANT L’EXÉCUTION DU CONTRAT (COMPLIANCE CLAUSES CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT) Section 6 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à l’évolution des circonstances (Compliance clauses relating to changes in circumstances), by 🕴️Julia Heinich Section 7 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance visant à obtenir des comportements adéquats (exemple des relations sociales) (Compliance clauses aimed at obtaining appropriate behaviour (the example of labour relations)), by 🕴️Joseph-Antoine Morin Section 8 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance visant à obtenir l’efficacité des plans de gestion des risques (Compliance clauses aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of risk management plans), by 🕴️Grégoire Leray Section 9 ♦️ Les clauses de robustesse (Robustness clauses), by 🕴️Ludovic Pailler Sous-chapitre 3 : LES CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE VISANT LA PRÉVENTION ET LA GESTION ANTICIPÉE DES CONFLITS (COMPLIANCE CLAUSES CONCERNING THE PREVENTION AND ANTICIPATED MANAGEMENT OF DISPUTES) Section 10 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives aux sanctions (Compliance clauses relating to sanctions), by 🕴️Laura Sautonie-Laguionie Section 11 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à la remédiation (Compliance clauses relating to remediation), by 🕴️Morgane Tirel Section 12 ♦️ Les clauses de compliance relatives à la procédure, à l’expertise et à la mise en état (Compliance clauses relating to procedure, expert evidence and pre-trial case management), by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan   TITRE IV. LE CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE LAW)   CHAPITRE I : CERNER LE CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LA COMPLIANCE (IDENTIFYING CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE) Section 1 ♦️ L’émergence du contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance par la convergence des matières (The emergence of contractual litigation involving Compliance through the convergence of fields), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 ♦️ La singularité du contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (The singularity of contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan   CHAPITRE II : JUGES SAISIS ET JUGES NATURELS DU CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LA COMPLIANCE (COURTS SEISED AND NATURAL JUDGES OF CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE) Section 1 ♦️ Juge de droit commun et juge spécialisé dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (Ordinary courts and specialised courts in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Romain Raine Section 2 ♦️ Du juge répressif au juge civil dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (From the criminal court to the civil court in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Alex Nicollet Section 3 ♦️ Le juge d’appui dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (The supporting judge in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Fabrice Vert Section 4 ♦️ L’arbitre dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (The arbitrator in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Cyril Nourissat   CHAPITRE III : LES PARTIES AU CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LA COMPLIANCE (THE PARTIES TO CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE) Section 1 ♦️ Parties originaires et intervenantes, parties nécessaires, parties prenantes : qui sont les parties légitimes ? (Original and intervening parties, necessary parties, stakeholders: who are the legitimate parties?), by 🕴️Liza Veyre   CHAPITRE IV : LE TRAITEMENT PROCÉDURAL DU CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LA COMPLIANCE (THE PROCEDURAL HANDLING OF CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE) Section 1 ♦️ Le maniement du temps dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance : de l’urgence au temps long (Handling time in contractual litigation involving Compliance: from urgency to the long term), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 ♦️ La contractualisation de la mise en état, outil naturel du contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (Contractualising pre-trial case management, a natural tool of contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan Section 3 ♦️ La contractualisation de la preuve dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (Contractualising evidence in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Nicolas Ida Section 4 ♦️ L’audience dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance (The hearing in contractual litigation involving Compliance), by 🕴️Anaïs Danet   CHAPITRE V : LE JUGEMENT DU CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LA COMPLIANCE (THE JUDGMENT IN CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COMPLIANCE) Section 1 ♦️ Le jugement adéquat dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance et son exécution efficace (The appropriate judgment in contractual litigation involving Compliance and its effective enforcement), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan   ​

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Si l'heureux stratagème probatoire du Roi Salomon n'avait pas fonctionné (If King Solomon's probationary strategy hadn't worked)”, in Collective Book dedicated to Professor Pierre Crocq, Liber Amicorum, Lextenso – LGDJ, 2026, pp. 713-723. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - ► Introduction to the article: As renowned and significant in biblical scholarship as it is in legal culture and imagination, Solomon’s Judgement is a procedural measure, an evidential stratagem (I). But even a King cannot be certain of the success of an investigative measure that his authority allows him to impose; nothing guarantees the success of the evidential stratagem he has devised, that is to say, the discovery of the truth. The investigative measure he devised presupposes a maternal love that leads the woman – who might prefer to continue disputing – to choose instead not to keep the child and to leave him in a state of death, a mere inert prey to the claim of appropriation made by the plaintiff. It is the woman’s virtue that enables the Judge’s wisdom. The evidence stratagem might not have worked (II). This is scarcely considered, as King Solomon is always portrayed as wise and the mother as preferring the child to herself. But if we step outside the Book of Kings, where virtue reigns – that of the mother as well as that of the judge – to confront the passion of the woman who smothered her newborn in the night and now seeks the force of justice to seize the second, one might reflect, whilst wandering through the lobby of a courthouse, that it is all too often the case that adults put themselves before children. What if the second mother had put herself before the child? What would have happened if the judge’s order, already being carried out, had not been halted by the virtue of the defendant? (III). What would the King then have done to exercise his office as Judge justly, since the truth would not have been accessible to him? (IV). If one changes an element of the narrative, because justice is human, because passions drive the parties, because children are often the silent victims on both sides, is justice still possible?

► Full reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Centre for Property, Contracts and Civil Procedure (CPC2) and Business Law Centre (CDE), Le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance : aspects procéduraux et juridictionnels (Contractual Litigation Involving Compliance: Procedural and Jurisdictional Aspects), 29 May 2026 - 🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner Universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract. It is the first one. - The symposium is under the scientific direction of 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Professor at Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Director of the Centre for Property, Contracts and Civil Procedure (CPC2), and of 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and of the European School of Regulation and Compliance (EeRC). - 🧮 The symposium took place on Friday 29 May 2026, from 10 am to 5:45 pm, at Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Amphithéâtre Paul Roubier, 15 quai Claude-Bernard, 69007 Lyon, on site and online. It was held in French. - ► Presentation of the theme: Two movements intersect: first, what is commonly called the “contractualisation of justice”, an image referring to the insertion of genuinely contractual techniques into trials, and second, through the “Jurisdictionalisation of Compliance”, the emergence of a “Systemic Litigation” which, by transitivity, bears the marks of Compliance Law itself. Moreover, Compliance techniques increasingly make room for contractual mechanisms, either through “Compliance Contracts” or through “Compliance Clauses”. This therefore gives rise to contractual disputes, which are also imbued with Compliance, no longer directly but indirectly. Thus, in diverse and new ways, a “Contractual Litigation Involving Compliance” is taking shape. It has procedural and jurisdictional aspects, the study of which is the subject of this symposium. The first step is to identify this contractual litigation involving Compliance (I), whose emergence is recent: contractual litigation on the one hand and Regulatory and Compliance litigation on the other have always been known, but their entanglement, combined with the contractualisation of justice, is new. It may even come as a shock, since Compliance Law, which is not the mere obligation to obey applicable regulations, carries systemic ambitions for the future and is thus brought, through contracts, before a judge more accustomed to disputes between two singular parties. The themes then successively addressed are the courts seised and the natural judges (II), the parties to the dispute and the parties to the proceedings (III), the procedural handling (IV), and the judgment and its enforcement (V). - 📝 The proceedings of this symposium form the basis of a chapter of the book Compliance and Contract, forthcoming in the Compliance & Regulation series, co-published by the JoRC and Bruylant, and of its French version, Compliance et Contrat, co-published by the JoRC and Lefebvre-Dalloz.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Juge modeste" ou "check and balance" :alternative aux Etats-Unis, alternative en France" ("modest judge" or "check and balance": alternative in the United States, alternative in France), Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 6 October 2025.. - 📧Read by free subscription other news from the MAFR Newsletter – Law, Compliance, Regulation - ► Summary of this article: Recent, if not forthcoming, decisions by the US Supreme Court show that the American political system that was based on the unwritten principle of Check and Balance, requiring the Justices to constitute one Power facing the other two could be replaced by a political system based on the principle of a "modest Justice" enforcing decisions made by the Federal Executive. They would then have a new Constitution. In Western Europe and especially in France, it is possible that the letter of the Constitution, which states that judges are not an autonomous power vis-à-vis the other two powers, will be abandoned and that, in the name of an unwritten principle, the Rule of Law, its transformation into an autonomous Power facing the executive in its own right will be adopted. The path would be exactly the opposite. We would then have changed the Constitution. That's conceivable, and there are many arguments in favour of it. We have to say so. And draw all the consequences. - 📧read below the article published the 6 October dans the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation ⤵️

► Full Reference: J.-S. Borghetti, “Le rapport entre le Droit de la responsabilité civile et l’Obligation de Compliance” (The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L’obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2025, pp. 589-598. - read the general presentation of the book, L’obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The Author points out that in order to establish civil liability, it is first necessary to find fault, i.e. a deviation from an obligation, which will trigger a secondary obligation, that of reparation. But it can also be argued that it is from liability that this primary obligation arises, civil liability then revealing an obligation which existed only implicitly. That establishes a two-way relationship between liability and obligation. The Compliance Obligation illustrates this, in particular through the Obligation of Vigilance conceived by the French law of 2017. The author therefore devotes the first part of his contribution to civil liability as a result of an Compliance Obligation, especially the Obligation of Vigilance. issued of the French law of 2017. After discussing whether the constraints generated by compliance should be classified as ‘obligations’, since there is no creditor, which therefore opens the way to liability in tort, he examines the conditions for incurring such liability, which are difficult, particularly with regard to the burden of proof and the demonstration of the causal link. The requirement concerning the latter may evolve in French law towards the admission of proportional causality, as is now accepted in certain cases in German case law. In the second part of his contribution, the author deals with the hypothesis of civil liability as an indicator of a Compliance Obligation. He points out that the claims made, particularly in the cases of TotalOuganda (France) and Milieudefensie v. Shell (Netherlands) seek to obtain from the judge a such “revelation”. The author considers that it is not possible to draw from the French 2017 law which refers to article 1240 of the French Civil Code on the liability because this article is referred to only in order to organise the consequences of a breach of article L.225-102-4 of the French Commercial Code organising the Obligation of Vigilance (article 1240 being therefore under the secondary obligation described above) and not to feed what this article L.225-102-4 requires under the primary obligation (defined above). - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: J.-B. Racine, “L’arbitre, juge, superviseur, accompagnateur ?” (The arbitrator, judge, supervisor, coach?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2025, pp. 489-502. - read the general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): From the outset, the author sets out what is at stake in these terms: “Quel rôle peut ou pourrait jouer l’arbitre dans les dispositifs de compliance ? Selon le rôle qu’il est amené à jouer, il peut ou pourrait venir en renfort de l’obligation de compliance. Poser cette question, c’est poser la question des pouvoirs de l’arbitre et de son office. C’est aussi, d’une certaine manière, renvoyer à la notion même d’arbitrage.” (What role can or could the arbitrator play in compliance systems? Depending on the role he/she is called upon to play, he/she can or could reinforce the compliance obligation. Asking this question raises the question of the powers of the arbitrator and his/her office. In a way, it also goes back to the very notion of arbitration). In practice, arbitrators deal with compliance issues in their office as judges. This is illustrated by disputes involving allegations of corruption, where the arbitrators’ ruling obviously cannot give effect to a corrupt practice unless they violate themselves international public order. But in this, the arbitrator is only applying a legal standard, the main issue being then the question of evidence, with compliance tools often serving as indicators of the corruption itself. Leaving behind the strict legal source and coming to the standards issued by the ICC about the fight against corruption, we really enter into the “compliance obligation”, in the strict sense, when a contract appears. International business practices standards are emerging, not only in the area of probity but also in the protection of human rights, for which arbitrators can now act as guarantors. Arbitrators can do this, in particular, through the emerging litigation relating to vigilance obligation, either directly when vigilance plans are at issue,, even if a legal rule gives a specific competence to a State court (as the French 2017 law does) or if we imagine that a plan itself includes a system for recourse to arbitration, which would imply a change in culture, or if we consider that soft law is in the process of emerging from the practices of international trade laying down a duty of vigilance that arbitrators could take up. In the second part of his contribution, the author takes a second, bolder approach, namely that of an arbitrator who understands Compliance Law in that he/she would be more than a Judge, i.e. he/she would do more than settle a dispute by applying the law. This would be conceivable given the tendency to consider that the arbitrator could modify contracts and if example is taken from the technique of arbitration practised for concentration disputes in merger law. To give arbitration the required regulatory dimension, this third party would have to be able to exercise a supervisory function, which the notion of “dispute” hardly lends itself to, especially as an arbitrator is only set up to be a judge, and if he/she ceases to be one it is difficult for him/her to remain an arbitrator…. However, it is conceivable that in Ex Post the arbitrator could perform the monitoring function often required in Compliance Law. The technique of disputes boards is inspiring in this respect. The two fields, Arbitration and Compliance, are thus destined to move closer together, as the two traditional limits, arbitrability and litigation, are in the process of evolving so that they no longer stand in the way of such rapprochements. The author can therefore conclude: “C’est aux différents acteurs de la compliance de penser à l’arbitrage, et à la souplesse, la plasticité et la liberté qu’il offre, pour éventuellement le configurer spécialement au service des buts de la compliance.” (It is up to the various players in Compliance to think about Arbitration, and the flexibility, plasticity and freedom it offers, in order to configure it specifically to serve the goals of Compliance Law). - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► 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 Lefebvre-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. - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done 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 to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge adéquat pour l'effectivité de l'Obligation de Compliance" ("The Adequate Judge for the Effectiveness of the Compliance Obligation"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance" 2025, pp. 741-775. - 📝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 the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published 📚see the general presentation of the series "Régulations & Compliance" in which this book is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The Judge is a character who seems weak in a Compliance Law that seems so powerful in a world where Technology is developing even a more impressive power. But present and future cases show, on the contrary, that he or she has a central role to play and that his/her role must be to use his/her own strength to remain what he/she is: the guardian of the Rule of Law, which is not so obvious because many Compliance tools, which are technological in nature, are in a way 'insensitive' to what we hold dear, the protection of human beings, which is based on the diligence of companies (I).  The second role that we can expect of the Judge is that not only does he/she help to ensure the permanence of this Rule of Law, which relies to a large extent on him:Her in the face of a future world that is unknown to us, mainly in its digital and climatic dimensions, perspectives that Compliance Law seeks to grasp, by renewing Regulation Law, by acting in relation to companies whose role is active, which leads the Judge to control them and to be aware of the claims that can be made against them, without taking the place of their management powers (II). This presupposes a new method (III), and all the judges, however diverse, will converge in an active dialogue between the judges, which will enable, firstly, the traditional role of the judge, linked to the Rule of Law, to endure in a rapidly changing world and, secondly, each judge to take on this new role implied by Compliance Law (IV). The perfect triangle will then be established, the strength and simplicity of which allows the use of the singular and the retention of capital letters for each of these three terms: Regulation Compliance Judge.

► Full Reference: M. Chapuis, “Le juge de l’amiable et la compliance” (The Judge of Amicable Settlement and Compliance), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance”, 2025, pp. 721-725. - read the general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which the contribution is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author shows that the general office of the judge in matters of mediation is particularly welcome in Vigilance proceedings. This is due first of all to the procedural office of the Judge: the injunction to meet a mediator finds its proper place here, as do other measures of judicial administration which, by their non-jurisdictional nature, are well suited to what is at stake, for example the stay of proceedings in the event of negotiations, processes which interpose themselves with the trial proper. This makes it easier to resolve the dispute without having to decide it, the better to satisfy the goals of the law. It is in this respect that Compliance Law, which is structured around its Monumental Goals, particularly calls for its non-jurisdictional techniques of mediation, and this sheds light on the first judicial decisions handed down in matters of Vigilance. Secondly, the author sets out the structuring of amicable settlement. Indeed, it is both delicate and decisive to choose carefully the moments when conciliations, césures (split hearings), ARA (amicable settlement hearings), etc., will have the best effect. Moreover, the choice of the mediator must take into account expertise and acceptability to the parties, the idea of an “internal list”, where there are specialised chambers, being worth exploring. The author can thus conclude: “The litigation arising from the Duty of Vigilance and, more generally, from Compliance Law thus calls for a structuring of amicable methods, a condition of their efficacy. Following the very partial examples above, amicable settlement in Compliance first presupposes respecting the stages of the law as clarified by case law. Next, it will be a matter of identifying those of these litigation stages which are the most opportune for bringing in specialist mediators and conciliators whose expertise is identified and approved by the judge and the parties.” (Free translation of the original text, which alone is authoritative: « Le contentieux naissant du devoir de vigilance et, plus généralement du droit de la compliance appellent ainsi une structuration des modes amiables, condition de leur efficacité. Suivant les exemples, très partiels, qui précèdent, l’amiable dans la compliance suppose d’abord de respecter les étapes de la loi éclairées par la jurisprudence. Ensuite, il s’agira d’identifier celles de ces étapes contentieuses les plus opportunes pour faire intervenir des médiateurs et conciliateurs spécialistes aux compétences identifiées et agréées par le juge et les parties. ») - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: J.-B. Barbièri, “Les juges du droit des entreprises en difficulté et les obligations de compliance” (Judges of Insolvency Law and Compliance Obligations), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2025, pp. 313-323. - read a general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): Describing at first sight the intersection of Compliance and Insolvency procedures as the “marriage of the carp and the rabbit”, the Author shows that the logic is in many ways the same, particularly in terms of the role played by the Judge, since it is always a question of the State delegating Monumental Goals, with Insolvency procedures giving concrete expression to the desire to save a company, jobs, an industry, a region, etc., in what is always a “public interest”. In his/her office, the insolvency judge is confronted with compliance clauses, relating to commitments, or information, or organising monitoring. The author begins by examining the cases in which the insolvency judge is confronted with the principle of primacy of the insolvency proceedings over this compliance contractual organisation, either under current contracts, which may contain compliance obligations, in particular because audits and controls will have been strengthened or automatic termination will be provided for (which would then be deactivated?), or because the nullity of the suspect period comes into play, because the compliance clauses are often unbalanced. The second part examines the hypothesis that compliance techniques will support insolvency proceedings themselves and the purpose they serve. Indeed, because they are preventive in nature, contractual compliance mechanisms can also prevent failures, by means of audit and monitoring clauses and the introduction of reporting, if necessary under the supervision of the Judge, associated with conciliation mechanisms. What is more, they should be used to restructure companies in difficulty. The plan, which can be imposed on creditors, must open up the range of instruments, and could perhaps be articulated at this class of parties, which would only be made up of creditors benefiting from compliance clauses, if we consider that they constitute a “sufficient community of economic interest”. They could then also be delegated the task of monitoring the survival of the company, which is the main goal served by the plan. In the case of a disposal plan, an offer including compliance undertakings should not be favoured, since the law expressly states that the sole purpose of such a plan is to ensure the maintenance of activities and to clear the past. But time will tell whether the judge will go beyond this. - 🦉This article is available for people who follow the Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation", 15 September 2025, Madrid. - This speech is the opening speech of the event. 🧮 See the general program of the event - 📅See the slides (not used), basis for this speechs - ► Summary of the conference: This  manifestation, made fo many interventions, is about the role and the evolution of the in-house lawyers in the Europe on the move. I opened the event by focusing on the importance of the Compliance which drives the companies now, in the future and for the future. It is quite difficile because currently Compliance Law is quite misunderstund by almost every. Therefore the first part of my intervention has been the explanation of what is the very new branch of Law, built of political Monumental Goals (Compliance Law is not just the obligation to be conform with, just to obey), the specificity of European Compliance Monumental Goals (not only the sustainability of systems, but also the concern for present and future human beins implied in them).  This systemic new branch of Law, humanist branch of Law in Europe put the Judge at its center. Par translation, this is creating a new sort of Litigation : the Compliance Systemic Litigation. Its object is the future (as Compliance Law itselft). Contrary to the "conformity", which might be left to algorithms, Compliance Law, inseparable to Systemic Litigation, are giving new role for Judges, for external lawyers and for internal lawyers.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Arbitration, a highly appropriate technique for deploying Compliance Law, in particular to satisfy the Vigilance Obligation, Working Paper, March 2025. - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on …  April 2025 : click HERE  - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the Notion category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: If Arbitration has so far not developed much in Compliance Law, it is because this new branch of Law is not well known. Indeed, if it were simply a matter of 'conformity' with mandatory regulations, then Arbitration involving rights that are freely available to the parties and Compliance would be 2 worlds that must ignore each other. But Compliance Law is defined quite differently. Its normativity lies in the Monumental Goals set by the political authorities, which oblige large companies, because these compagnies are in a position to do so, to contribute to achieving these Goals, namely the future preservation of the Systems (banking, digital, climate, energy, etc.) and human beings involved. While the Goal is constrained, the company is free to choose the means, as long as these means  are credible. Arbitration is one of them. From the arbitration clause to the appropriate award. One example is the Duty of Vigilance, the cutting edge of Compliance. In order to effectively find solutions in the value chain that the company governs, Arbitration is a suitable means of achieving the Monumental Goals of environmental protection and human rights, under the control of the Judge.       - 🔓read the developments below⤵️

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juriste, requis et bien placé pour le futur" (The lawyer needed and well placed for the future), in Groupe Lamy Liaisons, Les Éclaireurs du Droit,  Hôtel de l’Industrie, Place Saint Germain des Près, Paris, 11 March 2025, 16h. - This speech opens a series of 4 workshops on the following themes: – The challenge of Trust – The challenge of Risk – The challenge of Transmission – The challenge of  leadership - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation (in French) - ⬜see the slides basis made for this speech (which were not projected) (in French) -  watch the short video made after the conference (in French) - ► English Summary of this introductory conference: The 4 sessions will address the successive themes of trust, risk, transmission and leadership, which legal professionals are facing, particularly as a result of algorithms. For an introductory analysis, it is possible to make a distinction inside the Future. The future has a part of Stability: the jurist can contribute to this stability, i.e. the preservation of the past (I). The future has an part of Predictability: the lawyer must increase this part in the present itself (II). The future has a part of radical novelty (III): at this point, which may correspond to a precipice, if no one had imagined it, the lawyer can also be there. Until now, we think of lawyers more in the first 2 hypotheses, less in this one. Is it pertinent? In each of these dimensions, the algorithmic system (AI) is presented as replacing or dominating the human. In each of these 3 dimensions, Lawyers must be present, as they form a community that must remain united around the very idea of Law (algorithms do not conceive ideas, it is humans who transmit them to other humans, and the algorithmic system must remain a medium). As far as the Stability of the future is concerned, the Lawyer can and must contribute to it, in particular through Transmission, because there is less of a blank page as algorithmic 'creation' is based on past data, and training, where the human being will be all the more central as machines have to be handled. As far as the Predictability of the future is concerned, it is a question of assessing the Risks, whether specific or systemic, legal or non-legal, in order not to take them or on the contrary to take them. The more the Lawyer is involved in risk-taking, the more he or she will be in the right place, before and during the action. As far as the Radically New future is concerned, it is not easy to qualify AI as such or not, but now the possible disappearance of the Rule of Law in the United States is one of them. All Lawyer are expected. Every lawyer must have two virtues (which the algorithm cannot not have): the virtue of Justice and the virtue of Courage. It is these virtues that we must pass on and share.       - Current events have led me to devote the time available to me to focusing on a single perspective, the third, to say what is expected of Lawyers if we perceive something radically new in the near future, what everyone does. Indeed, in the United States, on the one hand there is a head of state for whom the Law does not exist and who uses the power of regulation to express his absolute indifference to other states, companies and human beings, and on the other an entrepreneur who claims that he is going to become the master of algorithmic technology, a system over which he already wields great power. Faced with this Radical Novelty, we expect the community of Lawyers, all lawyers, whatever their place, their technical mastery, their level, their nationality, to speak out and say No. As Kelsen, Cassin or Ginsberg did. Say No and help others to say No. To do this, Lawyers, as human beings who care about other human beings, must be aware of the twofold virtue expected of them: the virtue of commitment to Justice and the virtue of Courage.

► Full Reference: L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Courts Experience in Emerging Systemic Litigation), 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, 16 December 2024, 2pm.-6pm., Cour d'appel de Paris, Première Chambre (First Chamber) - ► Presentation of the conference:  - 🧮Programme of this event:  Closing conference-debate of 2024 L'EXPÉRIENCE DES JURIDICTIONS DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT  (COURTS EXPERIENCE IN EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION) Paris Court of Appeal, First Chamber   🕰️2pm.-2.10pm. Présentation (Introduction), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and  Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), Scientific Director of the Cycle of conferences-debates on the Emerging Systemic Litigation – ESL)   I – Comment appréhender le contentieux émergent et/ou systémique ?  (I – How to deal with Emerging and/or Systemic Litigation?) 🕰️2.10pm.-2.30pm. 🎤L’appréhension par la Cour d’appel de Paris du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (The Paris Court of Appeal's approach to Emerging Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, Première présidente de chambre coordinatrice du pôle économique et commercial, Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of Chamber, Coordinator of the Economic and Commercial Division, Paris Court of Appeal) 🕰️2.30pm.-2.50pm. 🎤Le contentieux émergent vu par l’Observatoire des litiges judiciaires (OLJ) de la Cour de cassation, par 🕴️Sandrine Zientara-Logeay, Présidente de chambre, Directrice du service de documentation, des études et du rapport – SDER, Cour de cassation (President of Chamber, Director of the Department of Documentation, Studies and Reports – SDER, French Court of cassation)  🕰️2.50pm.-3.20pm. 🎤Le contentieux systémique Eémergent vu par le Tribunal de l’Union européenne (Emerging Systemic Litigation as seen by the General Court of the European Union), par 🕴️Marc van der Woude, President of the General Court of the European Union  🕰️3.20pm.-4pm. Debate 🕰️4pm.-4.20pm. Break   II – Quelles sont les organisations possibles en matière de contentieux émergent et/ou systémique ?  (II – How to organise with Emerging and/or Systemic Litigation?) 🕰️4.10pm.-5.10pm. 🎤Table ronde (Round Table) Moderated by 🕴️Marie-Christine Hébert-Pageot, Présidente de la chambre 5-12 contentieux émergent – devoir de vigilance et responsabilité écologique, Cour d‘appel de Paris (President of the 5-12 Chamber emerging litigation – duty of vigilance and ecological liability, Paris Court of Appeal) Speakers: 🕴️Stéphane Noël, Président du Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (President of the Paris First Instance Civil Court) 🕴️Patrick Sayer, Président du Tribunal de commerce de Paris (President of the Paris First Instance Commercial Court) 🕴️Jean-François Beynel, Premier président de la Cour d’appel de Versailles (First President of the Versailles Court of Appeal) and 🕴️Benjamin Deparis, Président du Tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre (President of the Nanterre First Instance Civil Court) 🕰️5.10pm.-5.40pm. Debate   🕰️5.40pm.-6pm. 🎤Conclusion. Le Contentieux Systémique Émergent : dialogues (Conclusion. Emerging Systemic Litigation: Dialogues), by 🕴️Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) - 🔴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). -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifier et anticiper la pratique du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation) ; Presentation of L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Courts Experience in Emerging Systemic Litigation), 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, 16 December 2024, 2pm.-6pm., Cour d'appel de Paris, Première Chambre (First Chamber). - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ⚙️This event has been conceived as a part of the 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 - ► English Summary of the conference: 

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Synthèse" ("Synthesis"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Dans l’espace de justice, les pratiques juridictionnelles au service du futur (In the Space of Justice, Jurisdictional Practices at the Service of the Future), in Cour de cassation, cycle of conferences "Penser les pratiques juridictionnelles au service d’un espace de justice" ("Thinking about jurisdictional practices in the service of an area of justice"), 21 November 2024, 4pm.-6pm. - 🧮see the program of this manifestation (in French) - ► English summary of this conference:  The topic covered takes account of the fact that this scientific event comes almost last in this cycle of conferences Penser les pratiques juridictionnelles au service d’un espace de justice ("Thinking about jurisdictional practices in the service of an area of justice"). Indeed, 'jurisdictional practices' have previously been addressed insofar as they are 'at the service of a European area of justice' (February 2023), enlightened (March 2023), attractive (June 2023), interactive (September 2023), peacemaking (December 2023). The approach here is different and complementary. The conference's starting point is the observation that, today, many new claims are made before Judges that relate directly to the Future. Admittedly, in their traditional role, Judges deal with the Future of disputed situations, but today it is the Future of Systems in their entirety that is sometimes submitted to them through a dispute or a claim. Moreover, they may be asked to find a systemic solution. The possible presence of future generations is just one sign of this change. The courtroom may seem unsuitable for trials of such gigantic proportions, both in terms of their subject matter and their impact. No doubt a distinction must be drawn between judges, some of whom may appear more familiar than others with the systemic issues that the Future brings with itself. Perhaps the judge's prudence should guide him/her in the use they make of their powers when they relate to the future, for example in the handling of sanctions, because the future by its very nature contains an element of the unknown, a fundamental prudence that the principle of the legality of offences and penalties expresses. But the future is not a blank page and Judges, without inventing it, can, indeed must, monitor the coherence of those who write the legal rules, if they are constitutional judges, and of those who write contracts and commitments, if they are civil and commercial judges. In order to fulfill their role, particularly with regard to the demands of stakeholders, judges need to think about and deal with this new systemic object before them: the future. To understand it, Judges draw on available jurisdictional practices, adjust others and combine them, using new methods. - 🧮see below the complete programme of this manifestation⤵️

► 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 ⤵️