► Full Reference: J.-S. Borghetti, "The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (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). 

On the other hand, the Shell judgment derives directly from civil liability an obligation to act. This is understandable if one takes the perspective and the measure of the future challenges posed, in this case in the area of climate change. But the author considers that it is up to the legislator to decide on such a development in Liability Law. 

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: J.-B. Racine, "Compliance Obligation and Human Rights​", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC): The author asks whether human rights can, over and above the many compliance obligations, form the basis of the Compliance Obligation. The consideration of human rights corresponds to the fundamentalisation of Law, crossing both Private and Public Law, and are considered by some as the matrix of many legal mechanisms, including international ones. They prescribe values that can thus be disseminated.

Human rights come into direct contact with Compliance Law as soon as Compliance Law is defined as "the internalisation in certain operators of the obligation to structure themselves in order to achieve goals which are not natural to them, goals which are set by public authorities responsible for the future of social groups, goals which these companies must willingly or by force aim to achieve, simply because they are in a position to achieve them". These "Monumental Goals" converge on human beings, and therefore the protection of their rights by companies. 

In a globalised context, the State can either act through mandatory regulations, or do nothing, or force companies to act through Compliance Law. For this to be effective, tools are needed to enable 'crucial' operators to take responsibility ex ante, as illustrated in particular by the French law on the Vigilance Obligation of 2017.

This obligation takes the form of both a "legal obligation", expression which is quite  imprecise, found for example in the duty of vigilance of the French 2017 law, and in a more technical sense through an obligation that the company establishes, in particular through contracts.

Legal obligations are justified by the fact that the protection of human rights is primarily the responsibility of States, particularly in the international arena. Even if it is only a question of Soft Law, non-binding Law, this tendency can be found in the Ruggie principles, which go beyond the obligation of States not to violate human rights, to a positive obligation to protect them effectively. The question of whether this could apply not only to States but also to companies is hotly debated. If we look at the ICSID Urbaser v. Argentina award of 2016, the arbitrators accepted that a company had an obligation not to violate human rights, but rejected an obligation to protect them effectively. In European Law, the GDPR, DSA and AIA, and in France the so-called Vigilance law, use Compliance Lools, often Compliance by Design, to protect human rights ex ante.

Contracts, particularly through the inclusion of multiple clauses in often international contracts, express the "privatisation" of human rights. Care should be taken to ensure that appropriate sanctions are associated with them and that they do not give rise to situations of contractual imbalance. The relationship of obligation in tort makes it necessary to articulate the Ex Ante logic and the Ex Post logic and to conceive what the judge can order.

The author concludes that "la compliance oblige à remodeler les catégories classiques du droit dans l’optique de les adosser à l’objectif même de la compliance : non pas uniquement un droit tourné vers le passé, mais un droit ancré dans les enjeux du futur ; non pas un droit émanant exclusivement de la contrainte publique, mais un droit s’appuyant sur de la normativité privée ; non pas un droit strictement territorialisé, mais un droit appréhendant l’espace transnational" ("Compliance requires us to reshape the classic categories of Law with a view to bringing them into line with the very objective of Compliance: not just a Law turned towards the past, but a Law anchored in the challenges of the future; not a Law emanating exclusively from public constraint, but a Law based on private normativity; not a strictly territorialised Law, but a law apprehending the transnational space".

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Les spécificités à concevoir dans l'audience publique des contentieux systémiques de vigilance, document de travail, novembre 2024.

____

🧮Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour constituer la base d'une intervention à la conférence Le droit processuel de la vigilance, du 18 novembre 2024

qui fait partie du cycle de conférences sur Le contentieux systémique,

____

📕Ce document de travail sera aussi la base d'une contribution pour l'ouvrage publié en 2025.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Les réflexions sur la façon dont l'audience doit être spécifiquement conçue lorsque le cas porte sur un contentieux systémique de vigilance portent progressivement sur 5 points. Elles ne développent pas ce qui est commun à toutes les audiences mais ont pour objet ce en quoi précisément cette audience-là pourrait se distinguer des autres audiences, en ce que le cas de vigilance sur le case l'audience se déroule, en ce qu'il est de nature systémique, est de nature différente des autres cas contentieux.

____

En premier lieu, ces contentieux systémiques sont fortement médiatiques, les stratégies des demandeurs consistant ouvertement à concevoir le procès "juridique" comme venant en appui à une demande plus générale de reddition des comptes qui se déroule ailleurs, par exemple sur la scène politique, dans les médias et les réseaux sociaux. C'est pourquoi le caractère public de l'audience est essentiel, parce que le contentieux de Vigilance est un "contentieux public", du début jusqu'à la fin. Les portes doivent en être ouvertes. La menée doit en être pédagogique. Les Régulateurs ont l'habitude de cette dimension pédagogique de leur office. Les juges spécialisés des contentieux systémiques émergents doivent aussi l'avoir.

_____

En deuxième lieu, et cela est directement corrélé, l'audience doit faire place aux "parties à l'instance" au-delà des parties au litige. Il faut revenir à la définition même du contentieux systémique, dont la vigilance est un champ : c'est un cas dans lequel un ou des systèmes sont impliqués, dans un état présent et/ou futur. C'est pourquoi ils doivent être présents. Il doivent être présents à l'audience. Comme un système, par exemple le système, qui constitue "l'arrière-litige" peut-il être présent à l'audience ? Chaque partie au litige va prétendre, l'une et l'autre, qu'elle le représente. Par exemple qu'elle représente les "générations futures", en subjectivisant le système. C'est un point essentiel parce que les systèmes sont plutôt "taisants". Or, comment et qui parle pour les systèmes, surtout s'il ne s'agit pas que des systèmes régulés, s'il s'agit aussi des systèmes sociaux, s'il s'agit des systèmes sociaux des pays dans lesquels les infrastructures contestées se déploient ? L'expression des demandes du système économique et social est l'affaire du ministère public. Pour l'instant il est taisant. Sans doute parce qu'il est davantage dans le Droit pénal. Alors que les causes systémiques, parce qu'elle relève du Droit processuel, même si elles sont portées devant le juge civil, ou commercial, appelle sa présence.

____

En troisième lieu, même si l'on en admet le principe et plus concrètement, encore faut-il déterminer ceux qui peuvent venir parler à l'audience publique d'une façon pertinente pour les systèmes impliqués afin d'expliquer leurs besoins, apparaissant ainsi comme parties à l'instance, comme experts, comme amis du Tribunal. Il y a immédiatement beaucoup de candidats. Plus le juge a de pouvoirs et plus il a d'amis. Les réflexions n'en sont qu'à leurs débuts sur ce point et l'expérience américaine n'est pas forcément un bon guide. Les parties au litige prétendent, l'une et l'autres, être les mieux placées pour exprimer les besoins du systèmes et des personnes qui y sont ou y seront situées. Cela peut être vrai, car avoir un intérêt dans le litige ne signifie pas que l'on ait de ce seul fait tort. Mais cela n'est pas un gage incontestable de pertinence. C'est davantage la différence d'objet qui distingue la partie au litige et la partie à l'instance car le litigant veut gagner alors que celui qui connaît le système peut expliquer celui-ci. Le système n'est pas que technique, comme l'exprime l'intitulé de la Chambre Régulation économique, sociale et environnementale et une question ouverte est celle de savoir qui parle pour le pays dont la "société civile" est peu audible. Dans l'usage procédural des amici curiae auquel cette ouverture de l'audience mène, l'attitude du juge est déterminante : doit-il accueillir les candidatures spontanées, les filtrer ou être le maître des invitations ? Dans une conception où le juge est maître de l'audience, il devrait avoir vocation à être maître des invitations, dans un modèle qui s'ouvre à ce débat au-delà du litige mais qui ne laisse pas les parties maîtresse d'une instance où le sort des systèmes est en jeu.

____

En quatrième lieu, si l'on admet cela et plus concrètement encore, dans la menée de l'audience, longue, orale, contradictoire, pour que des solutions puissent éventuellement se dégager (des médiations sont toujours possibles, des engagements sont toujours possibles), c'est sans doute dans les techniques de l'arbitrage international que l'on peut trouver des solutions spécifiques. Cela peut paraître contre-intuitif puisque  l'arbitrage international se déroule plutôt dans l'isolement d'un contrat, dans la confidentialité, tandis que la vigilance peut prétendre prendre en charge avec éclat le destin du monde.... Mais la chambre 5-12 de la Cour d'appel de Paris est en miroir de la chambre internationale. Il faudrait ainsi non seulement admettre que le débat porte aussi sur l'interprétation du Droit, que les avis en Droit ne soit pas seulement par des portes qui demeurent bien étroites des consultations mais soient exposées en public, la prohibition des legal opinions étant préjudiciable dans une branche du Droit en construction, l'absence de questionnement des consultants par le Tribunal et les 2 parties l'étant également. Les avis devant pouvoir porter sur toute question, afin que la technicité de la situation, qui a justifié la spécialisation des juges, via la création des chambres spécialisées, puisse être non seulement exposée et discutée.  Il faudrait ainsi que des avis puissent être demandés par le Tribunal sur les effets systémiques (économique, social et environnemental), sur les effets futurs car son office portant sur le futur de tels avis exposés et discutés en public serait d'un grand appui pour lui.

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et Responsabilité civile : comprendre et raison garder", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

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

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : Il est difficile, voire artificiel, de séparer la présentation du rapport entre le Droit de la Compliance et la Responsabilité civile de la considération qu'occupent dans la Compliance la Responsabilité pénale, les sanctions, et toute l'organisation contractuelle. Mais, ne serait-ce que pour des contraintes de caratères, il en sera fait ainsi.

La méthode choisie consiste à partir de décisions rendues soit au titre du Droit de la Compliance, soit au titre des Droits spéciaux de la responsabilité, comme le Droit des sociétés (mais là aussi le champ d'analyse est immense), soit au titre du Droit commun de la responsabilité civile. C'est souvent celui-ci qui est privilégié. 

Il apparaît toujours que Responsabilité civile et Droit de la compliance sont à la fois intimes et ont des rapports difficiles. Pour les comprendre, avant de partir dans des croisades dans un sens ou dans un autres, il faut techniquement voir ce qu'il en est des responsabilités attachées à l'application des "réglementations de compliance" qui s'imposent à des opérateurs économiques, lesquels contractualisent les obligations légales qui en résultent et dont les tiers peuvent également se prévaloir de manquements au titre de la responsabilité civile. C'est le  premier temps de l'analyse. L'on cite beaucoup la technique de Vigilance. Même si celle-ci est la pointe avancée de la Compliance, il faut aussi regarder ce qu'il en est du RGPD, de Sapin 2, de l'Anticorruption, etc. 

Or, la responsabilité civile n'est pas la même selon que l'obligation, légale ou/et contractuelle, par rapport à laquelle elle s'articule au titre du fait générateur, engendre selon les cas, selon les textes et selon les personnes, une obligation dite de moyens ou une obligation de résultat. Il faut donc se garder de propos trop généraux en la matière et s'il est un principe à garder à l'esprit, notamment à l'esprit du Juge, c'est que, sauf à ce qu'un texte ou une clause en dispose autrement, une obligation est une obligation de moyens.

Cette question essentielle renvoie à la nécessité de mieux cerner ce qu'est l'"obligation de compliance", qui consiste à prévenir et à détecter, l'opérateur économique faisant ses "meilleurs efforts" au regard des buts monumentaux dans lesquels les diverses réglementations (trouvant ainsi leur unité) s'ancrent normativement. La dimension probatoire Ex Ante apparaît alors au premier plan.

Dans un  deuxième temps de l'analyse, continuant à prendre appui sur des décisions de justice, il convient de mesurer les "points de contact" entre ces "responsabilités spéciales de compliance" et le Droit commun de la responsabilité civile. En effet, parce qu'il s'agit d'un mouvement profond qui traverse l'ensemble du système juridique exprimant une demande sociale qui distingue le Droit occidental du reste du monde, le Droit commun de la responsabilité porte depuis longtemps une dimension préventive et vise d'une façon différente des opérateurs en raison non seulement de leur puissance, mais encore de leur "mission". Cela ressort expressément de la jurisprudence, ces points de contact ne justifiant pas que l'on oppose les deux branches. Cela ne serait que si l'on confondait le Droit de la Compliance avec son instrument qu'est la "conformité" et si l'on inventait des principes nouveaux dans un Droit commun que des heurts pourraient advenir.

Précisément et dans un troisième temps de l'analyse, pouvant venir aux principes aujourd'hui en jeu, il convient de rappeler que tandis qu'il n'existe pas une obligation générale de compliance dans le Droit commun impliquant de détecter et de prévenir pour soi-même et pour autrui tout manquement à toute réglementation applicable susceptible de nuire à autrui, il existe un principe de liberté, comme le rappelle régulièrement le Conseil constitutionnel. Sauf à changer de système juridique pour ne plus faire des personnes que des assujettis obéissant à toute réglementation et le donnant à voir, le juge n'ayant plus pour rôle que de le punir pour ne pas l'avoir fait. En effet , le principe de Liberté demeure le socle et du Droit commun de la responsabilité (et non de la répression, comme en droit chinois) et du Droit spécial de la compliance (et non de la conformité, comme en droit chinois).

Il apparaît en conclusion que par l'évolution de la Responsabilité civile, notamment du fait de l'esprit d'un Droit de la Compliance qui s'y articule, l'on observe un double mouvement : le mouvement d'une responsabilité Ex Post vers une responsabilité Ex Ante📎!footnote-3856, et le mouvement d'une Responsabilité vers une Responsabilisation.

Pour accompagner ce mouvement, des alliances se nouer et doivent être favoriser, ce qui met le Droit de la Compliance face au Droit de la Concurrence, alliances souvent noués par contrat et pour lesquelles l'office du juge est renouvelé, notamment à travers les techniques de médiation.

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Choix et embranchements de compétences lorsqu'un enjeu de vigilance est allégué, document de travail, novembre 2024.

____

🧮Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour constituer la base d'une intervention à la conférence Le droit processuel de la vigilance, du 18 novembre 2024

qui fait partie du cycle de conférences sur Le contentieux systémique,

____

📕Ce document de travail sera aussi la base d'une contribution pour l'ouvrage publié en 2025.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : 

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation: a necessity for organizing it​ , Working Paper, December 2024.

____

🎤This working paper was drawn up to serve as the basis for the speech that opened the colloquium L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent, in the cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent," which was held in French on 16 December 2024 at the Paris Court of Appeal.

____

📝It will also constitute the basis of the first contribution to the book to be published in French in 2025, Le contentieux systémique émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation).

____

► Summary of this Working Paper : Systemic Litigation is for the moment a practice that has not been clearly identified. This is a handicap in practice, firstly because it can be confused with other things, such as the "systemic method" that this category of Litigation calls for and to which it cannot be reduced and which this method exceeds, and secondly because if this practice is not conceptualised, secondly, because if this practice is not conceptualised, even if only by a shared definition, it is difficult for the courts to organise themselves and for the potential parties to the dispute and to the proceedings to anticipate the procedural and substantive solutions that will be adopted tomorrow. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that not all emerging disputes are Systemic and not all systemic disputes are emerging. For example, banking regulation litigation and litigation concerning the operation of competitive markets or sectoral regulation are systemic disputes that are not emerging. But it so happens that technological developments have given rise to new systemic litigation, which the courts, judges and parties have had to adapt to because the systems themselves are entering the courthouses.

A series of conferences has been organised to report on this practice, focusing on technology, legislation, management, court organisation, procedure and the role of the judge.

They have thus made it possible to build up common, cross-disciplinary knowledge so that innovations can be developed and expressed in the organisation of the courts, in procedures, particularly in the relationship between judges and lawyers, and in the openness of proceedings, in the conception of the judge's office, which must be singular when the case, because a systemic is implied, is systemic. This specificity leads to judges who are less hierarchical among themselves and more specialised, leading to procedural forms that place dialogue and adversarial proceedings no longer as a desire and support but as the primary guiding principle.

____

🔓read the developments of this Working Paper below⤵️

► 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).

________

🌐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, "Les spécificités à concevoir dans l'audience publique des contentieux systémiques de vigilance" ("The Specific Features of Public Hearings to conceive on Vigilance Systemic Litigation"), 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: 

________

🌐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 ⤵️

________

► Référence complète : Ch. Maubernard & A. Brès (dir.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. L'âge de la maturité ?, Bruxelles, Bruylant, coll. "Droit & Économie", 258 p.

____

📗lire la 4ième de couverture

____

📗lire le sommaire de l'ouvrage

____

📗lire la table des matières de l'ouvrage

____

► Présentation de l'ouvrage (fait par l'éditeur) : "L’adoption par le Parlement européen et le Conseil le 13 juin 2024 de la directive (UE) 2024/1760 sur le devoir de vigilance des entreprises en matière de durabilité constitue une étape décisive dans la prise en compte de la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Cette nouvelle législation européenne imposera aux entreprises qui entrent dans son champ d’application et qui agissent au sein du marché intérieur, y compris les entreprises étrangères, de se doter d’outils de vigilance afin de mettre un terme ou à tout le moins de limiter les incidences négatives que pourraient avoir leurs activités et celles de leurs partenaires sur la protection des droits de l’homme, de l’environnement et désormais de la lutte contre le changement climatique.

C’est à la suite de la proposition de la Commission européenne visant à faire adopter ce texte, qu’un colloque a été organisé à la Faculté de Droit et de Science politique de Montpellier en mai 2023. L’ouvrage est le résultat de ces fructueux échanges qui ont permis à d’éminents spécialistes, tant universitaires que de la vie des affaires et du monde associatif, de réfléchir aux incidences de cette nouvelle législation. Cet éclairage pluridisciplinaire a permis, en effet, de s’interroger sur l’articulation de la législation de l’Union européenne avec les législations nationales existantes (et en premier lieu la loi française de 2017) mais aussi, plus largement, sur le sens du devoir de vigilance.

L’ouvrage s’adresse ainsi aussi bien aux chercheurs intéressés par ces questions, qu’aux étudiants de Master et aux professionnels du Droit qui seront en première ligne pour accompagner les entreprises soumises au devoir de vigilance à se conformer à leurs obligations nouvelles.".

____

📝consulter une présentation de l'article de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche : "Devoir de vigilance : progresser"

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance : progresser" ("Duty of Vigilance: the Way Forward"), in Ch. Maubernard & A. Brès (eds.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. L'âge de la maturité ? (The duty of vigilance. The age of maturity?), Bruylant, "Droit & Economie" Serie, 2024, pp. 221-251

____

📝read the article (in French) 

____

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

____

► English Summary of the article: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

________

🌐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)

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Duty of vigilance: the way forward, Working Paper, December 2023/July 2024.

____

🎤 This working paper has been drawn up to serve as a basis for the conclusions of the colloquium Le devoir de vigilance: l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?") organised by the University of Montpellier on 25 May 2023.

_____

📝 Updated and developed, it serves as the basis for the article that concludes the book Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?"), Editions Bruylant, 2024.

____

► Working Paper summary: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

____

🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️

► Référence complète : S. Schiller, "La directive sur le devoir de vigilance. Appréciation du champ d’application, des obligations imposées et des sanctions au regard de la loi française", JCP E, n°27, 4 juillet 2024, étude 1207, pp. 16-26

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteure) : "Après 3 années de débats, la directive sur le Devoir de vigilance des entreprises en matière de durabilité a été adoptée par les parlementaires européens le 24 avril 2024. Texte de compromis, il contient des avancées majeures vers plus de sécurité, de fraternité et d’égalité. Vu la richesse de ce texte, seuls quelques points seront abordés dans cette étude : tout d’abord les entreprises concernées, puis les obligations imposées et, enfin, les sanctions prévues. La mise en perspective avec la loi vigilance applicable depuis 7 ans permet de mesurer l’importance de ce nouveau texte, même si de nombreux points sont en sus- pens dans l’attente de la transposition.".

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation, March 2024.

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis for the contribution "The will, the heart and the calculation, the three traits encercling the Compliance Obligation", in📘Compliance Obligation.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: There is often a dispute over the pertinent definition of Compliance Law, but the scale and force of the resulting obligation for the companies subject to it is clear.  It remains difficult to define. First, we must not to be overwhelmed by the many obligations through which the Compliance Obligation takes shape, such as the obligation to map, to investigate, to be vigilant, to sanction, to educate, to collaborate, and so on. Not only this obligations list is very long, it is also open-ended, with companies themselves and judges adding to it as and when companies, sectors and cases require. 

Nor should we be led astray by the distance that can be drawn between the contours of this Compliance Obligation, which can be as much a matter of will, a generous feeling for a close or distant other in space or time, or the result of a calculation. This plurality does not pose a problem if we do not concentrate all our efforts on distinguishing these secondary obligations from one another but on measuring what they are the implementation of, this Compliance Obligation which ensures that entities, companies, stakeholders and public authorities, contribute to achieving the Goals targeted by Compliance Law, Monumental Goals which give unity to the Compliance Obligation.  Thus unified by the same spirit, the implementation of all these secondary obligations, which seem at once disparate, innumerable and often mechanical, find unity in their regime and the way in which Regulators and Judges must control, sanction and extend them, since the Compliance Obligation breathes a common spirit into them.

 In the same way that the multiplicity of compliance techniques must not mask the uniqueness of the Compliance Obligation, the multiplicity of sources must not produce a similar screen. Indeed, the Legislator has often issued a prescription, an order with which companies must comply, Compliance then often being perceived as required obedience. But the company itself expresses a will that is autonomous from that of the Legislator, the vocabulary of self-regulation and/or ethics being used in this perspective, because it affirms that it devotes forces to taking into consideration the situation of others when it would not be compelled to do so, but that it does so nonetheless because it cares about them. However, the management of reputational risks and the value of bonds of trust, or a suspicious reading of managerial choices, lead us to say that all this is merely a calculation.

Thus, the contribution sets out to identify the Compliance Obligation by recognising the role of all these different sources. It emphasises that, in monitoring the proper performance of technical compliance obligations by Managers, Regulators and Judges, insofar as they implement the Compliance Obligation, it is pointless to limit oneself to a single source or to rank them abruptly in order of importance. The Compliance Obligation is part of the very definition of Compliance Law, built on the political ambition to achieve these Monumental Goals of preserving systems - banking, financial, energy, digital, etc. - in the future, so that human beings who cannot but depend on them are not crushed by them, or even benefit from them. This is the teleological yardstick by which the Compliance Obligation is measured, and with it all the secondary obligations that give it concrete form, whatever their source and whatever the reason why the initial standard was adopted.

In order to define Compliance's Obligation, the contribution endeavours to recognise the contribution of all these three sources: Will, Heart and Calculation. 

_____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les voies d'innovations juridiques face aux nouveaux "défis climatiques" ("Innovative legal solutions to the new "climate challenges""), in C. Arnaud, O. de Bandt et B. Deffains (dir.), Nouveaux défis - Regards croisés : Droit, Économie et Finance. Quel Droit face au Changement Climatique ? (("New challenges - Crossed perspectives : Law, Economics and Finance. What Law in the Face of Climate Change?"), Banque de France (French Central Bank) and CRED/Paris Panthéon-Assas University, Paris, Centre de Conférence de la Banque de France, April 2, 2024

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

🔲see the slides, basis of this conference (in French)

____

► Summary of this conference: In response to the question of how the Law can produce 'innovations' to meet the 'climate challenges', the process is based on the three traditional sources of Law, which are, firstly, laws and regulations, secondly, the commitments of individuals, mainly contracts, and thirdly, court rulings.

At first sight, the Law in its traditional conception and practice is weak in the face of climate change. This weakness is inherent in the nature of climate change, which is at once future, global and systemic, in the face of these three sources of Law, which do not address all three dimensions at once. The scale of the legal innovation required to ensure that one or more articulated sources can grasp the future, the global and the systemic is therefore clear. And yet this is what is happening.

As far as laws and regulations are concerned, they do not seem very appropriate because they are, by their very nature, a territorial limit, and international treaties are very difficult to negotiate. The interweaving of European regulations, for example the CSRD and the CS3D, which mirror each other, may be more effective. As far as 'commitments' are concerned, a concept which in Law is not very precise outside of contracts and liability cases📎!footnote-3568, contracts are above all a means for companies to fulfill their legal obligations, and a contract always implies a judge. At first sight, however, the judge is the least well placed to respond to 'climate challenges', particularly in France where he is said or wished to be powerless, where he rules on the past and where, especially the civil judge, he settles a one-off dispute between two singular parties.

But a major change has occurred with the emergence of a new branch of law: the Compliance Law, a teleological branch of Law whose legal normativity is lodged in the Monumental Goals📎!footnote-3572 that it pursues, namely the preservation of systems, for example the climate system. In France, the so-called "Sapin 2" law in 2016, followed by the so-called "Vigilance" law in 2017, illustrate this. And the Judge is at the centre of it all.

In this global, systemic, extraterritorial perspective, the object of which is the future - Compliance Law is, moreover, rejected by many legal experts - the legislative innovation is major. Indeed, the law of 23 March 2017, known as "Vigilance" designated large companies, because they are "powerful", because they are "in a position to act" to "detect and prevent" breaches of the environment and human rights. The 2017 law copied the "compliance tools"📎!footnote-3573 put in place by the Sapin 2 anti-corruption law: risk mapping, plans, alerts, audits, internal investigations, and so on. 

Only large companies are subject to the Compliance Law, notably the Vigilance Law, since they are the only ones in a position to act, in this case "parent companies or principals", and borders are no longer limits since the obligation, creating personal liability for the company📎!footnote-3574, extends throughout the "value chain". The notion and fact of "systemic dispute" is emerging before the courts. In France, the Paris Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction. European legislation is proving more difficult to draw up, because although it is compulsory to provide information on these "extra-financial" subjects (CSRD), the directive on the duty of vigilance, which has just been adopted, does not go any further than the French law of 2017.

On the second point, that of commitments, we are only at the beginning. Judges do not transform ethical statements into "unilateral legal commitments", and vigilance does not transform company law into co-management. But contracts do form a global network through which companies adjust their various legal obligations. This is why arbitrators, the only "global judges", will soon be involved in this systemic litigation📎!footnote-3575, and more general case law is to come on "compliance contracts and clauses"📎!footnote-3576.

But the most innovative aspect undoubtedly comes from the courts. Perhaps and notably in France because it is from where we least expect it, the civil courts, that the imagination comes, but also the guarding of the great principles of the Rule of Law, because for the moment the case law is reasonable. This innovation has not come about proprio motu: the judges are not taking action, it is the NGOs that are conducting a kind of litigation policy, systematically giving formal notice to the major energy companies, but also to the major banks and insurers on climate issues, alleging non-compliance with their vigilance plans. The interim relief judge at the Paris Court of First Instance must then provide answers in systemic disputes, of which the so-called "Total Uganda"📎!footnote-3577 case is an example.

The courts are demonstrating a great deal of innovation. The Court of First Instance's interim relief judge has appointed amici curiae📎!footnote-3569, the Paris Court of Appeal has set up a specialised chamber📎!footnote-3570, and training conferences have been set up on this "Emerging Systemic Litigation"📎!footnote-3571.

In conclusion, Law is in the process of being rebuilt through a new branch of Law, Compliance Law, whose the very purpose, as an extension of and going beyond Regulatory Law📎!footnote-3578, is to preserve systems, in particular the climate system, in a profoundly renewed role for judges📎!footnote-3580.

________

► Référence complète : C. Del Cont, "La responsabilité", in J.-B. Racine (dir.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, LGDJ, coll. "Droit & Économie", 2020, pp. 631-653

____

📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, dans lequel cet article est publié 

____

► Résumé de l'article : 

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : C. Coupet & J. Heinich, "Devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre : une loi finalement adoptée, mais amputée", Dr. sociétés, n°5, mai 2017, comm. 78, pp. 29-31

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : S. Schiller, "Exégèse de la loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d'ordre", JCP E, n°15, 13 avril 2017, étude 1193, pp. 19-27

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : Loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre

____

► lire la loi

____

📝commentaires de cette loi : 

• Dr. sociétés, n°5, mai 2017, comm. 75, note J. Heinich
• S. Schiller, "Exégèse de la loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d'ordre", JCP E, n°15, 13 avril 2017, étude 1193, pp. 19-27
• JCP E, n° 13-14, 30 mars 2017, act. 250

________