Publications

📝Concevoir l'Obligation de Compliance : faire usage de sa position pour participer à la réalisation des Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance (Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals), in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L'Obligation de Compliance

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Concevoir l'Obligation de Compliance : faire usage de sa position pour participer à la réalisation des Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance" ("Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2024, to be published

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____

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

____

► English summary of this contribution: Rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a incipient branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they must apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only penalised in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means.

Although it might be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations, starting from this observation in the Compliance Evidentiary System of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether we are dealing with this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would appear that this plurality does not constitute a definitive obstacle to the creation of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable mass of regulations.

Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this branch of Law is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (efficacy) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the aim is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else - all of which come under the heading of efficiency.

The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, linked with these Goals. Moreover, because these structures (warning platforms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.) only have meaning in order to produce effects and behaviour leading to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account.

Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the Entreprise's position, ultimately aims at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial economic operator, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave.

________

Regulation and economic law

May 29, 2024

Editorial responsibilities : Direction of the collection Compliance & Regulation, JoRC and Bruylant

Publication of :🕴️ M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.),📘 Compliance Obligation

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

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

____

📕In parallel, a book in French L'Obligation de compliance, is published in the collection "Régulations & Compliance" co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

____

📚This book is inserted in this series created by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for developing Compliance Law.

read the presentations of the other books of this Compliance Series:

further books:

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📘Le système probatoire de la compliance, 2025

previous books:

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Juridictionnalisation, 2023

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021

____

► go to the general presentation of this 📚Series Compliance & Regulation, conceived, founded et managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

____

🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia 2023 organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners.

____

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

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

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

____

🏗️general construction of the book

The book opens with a double Introduction. The first, which is freely accessible, is a summary of the book, while the second, which is substantial, deals with the future development of the compliance obligation in a borderless economic system.

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

The second part presents commitments and contracts, in certain new or classic categories, in particular public contracts, and compliance stipulations, analysed and qualified regarding Compliance Law and the various relevant branches of Law.

The third part develops the responsibilities attached to the compliance obligation.

The fourth part refers to the institutions that are responsible for the effectiveness, efficiency, and efficacy of the compliance obligation, including the judge and the international arbitrator.

The fifth part takes the Obligation or Duty of Vigilance as an illustration of all these considerations.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Plutôt que de se plonger dans les disputes de définitions, en cours du fait que le Droit de la Compliance est lui-même une branche du Droit naissance, l'idée de cette contribution est de partir des différents régimes de si multiples et diverses obligations de compliances auxquelles les lois et réglementations assujettissent les grandes entreprises : elles doivent parfois les appliquer à la lettre et parfois ne sont sanctionner qu'en cas de faute ou négligence. Cela renvoie à la distinction entre obligation de résultat et obligation de moyens.

Bien qu'il soit hasardeux de transposer à des obligations légales l'expression et le régime des obligations contractuelles, en partant de ce constat dans le système probatoire de la compliance d'une pluralité d'obligations de moyens et de résultat, suivant qu'il s'agit de telle ou telle obligation technique de compliance, au classement desquelles il faut tout d'abord procéder. Il apparait alors que cette pluralité ne constituera pas un obstacle définitif à la constitution d'une définition unique de ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance. Cela permet au contraire de l'éclaircir, de tracer les allées dans ce qui est si souvent qualifié de fatras juridique, de masse réglementaire immaitrisable.

En effet, en tant que l'entreprise obligée au titre du Droit de la Compliance participe à la réalisation des Buts Monumentaux qui fondent normativement celui-ci, obligation légale éventuellement relayée par le contrat voire par l'éthique, elle ne peut être qu'une obligation de moyens, en raison même de cette nature téléologique et de l'ampleur des buts visés, par exemple l'heureux dénouement de la crise climatique qui commence ou l'égalité effective souhaitée entre les êtres humains. Ce principe acquis laisse place au fait que ces comportements demandés sont jalonnés par des process mis en place par des outils structurés, le plus souvent légalement décrits, par exemple l'établissement d'un plan de vigilance ou des formations régulièrement organisées (effectivité), sont des obligations de résultat, tandis que les effets heureux produits par ce plan ou ces formations (efficacité) sont des obligations de moyens. C'est encore plus le cas lorsqu'il s'agit d'obtenir la transformation de l'ensemble du système, c'est-à-dire une solidité acquise du système, une culture d'égalité, un respect de chacun à l'égard de tous, ce qui relève de l'efficience.

L'Obligation de Compliance apparaît ainsi unifiée parce que graduellement, et quelles que soient les diverses obligations de compliance dont il s'agit, leur intensité ou leur secteur, ses préalables structurels de process sont n premier lieu des structures à établir auxquelles le Droit, à travers notamment le Juge, demandera qu'elles sont sont mises en place mais ne demandera pas plus, tandis que tendre vers la réalisation des Buts monumentaux précités sera une obligation de moyens, ce qui peut paraître plus léger, mais correspond à une ambition incommensurable, à la hauteur de ces Buts. En outre, parce que ces structures (les plateformes d'alerte, les formation, les audits, les contrats et les clauses, etc.), n'ont de sens que pour produire des effets et des comportements aboutissant à des modifications convergents vers les buts monumentaux, ce sont les obligations de moyens qui ont le plus d'importance et non pas les obligations de résultat. De cela aussi le Juge doit tenir compte.

Enfin, l'Obligation de compliance, qui consiste donc par cet intermaillage de multiples obligations de compliance de résultat et de moyens d'utiliser la position vise in fine à une efficience des systèmes, en Europe à une civilisation des systèmes, ce pour quoi les entreprises doivent montrer non pas tant qu'elles ont bien suivi les process (résultat) mais que cela a produit des effets qui convergent avec les buts recherchés par le Législateur (effets produits selon une trajectoire crédible). C'est ainsi que doit s'organiser et se comporter une entreprise cruciale, responsable Ex Ante.

___

🔓lire les développements ci-dessous⤵️

Regulation and economic law

Get our newsletters

TABLE OF CONTENTS