Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Why do we regulate? If it is to prevent systemic risks, systemic "family offices" must be subject to it (Archegos case) (Pourquoi régule-t-on? Si c'est pour prévenir les risques systémiques, les "family offices" systémiques doivent y être soumis (cas Archegos)), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 30th of March 2021

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news: 

Archegos was a wealth management company whose activity consisted mainly in managing funds that were not themselves from the financial markets (hence its title of "family office"). Obviously, Archegos was proving to be too fragile financially in view of the highly speculative commitments it made on the financial markets and systemic banks were particularly deeply affected by the liquidation of large amounts by Archegos to be able to respond to margin calls.

As the mandate of the financial regulatory authorities is aimed almost exclusively at the protection of public savings, Archegos completely escaped the regulation and supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, Regulation Law also aims to prevent and manage systemic risks, which are often multi-sectoral and even trans-sectoral, and this in a teleological way. In view of this and the increasingly important place taken by speculative behavior in the financial markets, the financial regulatory authorities must give up the condition of using public savings in their consideration of operators which should be regulated because even an operator not handling public savings can threaten the existence of financial markets. From this perspective, "family offices", not handling public savings but having a systemic dimension, must come under the regulation and supervision of financial regulatory authorities.

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Appliquer la notion de "Raison d'être" à la profession du Notariat", audition par le Conseil supérieur du notariat (CSN), 5 mars 2021.

____

🔴trois ans plus tard, cette démonstration fût reprise et approfondie dans une audition devant le Conseil Supérieur du Notariat à propos de la Compliance, sur laquelle un rapport était élaboré, les notions de raison d'être et de compliance étant intimement corrélées comme cela est montré ci-dessous : consulter la présentation de l'audition de 2024..

____

Résumé de l'intervention débutant l'audition : L'on peut prendre "raison d'être" dans son sens courant et dans son sens plus juridique. Dans son sens courant, il est bien difficile de déterminer ce qu'est une "raison d'être". Le plus souvent on ne le traduit pas, en anglais on dira purpose , c'est-à-dire ce qui caractérise l'être humain par rapport à la machine, comme le souligna Alain Supiot, tandis que la langue japonaise le traduit comme Ikigaï, ce qui va animer la personne. L'on sent bien que le souffle de l'esprit passe dans cette notion, qui anime la personne, la porte dans une action qui ne sera pas mécanique, qui va la dépasser elle-même, la fait tout à la fois se distinguer des autres et se rapprocher de ses alter ego.... 

Mais le Droit a transformé cette notion, si proche de l'éthique, voire de l'art, par laquelle l'individu est "transporté dans le temps par une action partagée avec quelque uns, en un "conception juridique". Cette expression de "raison d'être" est aujourd'hui estampillée par le Droit. A travers une vision renouvelée de l'Entreprise, désormais portée par la législation.  En tant qu'une entreprise, selon une définition fortement développée par Alain Supiot est un "projet commun" qui vise une action commune concrétisant un projet conçu ensemble pour être réalisé dans le futur, l'organisation et les moyens n'étant que le reflet de cela. Dans cette définition de l'entreprise, centrée sur la "raison d'être", l'organisation, les moyens, les pouvoirs et les droits de chacun, les rouages internes et les intérêts extérieurs ne sont pas premiers, ils sont totalement imprégnés par cette "raison d'être". Dire la raison d'être, l'affirmer et savoir précisément ce qu'elle est dessine la régime applicable. C'est pourquoi la "raison d'être" a changé en 2019 le Droit des sociétés et le Droit financier. 

 Elle fût d'abord adoptée par le rapport que Nicole Notat et Dominique Senard remirent le 9 mars 2018 au Ministre de l'Economie et des Finances en réponse à la question posée par celui-ci : l'entreprise peut-elle contribuer à l'intérêt général ? Et la réponse tînt dans cette expression-là : pourquoi pas, si c'est la "raison d'être" de l'entreprise que de s'arracher à la seule préoccupation de se développer afin de devenir toujours plus riche, d'avoir aussi un projet qui inclut le souci d'autrui, d'un autrui qui n'ait pas pour seul souci l'appât du gain, d'avoir le souci d'un intérêt autre (les autres visant pour les auteurs de ce rapport "l'intérêt collectif" et non plus l'intérêt général), par exemple l'intérêt de la Terre, dont la temporalité excède celle de la vie humaine, si fortunée soit cette vie de l'actionnaire et si somptueuse soit la tombe de celui-ci. 

La "raison d'être" est donc une notion juridique. A ce titre le Droit des sociétés a changé et l'on en rend les mandataires sociaux responsables : ils doivent montrer qu'ils ont pris en charge d'autres intérêts. L'article 1833 du Code civil a été modifié dans ce sens. Pour pouvoir remplir les nouvelles obligations qu'engendre l'évolution de leur mandat fiduciaire, cela justifie un élargissement de leur "pouvoir" car il est plus difficile encore de faire le bien d'autrui en plus de que rendre riche les associés. Si en plus il faut se soucier de l'environnement et de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes ... Les études pleuvent non seulement sur la pertinence managériale et financière de l'approche (plutôt favorable) mais encore juridique (par exemple lorsqu'il y a une offre publique, l'offreur devrait-il démontrer qu'il ferait plus que le bonheur des investisseurs en se saisissant du contrôle de la société-cible ?). 

Parle de "raison d'être", c'est donc appliquer un régime juridique à une organisation. Il est fructueux de prendre l'expression au sérieux, c'est-à-dire au pied de sa lettre juridique, car si le Droit est toujours ancré dans le langage courant, les mots gagnent souvent en rigueur et précision par leur entrée dans l'espace juridique. Dans le Droit des sociétés, on a pu critiquer la notion en tant qu'elle diluait la notion d'intérêt social dans de l'insécurité juridique, mais cela permet aussi à l'organisation en cause d'avoir plus de liberté pour poser par sa volonté propre ce pour quoi elle consacre ses prérogatives. Puisque c'est l'entreprise elle-même qui va pose publiquement quelle est sa "raison d'être" (comme elle a posé son objet social) 

La "raison d'être" a été conçue pour une "entreprise", pour laquelle la "personnalité morale" a été définie comme n'étant qu'un instrument juridique qui lui permet d'accéder au commerce juridique, selon l'acception retenue par le rapport Notat-Senard. Le Droit va donc vers de plus en plus de "réalisme". 

Le notariat se prête particulièrement bien à la notion juridique de "raison d'être". Pour trois raisons. En premier lieu, parce que le Notariat est une profession et que les professions sont des organisations qui sont souvent animées par des projets communs, un esprit commun. C'est même précisément cela que le Droit de la concurrence leur reproche, cette "entente" autour d'une communauté de valeurs, cristallisée par des règles d'organisation (même si l'évolution de ce Droit dans le bon accueil de l'organisation des "groupes de sociétés", notamment face à un appel d'offre montre que cette branche du Droit évolue).

En deuxième lieu, une étude notariale est une entreprise. Pourquoi ne pas l'admettre, et même prendre appui sur cela ? Parce que le Droit des sociétés a si fortement évolué avec la loi Pacte, l'on pourrait considérer que structurellement une étude notariale est une "entreprise à mission". Ce qui doit conduire la profession à étudier de très près ce statut emprunté au Droit britannique, droit incontestablement libéral qui conçoit qu'une entreprise se développe et fasse un chiffre d'affaires, mais pas que. 

En troisième lieu, les entreprises à mission se développent dans une architecture institutionnelle par laquelle elles doivent donner à voir l'effectivité de la concrétisation de leur mission. Il a donc deux impératifs : dire exactement quelle est cette mission en amont et donner à voir à tous (et pas seulement à l'Etat) que cette mission, qui justifie de s'écarter du Droit commun de la rencontrer de l'offre et de la demande) est remplie : cela est confiée à la "profession", cadre institutionnel indispensable qui exerce un contrôle permanent (et non pas des contrôles ponctuels comme le font les Autorités de concurrence). 

Dès lors, si l'on observe que l'étude notariale a une activité économique de service, ce qui est le cas, elle est légitime comme toute entreprise à avoir une "raison d'être", voire à être une "entreprise à mission". Si en outre, elle appartient à une "profession", elle est alors imprégnée de la "raison d'être" de celle-ci, ce qui n'entame pas sa nature d'entreprise (I). Les professions ne se ressemblant pas et la "raison d'être" donnant à chacun son identité, il convient de prendre au sérieux celle du Notariat pour en tirer à l'avenir les conséquences techniques (II). 

Lire le plan de l'intervention ci-dessous.

► Référence complète : L. d'Ambrosio, "Le devoir de vigilance : une innovation juridique entre continuités et ruptures", Droit & Société, n° 106, 2020, p. 633-648.

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : "Cette contribution analyse les origines de la notion de devoir de vigilance. A cette fin, elle reconstruit les rapports de filiation entre cette notion et celle de "due diligence", devenue ces derniers temps une notion clé pour caractériser la responsabilité des Etats et des entreprises concernant les atteintes graves a des valeurs protégées par le droit international (environnement, santé, droits de l'homme, etc.). L'article vise ainsi à repérer les lignes de continuité ainsi que celles de rupture qui marquent l'introduction et la traduction du devoir de vigilance dans le système juridique français : les unes comme les autres permettront en effet de présenter les contours de cette innovation juridique et d'en saisir la portée dans le cadre du plus large processus d'institution d'une responsabilité juridique des entreprises dans l'horizon de la globalisation."

________

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'impossible unicité juridique de la catégorie des "lanceurs d'alertes" ("The impossible legal unicity of the category of "whistleblowers""), in Chacornac, J. (dir.), Lanceurs d'alertes, regards comparatistes, ("Whistleblowers, comparative perspectives"), Publications of the Centre français de droit comparé ("French Comparative Law Center"), May 2020, Volume 21, p.13-31. 

Read the article (in French).   

Read the general presentation of the collective book in which this article is published

Read the bilingual working paper which had served of basis for this article. 

Read the presentation of the conference "Les lanceurs d'alertes: glose" (Whistleblowers: glose") and especially the slides elabored for the colloquium organized by the Centre français de droit comparé ("French Comparative Law Center") on 23th of November 2018 under the direction of Jérôme Chacornac

____

Introduction of the article

"Whistleblowers". This is a new expression. Which is a great success. Barely heard once, we hear it everywhere ...

A topic not of course or knowledge test, but rather a topic of daily conversation. Because it is spoken to us every day, in more or less gracious terms. For example President Donald Trump on October 1, 2019 declared to the press "want to question" the whistleblower who would have illegally denounced him and would not, according to him, have the right to conceal his identity, proof in this according to him of the lying character of his assertions against him, while his lawyer indicates on October 6, 2019 that he is not speaking on behalf of a single whistleblower thus taken to task but of a plurality of people who gave information against the President of the United States. Even the most imaginative screenwriters would not have written such brutal and rapid twists and turns. Spectators, we are waiting for the next episode, secretly hoping for the escalation.

And precisely if we go to the cinema, it is still a whistleblower whose dedication and success, we are told about, even the drama, for the benefit of global society, and in particular democracy, since the secrets are fought for the benefit of the truth. The Secret Man designates Mark Felt as the first whistleblower. Returning to what we often present as being a more "serious" media!footnote-1391, we listen to France-Culture and here is another story told by a historian who worked as an archivist on events that political power would have liked to keep hidden by possibly destroying their traces but which its trade led to preserve: here it is expressly presented to the studious listeners like a "whistleblower" .... While the same radio tries to find the one who could well be, as in a kind of contest the "first whistleblower"!footnote-1727? .... This rewriting of History can be defended because ultimately what did other Voltaire do for Calas, or Zola for Dreyfus?

It is also a subject of legislative discussion since in the United States the Dodd-Frank law of 2010 inserted in the law of 1934 which established the Securities & Exchanges Commission a complete device of remuneration and remuneration of the whistleblowers, whereas after having developed flexible but guiding lines in this regard in 2012!footnote-1698, the European Commission published on November 20, 2018 the text of what will become a Directive intended to give a unified European status to the character, in the system gradually developed to protect the one who was presented in 2018 as that "cannot be punished for having done what is right".

In Europe, the Directive first approved by a Resolution of the European Parliament on April 16, 2019 on the protection of persons denouncing breaches of Union Law and then adopted on October 7, 2019 (Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Union on the Protection of Persons who Report Violations of European Union Law, different title, it should be noted, will have to be transposed into the laws of the Member States within the next two years. , since only "violations of Union Law" are targeted, but the character of the "whistleblower" is more generally targeted: he is "whole"!footnote-1699.

In short, the whistleblower is a star!footnote-1390. A sort of historical figure, covered in blows and glory, going from Voltaire to Snowden, both of whom find themselves embodied on the screens!footnote-1681 ....,

Consecrated by law, which associates with it a legal regime of protection to such an extent that, like a Nessus tunic, it is this legal regime which will define the character and not the reverse. When we read the law of December 9, 2016 relating to transparency in the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life, known as "Sapin 2", we notice that the Legislator makes much of this character, since 'he dedicates its chapter II to him!footnote-1682: "From the protection of whistleblowers", and that it is by his very protection that he formally opens the door of Right to him.

But why a plural? Admittedly when we read the recitals of the Community Directive of October 7, 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers!footnote-1702, it is only a list of all the subjects on which it is a good idea to protect them, which therefore prompts us to see in this plural only the index of this non-exhaustive list of subjects which it is good to tell us, a sign of the lack of definition of who should alert us. Reading the French law known as "Sapin 2" makes it less severe but more perplexing. Indeed, this plurality referred to by the title of the chapter devoted to "whistleblowers", there is no longer any question in the rest of the law, in the very definition which follows, article 6 which opens this chapter devoted to "whistleblowers" offering the reader immediately a singular since it begins as follows: "A!footnote-1684 whistleblower is a person ...". No mention of diversity. The art of legislative writing would however have required that the qualifying article not only be singular but that it should not yet be undefined. Stendhal if he had still deigned to have the law for bedside book would have wanted to find at the beginning of chapter a sentence like: "The!footnote-1683 whistleblower is a person ...".

Thus seem to contradict themselves within the law "Sapin 2 the very title which presents the character, in that it uses a defined plural (the) while the defining article which presents it is in the undefined singular (one). ...

Here is a first reason not to advance any more but in a very careful way, in this "step by step" that constitutes a reading word for word: a gloss. This consists of taking the expression itself literally. The second reason for this technical choice is that the gloss is well suited to the introduction of a collective work, thus allowing more targeted developments to take place in other contributions, on the techniques, the difficulties and the limits of this protection, or on its history, or the reasons for the arrival in French law of these whistleblowers and the way they develop, or not, elsewhere.

I am therefore going to content myself with taking this already legal expression to the letter: The (I) whistle (III). blowers (II). 

This working paper served as a basis for a conference done in French for the Centre de droit comparé (Center for Comparative Law) in Paris on 23 November 2018.

Updated, it has served as a basis for an article published in French in a book of the Société de Législation comparé (Society of Comparative Legislation).

________

"The whistleblowers". This is a new expression. Which wins a full success. Barely heard once, we hear it everywhere ...

A theme not only of academic teaching, but rather a topic of daily conversation. Because it is every day that we speak about it, in terms more or less graceful. For example President Donald Trump on October 1, 2019 told the press he "wants to interrogate" the whistleblower who would have unlawfully denounced him and would not have, according to him, the right to conceal his own identity, evidence in this according Donald Trump of the false character of his assertions against him, while his lawyer indicates on October 6, 2019 that he does not speak on behalf of a single whistleblower thus taken apart but of a plurality people who gave information against the President of the United States. Even the most imaginative scriptwriters would not have written twists as abruptly or so fast. Spectators, we wait for the next episode, secretly hoping for climbs and slashs.

Precisely if we go to the cinema, it is still a whistleblower whose dedication and success, or even drama, we are told, for the benefit of the global society, and especially of Democracy, since the secrets are fought for the benefit of the truth. Thus, the movie The Secret Man designates Mark Felt as the first whistleblower. Returning to what is often presented as a more "serious" media, for example in France the radio "France Culture" we can learn the story of a historian who worked as an archivist on events that the political power would have wanted to keep hidden by possibly destroying their traces but that his profession led to preserve!footnote-1391: here it is expressly presented to the studious listeners as a "whistleblower" ... While the same radio is trying to find the one that could be, as in a kind of contest, the "first whistleblowers"!footnote-1727?. This rewriting of History can be made because finally Voltaire for Calas, or Zola for Dreyfus did they anything else? 

It is also a topic of legislative debate since in the United States the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 inserted in the 1934 law that established the Securities & Exchanges Commission (SEC) a complete system for retribution and remuneration of whistleblowers, while after elaborating guidelines about about in 2012!footnote-1698, the European Commission has published the text on November 20, 2018 in order to give the character a unified European status, in the device gradually developed to protect the one that was presented in 2018 as who  like that : ""The new whistleblowers' protection rules will be a game changer. In the globalised world where the temptation to maximise profit sometimes at the expense of the law is real we need to support people who are ready to take the risk to uncover serious violations of EU law. We owe it to the honest people of Europe.". Step for the Directive of October 7, 2019. 

In Europe, the Directive first approved by a Resolution of the European Parliament on 16 April 2019 on protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law and then adopted on 7 October 2019 (Directive 2019/78 (EU) of the European Parliament European Union and the Council of the European Union on the Protection of Persons Reporting Breaches of Union law, will have to be transposed in the next two years to the legal systems of the Member States. is not general, since only "violations of European Union Law" are targeted but the character of the "whistleblower" is more generally referred to: it is "whole"!footnote-1699.

In short, the whistleblower is a star !footnote-1390. A kind of historical character, covered with blows and glory, going from Voltaire to Snowden, one as the other being incarnated on the screens!footnote-1681 ....

Recognized by national legislations, which associate to him a legal regime of protection to such a point that, like a tunic of Nessus, it is this legal regime which will define his character and not the opposite. When we read the French law of December 9, 2016 relative à la transparence à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique (on transparency in the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life), usually known as "Sapin 2 Act", we note that the lawmaker makes much of this character, because he devotes to him the chapter II: "De la protection des!footnote-1682 lanceurs d'alerte" ("The protection of!footnote-1682 whistle-blowers") and that it is by his very protection that the French Parliament formally opens the door of Law to him and throws it openly.

But why a plural? Certainly when we read the recitals of the European Directive of 7 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers!footnote-1702, this is only an enumeration of all the subjects about which it is a good idea to to protect them, which encourages us to see in this plural only the index of this non-exhaustive list of topics about which it is good that we are alerted, sign of the lack of definition ... Reading the French law known as "Sapin 2" makes us less severe but more perplex. Indeed, from this plurality covered by the title of the chapter devoted to Les lanceurs d'alerte ("The whistleblowers"), there is no longer any question in the rest of the law, in the very definition that follows, Article 6 which opens this chapter devoted the "whistleblowers" offering the player immediately a singular since it begins as follows:  "Un!footnote-1684 lanceur d'alerte est une personne ..." (A! footnote-1684 whistleblower is a person ..."). No more mention of diversity. The art of legislative writing would have even required that the qualifying article should not be singular but not yet indefinite. 

Thus seem to contradict in this law "Sapin 2" itself the very title which presents the character, in that it uses a definite plural ("the whistleblowers") while the article of definition which presents the topic does it by using the singular indefinite : "a whistleblower....".

This is a first reason to move forward only in a very cautious way, in this "step by step" that constitutes a word-by-word reading: a gloss. This method consists in taking literally the expression itself. The second reason for this technical choice is that the gloss is well suited to an introduction of a collective work, allowing more specific developments to take place in other contributions, for example on the techniques, the difficulties and the limits of this protection, or the history of it, or the reasons for the arrival in French law of these American or Brithish whistleblowers and the way they develop, or not, in other legal systems or other countries.

I will therefore content myself with taking again literally this already legal expression: The (I) launchers (II) of alert (III).

See below developments.

The European Banking Union is based on supervision as much as on regulation: it concerns the operators as much as the structures of the sector, because the operators "hold" the sector.

This is why the "regulator - supervisor" holds the operators by the supervision and is close to them.

He meets them officially and in "soft law" relations. This is all the more necessary since the distinction between the Ex Ante and the Ex Post must be nuanced, in that its application is too rigid, in that it involves a long time (first of all the rules, then to apply them, then to notice a gap between rules and behaviors, then to repair it) is not appropriate if the system aims at the prevention of systemic crises, whose source is inside the operators.

This is why the body in charge of solving the difficulties of the systemic banks for the salvation of the systeme meets the banking sector itself, to ensure that they are permanently "resolvable", so that the hypothesis of their resolution never arises. This is the challenge of this system: that it is always ready, for never be applying.

____

In the European Banking Union, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) is in charge of "resolve" the difficulties of European systemic banks in difficulty. It is the public body of the second pillar of the Banking Union. The first pillar is the prevention of these difficulties and the third is the guarantee of deposits. The resolution is therefore more like an Ex Post mechanism.

But in this continuum through these three pillars between the Ex Ante and the Ex Post, the SRB does not wait passively - as would a traditional judge do - that the file of the troubled bank reaches it. Like a supervisor - which brings it closer to the first public in the system (Single Supervisory Board -SSB), which supervises all the banks, it is in direct contact with all the banks, and it approaches the hypothesis of a bank in trouble by a systemic perspective: it is therefore to the entire banking system that the SRB addresses itself.

As such, it organizes meetings, where he is located: in Brussels.

Thus, on June 18, 2019, all banks came to discuss with the Single Resolution Board to know what it wants from the banks and for the banks, in what is called a "dialogue meeting".

To resolve in Ex Post the difficulties of a bank, it has to present a quality (a little known concept in Bankruptcy Law): "resolvability". How build it? Who build it ? In its very design and in its application, bank by bank.

For the resolution body vis-à-vis all players in the banking and financial sector, it's clear: "Working together" is crucial in building resolvability ".

In the projection that is made, it is affirmed that there can be a successful resolution only if the operator in difficulty is not deprived of access to what makes to stay it alive, that is to say the banking and financial system itself, and more specifically the "Financial Market Infrastructures", for example payment services.

Does the Single Resolution Board expect spontaneous commitments from the FMIs for such a "right of access"? In this case, as the Single Resolution Board says, this right of access corresponds to "critical functions" for a bank, the resolution situation can not justify the closure of the service.

By nature, these crucial operators are entities that report to regulators who oversee them. Who enforces - and immediately - this right of access? When one can think that it is everyone, it risks being nobody .... That is why the resolution body, relaying in this a concern of the Financial Stability Board, underlines that it is necessary to articulate the supervisors, regulators and "resolvers" between them.

_____

To read this program, since it is a proposed program of work for the banking sector, four observations can be made:

1. We are moving more and more towards a general "intermaillage" (which will perhaps replace the absence of a global State, but it is an similar nature because it is always to public authorities that it refers and not to self-regulation);

2. But as there is no political authority to keep these guardians, the entities that articulate all these various public structures, with different functions, located in different countries, acting according to different temporalities, these are the companies themselves that internalize the concern that animates those who built the system: here the prevention of systemic risk. This is the definition of Compliance, which brings back to companies, here more clearly those those which manage the Market Infrastructures, the obligations of Compliance (here the management of systemic risk through the obligation of giving access).

3. Even without a  single systemic guard, there is always a recourse. That will be the judge. There are already many, there will probably be more in a system of this type, more and more complex, the articulation of disputes is sometimes called "dialogue". And it is undoubtedly "decisions of principle" that will set the principles common to all of these particular organisms.

4. We then see the emergence of Ex Ante mechanisms for the solidity of the systems, and the solidity of the players in the systems, and then the Ex Post resolution of the difficulties of the actors according to access to the solidity of the infrastructures of these systems, which ultimately depend on judges (throughout the West) facing areas where all of this depends much less on the judge: the rest of the world.

____

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : avant, maintenant, après", in N. Borga, J. -Cl. Marin et J.-Ch. Roda, J.-Cl. (dir.), Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, Série Régulations & Compliance, Dalloz, 2018, p. 23-36. 

____

📝 Lire l'article 

____

🚧 Lire le document de travail sur la base duquel s'appuie l'article 

🚧 Read the working paper on which the article is based : Compliance : Before, Now, After. 

____

📝Lire l'autre article publié par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : Entreprise, Régulateur, Juge : penser la compliance par ces trois personnages. 

______

► Résumé de l'article : Autant l'admettre. Parce que devant des règles de "Compliance si nombreuses et si disparates l'on a tant de mal à s'y retrouver, l'on est contraint à partir dans des directions si changeantes, que nous nous consolons de leur poids, de leur coût et de l'incompréhension que nous en avons en disant que la "Compliance" est "complexe" et "transdisciplinaire", comme si les mots compliqués pouvaient masquer notre désarroi. Mais la "Compliance" n'est pas un cataclysme, une bombe envoyée par les américains pour anéantir l'Europe, la nouvelle forme d'une Guerre froide en habits juridiques ; c'est une façon de voir des choses qui vient de loin, avec une cohérence qui lui est propre et qu'il faut avant tout comprendre. Pour mieux s'y déployer.

Si l'on comprend d'où vient ce nouveau corpus qui contraint aujourd'hui les entreprises à prouver qu'elles prennent effectivement en charge la concrétisation de certains buts qui les dépassent, notamment la lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent, la fraude fiscale, mais aussi la lutte contre la vente des êtres humains ou la lutte pour la préservation de la nature et de la planète, alors l'on peut continuer l'histoire, dans une nouvelle alliance entre certaines entreprises et les autorités publiques.

En effet, toutes les entreprises ne sont pas visées par une telle internalisation de "buts monumentaux" en leur sein. Une entreprise ordinaire a quant à elle vocation à se développer pour réaliser un but qui est le sien. Le système de Compliance ne peut concerner que des "entreprises cruciales". S'il doit y avoir changement de projet poursuivi par l'entreprise, cela ne peut tenir qu'à sa "position" dans un système. Cette position peut avoir une source objective (entreprise systémique) ou une source subjective, parce que l'entreprise veut concrétiser ces buts globaux car elle veut être "responsable". Dans ce cas, l'entreprise supporte alors la charge de preuve qu'un tel discours de responsabilité nouvelle correspond à un comportement et à une culture effective. Le poids des règles existe déjà aujourd'hui. Et c'est encore comme cela qu'aujourd'hui d'une façon négative et passive que la Compliance est perçue, par ceux qui la "subissent" (entreprises), voire par ceux qui l'appliquent (autorités publiques).

La transformation vers une "culture de confiance, c'est l'enjeu d'un passage entre aujourd'hui et demain. En effet demain, c'est une relation de confiance qui pourrait se construire entre ces entreprises-là et les autorités publiques, parce qu'elles partageaient les informations (enjeu systémique), parce qu'elles seraient d'accord sur les buts monumentaux (tous centrés sur la protection des êtres humains, que le seul fonctionnement marchand ne peut produire, que les seuls États ne peuvent assurer).

En cela, la "Compliance" est avant tout un pari, celui de la place des êtres humains sur des marchés mondialisés.

____

English Summary of the article. We have to admit, because we find it difficult to find ourselves in front of so numerous and disparate rules, going in all directions and constantly changing, we console ourselves with their weight, their cost and our misunderstanding by affirming that Compliance is "complex" and "transdisciplinary", as if complicated words could mask our disarray. But "Compliance" is not a cataclysm, a bomb sent by the Americans to annihilate Europe, the new form of a Cold War in legal dress, it is a way of seeing things that comes from afar, with a coherence of its own and which must first be understood.

If one understands where this new corpus comes from, which now obliges companies to prove that they effectively take on the fulfillment of certain goals that go beyond them, notably the fight against money laundering, tax evasion , but also the fight against the sale of human beings or the struggle for the preservation of nature and the Earth, then we can continue the story.

Indeed, not all companies are targeted by such internalization of "monumental goals" within them." An ordinary enterprise is destined to develop itself in order to achieve a goal which is its own. The concern of these goals can only be for the "crucial enterprises. "If there is to be a change in the corporate project, then it can only depend on its" position "in a system, a financial, economic, social, global system, or because it has itself decided that it would be so. The company then bears the burden of proof that such a discourse of new responsibility corresponds to a behavior and an effective culture. The weight of the rules already exists today. And it is for the moment that now, in a negative and passive way, Compliance is perceived, by those who "undergo" it (companies), even by those who apply it (public authorities).

The transformation towards a "culture of trust" is the issue between today and tomorrow, because tomorrow, it is a relationship of trust that could be built between these companies and the public authorities, because they would share information (systemic issue), because they would agree on the less technical monumental goals (protection of human beings issue).

In this, "Compliance" is above all a bet, that of the place of human beings in globalized markets.

____

📕Lire une présentation générale du livre, Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, dans lequel cet article est publié.

Consulter les autres titres de la Série dans laquelle est publié l'ouvrage.

Référence complète : Roussel Galle, Ph. et Douaoui-Chamseddine, M., Les défaillances bancaires et financières : un droit spécial ?, Revue de droit bancaire et financier, déc. 2014, p.64-65.

Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l'article par le drive dans le dossier "MAFR - Régulation"

Paru en 2011, ce numéro thématique porte sur "La supervision" au regard du risque systémique, tandis que le précédent portait sur "La régulation" au regard de ce même thème.

Il en ressort, pour éviter la prochaine crise, la volonté d'étendre la supervision, notamment aux "non-banques", comme les compagnies d'assurance, et de la renforcer, notamment quant aux moyens de contrôle, de surveillance et de sanction des Autorités de supervision.

Référence complète : FRISON-ROCHE, Marie-Anne, La nature hybride du Conseil de régulation financière et du risque systémique, D.2010, chron., p.2712-2714.

Le Conseil de la régulation financière et du risque systémique établi par la loi du 22 octobre 2010 montre que la summa divisio entre régulation et prudentiel n’existe plus, puisque les opérateurs financiers sont systémiques. La composition du Conseil le cristallise en rassemblant le gouverneur de la Banque de France, le président de l’AMF et le président de l’Autorité des normes comptables. En outre, le Conseil revient sur la distinction naguère affirmée entre régulation et politique, puisque ces présidents d’Autorités indépendantes sont présidés par le Ministre de l’Économie. Cela tient au fait que la sortie de la crise suppose le recours à la décision purement politique. Si ces deux liens, avec le prudentiel, avec le politique, avaient été reconnus, la crise ne serait peut-être pas advenue.

Accéder à l'article

Accéder à l'article en langue anglaise

Lire le résumé de l'article ci-dessous.

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., "L’hypothèse de l’interrégulation", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.) Les risques de régulation, coll. « Droit et Économie de la Régulation », t.3, Dalloz / Presses de Sciences-Po, 2005, p.69-80.

The topic of of this article is to propose a new notion, already presented in 2001 in the article "Regulation Law": "Interregulation".

This mechanism will makes more easier a unified decision when several autonomous, even contradictory, regulations are legitimate to rule a situation. This creation therefore responds to a gap in the general system, of which the antimony is a variant. Political power no longer has the means to unify these disparate sources because it is "overtaken by the globalization of sectors and markets. Likewise, the hierarchical mode of traditional law cannot be suitable for autonomous sectorial regulations. There is therefore a need for interregulation between regulators, for the creation of a common "doctrine", or by procedural means, such as "authorized advice".

Read the article. (written in French)

Read the general presentation, written in English, of the collective book, Les risques de régulation, in which this article has been published.

Below, read the article Summary. 

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L’office de règlement des différends, entre régulation et juridiction, in Les risques de régulation, coll. « Droit et Economie de la Régulation », t.3, Dalloz / Presses de Sciences-Po, 2005, p. 269-287.

____

► Résumé de l'article : La notion d’office, si usuelle lorsque l’on parle du juge, doit aussi être utilisée concernant le régulateur, en ce qu’elle renvoie à la notion de mission, à la noblesse d’un service guidé par sa finalité. Mais autant il est usuel de considérer que le premier office d’un juge est de trancher les litiges, autant la doctrine estime qu’un régulateur ne prend en charge cette tâche que d’une façon auxiliaire. En effet, le juge serait toujours enfermé dans le rapport bilatéral entre les parties qui se disputent, alors que le régulateur est en charge d’un système.

____

Accéder à l'article.

____

📕 Lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage dans lequel l'article est publié.

____

Lire le résumé développé de l'article ci-dessous 

After defining what may be a "crisis of Regulation" and stressing that the crisis is a political phenomenon, the book devotes its first part of "systemic risk," which refers to the assumption of the general crisis. This hypothesis is exposed to prospectively or from cases in different sectors, e.g. financial, energy and health, before wondering how to organize post-crisis.

The regulation itself including risk, the book chooses to study especially the inconsistency because it is the higher legal risk for an economic system. Therefore, it is proposed to organize inter-regulation mechanisms.

Finally, the specific risks Regulator is able to address are conflicts, through the dispute settlement mechanism, derived from judicial system. It is examined in each of the regulated sectors.