Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
The procedural safeguards enjoyed by a person whose situation may be affected by a future judgment are principally the right to bring proceedings before the court, the rights of the defense and the benefit of the contradictory principle.
The legal action was for a long time considered as a "power", that is to say, a mechanism inserted in the organization of the judicial institution, since it was by this act of seizure, access by which the person enters the judicial machine, through the latter starts up.
But in particular since the work of René Cassin and Henri Motulsky, legal proceedings are considered as a subjective right, that is to say, a prerogative of any person to ask a judge to rule on the claim that the plaintiff articulates in an allegation, that is a story mixing the fact and the law in a building and on which he asks the judge to give an answer, such as the cancellation of an acte, or the award of damages, or the refusal to convict him (because the defense is also the exercise of this right of action).
The legal action is now recognized as a "right of action", the nature of which is independent of the application made to the court, a subjective procedural right which doubles the substantive subjective right (eg the right to reparation) and ensures the effectiveness of the latter but which is autonomous of it. This autonomy and this uniqueness in contrast with the variety of the sort of disputes (civil, criminal or administrative) makes the right of action a pillar of the "Procedural Law" on which a part of European and Constitutional Law are built. In fact, Constitutional Law in Europe is essentially constituted by procedural principles (rights of defense, impartiality, right of action), since the principle of non bis in idem is only an expression of the right of action. Non bis in idem is a prohibition of double judgment for the same fact which does not prohibit a double trigger of the action (and criminal, civil and administrative). This unified due process of Law has helped to diminish the once radical separation between criminal law, administrative law and even civil law, which are clearly separated from one another in the traditional construction of legal systems and which converge today in the Regulatory and Compliance Law.
Moreover, the subjective right of action is a human right and one of the most important. Indeed, it is "the right to the judge" because by its exercise the person obliges a judge to answer him, that is to say to listen to his claim (the contradictory resulting therefore from the exercise of the right of action ).
Thus the right of action appears to be the property of the person, of the litigant, of the "party". This is why the attribution by the law of the power for the Regulators to seize itself, which is understood by reason of the efficiency of the process, poses difficulty from the moment that this constitutes the regulatory body in "judge and party", since the Regulator is in criminal matters regarded as a court, and that the cumulation of the qualification of court and of the quality of party is a consubstantial infringement of the principle of impartiality. In the same way, the obligation that Compliance Law creates for operators to judge themselves obliges them to a similar duplication which poses many procedural difficulties, notably in internal investigations.
There is a classical distinction between public action, which is carried out by the public prosecutor, by which the public prosecutor calls for protection of the general interest and private action by a person or an enterprise, which seeks to satisfy its legitimate private interest. The existence of this legitimate interest is sufficient for the person to exercise his or her procedural right of action.
In the first place, the person could not claim the general interest because he or she was not an agent of the State and organizations such as associations or other non-governmental organizations pursued a collective interest, which could not be confused with the general interest. This procedural principle according to which "no one pleads by prosecutor" is today outdated. Indeed, and for the sake of efficiency, Law admits that persons act in order that the rule of law may apply to subjects who, without such action, would not be accountable. By this procedural use of the theory of incentives, because the one who acts is rewarded while and because he or she serves the general interest, concretizing the rule of law and contributing to produce a disciplinary effect on a sector and powerful operators, procedural law is transformed by the economic analysis of the law. The US mechanism of the class action was imported into France by a recent law of 2014 on "group action" (rather restrictive) but this "collective action" , on the Canadian model, continues not to be accepted in the European Union , Even if the European Commission is working to promote the mechanisms of private enforcement, participating in the same idea.
Secondly, it may happen that the law requires the person not only must have a "legitimate interest in acting" but also must have a special quality to act. This is particularly true of the various corporate officers within the operators. For the sake of efficiency, the legal system tends to distribute new "qualities to act" even though there is not necessarily an interest, for example in the new system of whistleblowers, which can act even there is no apparent interest.
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
Legally, the State is a public law subject defined by territory, people and institutions. It acts in the international space and emits norms. Politically, it has the legitimacy required to express the will of the social body and to exercise the violence of which it deprives the other subjects of law. It is often recognizable by its power: its use of public force, its budgetary power, its jurisdictional power. These three powers, declining or being challenged by private, international and more satisfying mechanisms, some predicted the disappearance of the State, to deplore it or to dance on its corpse.
With such a background, in current theories of Regulation, primarily constructed by economic thought and at first sight one might say that the State is above all the enemy. And this for two main reasons. The first is theoretical and of a negative nature. The advocates of the theory of regulation deny the State the political qualities set out above. The State would not be a "person" but rather a group of individuals, civil servants, elected officials and other concrete human beings, expressing nothing but their particular interests, coming into conflict with other interests, and using their powers to serve the former rather than the latter as everyone else. The Regulation theory, adjoining the theory of the agency, is then aimed at controlling public agents and elected representatives in whom there is no reason to trust a priori.
The second reason is practical and positive. The State would not be a "person" but an organization. Here we find the same perspective as for the concept of enterprise, which classical lawyers conceive as a person or a group of people, while economists who conceive of the world through the market represent it as an organization. The state as an organization should be "efficient" or even "optimal". It is then the pragmatic function of the Regulation Law. When it is governed by traditional law, entangled by that it would be an almost religious illusions of the general interest, or even the social contract, it is suboptimal. The Regulation purpose is about making it more effective.
To this end, as an organization, the State is divided into independent regulatory agencies or independent administrative authorities that manage the subjects as close as possible, which is fortunate in reducing the asymmetry of information and in reviving trust in a direct link. The unitary, distant and arrogant State is abandoned for a flexible and pragmatic conception of a strategic state (without capital ...) that would finally have understood that it is an organization like any other ...
Competition law adopts this conception of the State, which it posed from the beginning that it was an economic operator like any other. This is how this conception which would be more "neutral" of the world is often presented.
Successive crises, whether sanitary or financial, have produced a pendulum effect.
Now, the notions of general interest or common goods are credited of an autonomous value, and the necessity of surpassing immediate interests and of finding persons to bear superior interests or to take charge of the interests of others, even a non-immediate one, emerged.
Thus, the State or the public authority, reappears in the globalization. The Compliance Law or the Corporal Social Responsibility of the crucial companies are converging towards a consideration of the State, which can not be reduced to a pure and simple organization receptacle of externalities.
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
The Independent Administrative Authority (IAA) is the legal form that the legislator has most often chosen to build regulatory authorities. The IAA is only its legal form, but French law has attached great importance to it, following the often formalistic tradition of public law. They are thus independent administrative authorities, especially in the legal systems of continental law like France, Germany or Italy.
The essential element is in the last adjective: the "independent" character of the organism. This means that this organ, which is only administrative so has a vocation to be placed in the executive hierarchy, does not obey the Government. In this, regulators have often been presented as free electrons, which posed the problem of their legitimacy, since they could no longer draw upstream in the legitimacy of the Government. This independence also poses the difficulty of their responsibility, the responsibility of the State for their actions, and the accountability of their use of their powers. Moreover, the independence of regulators is sometimes questioned if it is the government that retains the power to appoint the leaders of the regulatory authority. Finally, the budgetary autonomy of the regulator is crucial to ensure its independence, although the authorities having the privilege of benefiting from a budget - which is not included in the LOLF - are very few in number. They are no longer referred to as "independent administrative authorities" but as "Independent Public Authorities", the legislator making a distinction between the two (French Law of 20 January 2017).
The second point concerns the second adjective: that it is an "administrative" body. This corresponds to the traditional idea that regulation is the mechanism by which the State intervenes in the economy, in the image of a kind of deconcentration of ministries, in the Scandinavian model of the agency. If we allow ourselves to be enclosed in this vocabulary, we conclude that this administrative body makes an administrative decision which is the subject of an appeal before a judge. Thus, in the first place, this would be a first instance appeal and not a judgment since the administrative authority is not a court. Secondly, the natural judge of the appeal should be the administrative judge since it is an administrative decision issued by an administrative authority. But in France the Ordinance of 1 December 1986 sur la concurrence et la libéralisation des prix (on competition and price liberalization), because it intended precisely to break the idea of an administered economy in order to impose price freedom on the idea of economic liberalism, required that attacks against the decisions of economic regulators taking the form of IAA are brought before the Court of Appeal of Paris, judicial jurisdiction. Some great authors were even able to conclude that the Paris Court of Appeal had become an administrative court. But today the procedural system has become extremely complex, because according to the IAA and according to the different kinds of decisions adopted, they are subject to an appeal either to the Court of Appeal of Paris or to the Conseil d'État (Council of State) . If one observes the successive laws that modify the system, one finds that after this great position of principle of 1986, the administrative judge gradually takes again its place in the system, in particular in the financial regulation. Is it logical to conclude that we are returning to a spirit of regulation defined as an administrative police and an economy administered by the State?
Finally, the third term is the name itself: "authority". It means in the first place an entity whose power holds before in its "authority". But it marks that it is not a jurisdiction, that it takes unilateral decisions. It was without counting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the judicial judge! Indeed, Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to an impartial tribunal in civil and criminal matters. The notion of "criminal matter" does not coincide with the formal traditional concept of criminal law but refers to the broad and concrete factual concept of repression. Thus, by a reasoning which goes backwards, an organization, whatever the qualification that a State has formally conferred on it, which has an activity of repression, acts "in criminal matters". From this alone, in the European sense, it is a "tribunal". This automatically triggers a series of fundamental procedural guarantees for the benefit of the person who is likely to be the subject of a decision on his part. In France, a series of jurisprudence, both of the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), the Conseil d'État (Council of State) or the Conseil constitutionnel (Constitutional Council) has confirmed this juridictionnalization of the AAI.
Thesaurus : Doctrine
J’ai dévoré, mon cher ami, le nouveau mémoire de M. de Beaumont sur l’innocence des Calas ; je l’ai admiré, j’ai répandu des larmes, mais il ne m’a rien appris ; il y a longtemps que j’étais convaincu ; et j’avais eu le bonheur de fournir les premières preuves.
Vous voulez savoir comment cette réclamation de toute l’Europe contre le meurtre juridique du malheureux Calas, roué à Toulouse, a pu venir d’un petit coin de terre ignoré, entre les Alpes et le Mont-Jura, à cent lieues du théâtre où se passa cette scène épouvantable.
Rien ne fera peut-être mieux voir la chaîne insensible qui lie tous les évènements de ce malheureux monde.
Sur la fin de mars 1762, un voyageur qui avait passé par le Languedoc, et qui vint dans ma retraite à deux lieues de Genève, m’apprit le supplice de Calas, et m’assura qu’il était innocent. Je lui répondis que son crime n’était pas vraisemblable, mais qu’il était moins vraisemblable encore que des juges eussent, sans aucun intérêt, fait périr un innocent par le supplice de la roue.
J’appris le lendemain qu’un des enfants de ce malheureux père s’était réfugié en Suisse, assez près de ma chaumière. Sa fuite me fit présumer que la famille était coupable. Cependant je fis réflexion que le père avait été condamné au supplice comme ayant seul assassiné son fils pour la religion, et que ce père était mort âgé de soixante-neuf ans. Je ne me souviens pas d’avoir jamais lu qu’aucun vieillard eût été possédé d’un si horrible fanatisme. J’avais toujours remarqué que cette rage n’attaquait d’ordinaire que la jeunesse, dont l’imagination ardente, tumultueuse, et faible s’enflamme par la superstition. Les fanatiques des Cévennes étaient des fous de vingt à trente ans, stylés à prophétiser dès l’enfance. Presque tous les convulsionnaires que j’avais vu à Paris en très grand nombre étaient de petites filles et de jeunes garçons. Les vieillards chez les moines sont moins emportés, et moins susceptibles des fureurs du zèle, que ceux qui sortent du noviciat. Les fameux assassins, armés par le fanatisme, ont tous été de jeunes gens, de même que tous ceux qui ont prétendu être possédés ; jamais on n’a vu exorciser un vieillard. Cette idée me fit douter d’un crime qui d’ailleurs n’est guère dans la nature. J’en ignorais les circonstances.
Je fis venir le jeune Calas chez moi. Je m’attendais à voir un énergumène tel que son pays en a produit quelquefois. Je vis un enfant simple, ingénu, de la physionomie la plus douce et la plus intéressante, et qui, en me parlant, faisait des efforts inutiles pour retenir ses larmes. Il me dit qu’il était à Nîmes en apprentissage chez un fabricant, lorsque la voix publique lui avait appris qu’on allait condamner dans Toulouse toute sa famille au supplice, que presque tout le Languedoc la croyait coupable, et que, pour se dérober à des opprobres si affreux, il était venu se cacher en Suisse.
Je lui demandai si son père et sa mère étaient d’un caractère violent : il me dit qu’ils n’avaient jamais battu un seul de leurs enfants, et qu’il n’y avait point de parents plus indulgents et plus tendres.
J’avoue qu’il ne m’en fallut pas davantage pour présumer fortement l’innocence de la famille. Je pris de nouvelles informations de deux négociants de Genève, d’une probité reconnue, qui avaient logé à Toulouse chez Calas. Ils me confirmèrent dans mon opinion. Loin de croire la famille Calas fanatique et parricide, je crus voir que c’étaient des fanatiques qui l’avaient accusée et perdue. Je savais depuis longtemps de quoi l’esprit de parti et la calomnie sont capables.
Mais quel fut mon étonnement lorsque, ayant écrit en Languedoc sur cette étrange aventure, catholiques et protestants me répondirent qu’il ne fallait pas douter du crime des Calas ! Je ne me rebutai point. Je pris la liberté d’écrire à ceux mêmes qui avaient gouverné la province, à des commandants de provinces voisines, à des ministres d’État ; tous me conseillèrent unanimement de ne me point mêler d’une si mauvaise affaire ; tout le monde me condamna, et je persistai : voici le parti que je pris.
La veuve de Calas, à qui, pour comble de malheur et d’outrage, on avait enlevé ses filles, était retirée dans une solitude où elle se nourrissait de ses larmes, et où elle attendait la mort. Je ne m’informai point si elle était attachée ou non à la religion protestante, mais seulement si elle croyait un Dieu rémunérateur de la vertu et vengeur des crimes. Je lui fis demander si elle signerait au nom de ce Dieu que son mari était mort innocent ; elle n’hésita pas. Je n’hésitai pas non plus. Je priai M. Mariette de prendre au conseil du roi sa défense. Il fallait tirer madame Calas de sa retraite, et lui faire entreprendre le voyage de Paris.
On vit alors que s’il y a de grands crimes sur la terre, il y a autant de vertus ; et que si la superstition produit d’horribles malheurs, la philosophie les répare.
Une dame dont la générosité égale la haute naissance, qui était alors à Genève pour faire inoculer ses filles, fut la première qui secourut cette famille infortunée. Des Français retirés en ce pays la secondèrent ; des Anglais qui voyageaient se signalèrent ; et, comme dit M. de Beaumont, il y eut un combat de générosité entre ces deux nations, à qui secourrait le mieux la vertu si cruellement opprimée.
Le reste, qui le sait mieux que vous ? Qui a servi l’innocence avec un zèle plus constant et plus intrépide ? Combien n’avez-vous pas encouragé la voix des orateurs, qui a été entendue de toute la France et de l’Europe attentive ? Nous avons vu renouveler les temps où Cicéron justifiait, devant une assemblée de législateurs, Amerinus accusé de parricide. Quelques personnes, qu’on appelle dévotes, se sont élevées contre les Calas ; mais, pour la première fois depuis l’établissement du fanatisme, la voix des sages les a fait taire.
La raison remporte donc de grandes victoires parmi nous ! Mais croiriez-vous, mon cher ami que la famille des Calas, si bien secourue, si bien vengée, n’était pas la seule alors que la religion accusât d’un parricide, n’était pas la seule immolée aux fureurs du préjugé ? Il y en a une plus malheureuse encore, parce qu’éprouvant les mêmes horreurs, elle n’a pas eu les mêmes consolations ; elle n’a point trouvé des Mariette, des Beaumont, et des Loiseau.
Il semble qu’il y ait dans le Languedoc une furie infernale amenée autrefois par les inquisiteurs à la suite de Simon de Montfort, et que depuis ce temps elle secoue quelquefois son flambeau.
Un feudiste de Castres, nommé Sirven, avait trois filles. Comme la religion de cette famille est la prétendue réformée, on enlève, entre les bras de sa femme, la plus jeune de leurs filles. On la met dans un couvent, on la fouette pour lui mieux apprendre son catéchisme ; elle devient folle, elle va se jeter dans un puits, à une lieue de la maison de son père. Aussitôt les zélés ne doutent pas que le père, la mère et les sœurs n’aient noyé cette enfant. Il passait pour constant, chez les catholiques de la province, qu’un des points capitaux de la religion protestante est que les pères et mères sont tenus de pendre, d’égorger ou de noyer tous leurs enfants qu’ils soupçonneront avoir quelque penchant pour la religion romaine. C’était précisément le temps où les Calas étaient aux fers, et où l’on dressait leur échafaud.
L’aventure de la fille noyée parvient incontinent à Toulouse. Voilà un nouvel exemple, s’écrie-t-on, d’un père et d’une mère parricides. La fureur publique s’en augmente ; on roue Calas, et on décrète Sirven, sa femme et ses filles. Sirven épouvanté n’a que le temps de fuir avec toute sa famille malade. Ils marchent à pied, dénués de tout secours, à travers des montagnes escarpées, alors couvertes de neige. Une de ses filles accouche parmi les glaçons ; et, mourante, elle emporte son enfant mourant dans ses bras : ils prennent enfin leur chemin vers la Suisse.
Le même hasard qui m’amena les enfants de Calas veut encore que les Sirven s’adressent à moi. Figurez-vous, mon ami, quatre moutons que des bouchers accusent d’avoir mangé un agneau ; voilà ce que je vis. Il m’est impossible de vous peindre tant d’innocence et tant de malheurs. Que devais-je faire, et qu’eussiez-vous fait à ma place ? Faut-il s’en tenir à gémir sur la nature humaine ? Je prends la liberté d’écrire à monsieur le premier président de Languedoc, homme vertueux et sage ; mais il n’était point à Toulouse. Je fais présenter par un de vos amis un placet à monsieur le vice-chancelier. Pendant ce temps-là, on exécute vers Castres, en effigie, le père, la mère, les deux filles ; leur bien est confisqué, dévasté, il n’en reste plus rien.
Voilà toute une famille honnête, innocente, vertueuse, livrée à l’opprobre et à la mendicité chez les étrangers : ils trouvent de la pitié, sans doute ; mais qu’il est dur d’être jusqu’au tombeau un objet de pitié ! On me répond enfin qu’on pourra leur obtenir des lettres de grâce. Je crus d’abord que c’était de leurs juges qu’on me parlait, et que ces lettres étaient pour eux. Vous croyez bien que la famille aimerait mieux mendier son pain de porte en porte, et expirer de misère, que de demander une grâce qui supposerait un crime trop horrible pour être graciable ; mais aussi comment obtenir justice ? Comment s’aller remettre en prison dans sa patrie où la moitié du peuple dit encore que le meurtre de Calas était juste ? Ira-t-on une seconde fois demander une évocation au conseil ? Tentera-t-on d’émouvoir la pitié publique, que l’infortune des Calas a peut-être épuisée, et qui se lassera d’avoir des accusations de parricide à réfuter, des condamnés à réhabiliter, et à des juges à confondre ?
Ces deux évènements tragiques, arrivés coup sur coup, ne sont-ils pas, mon ami, des preuves de cette fatalité inévitable à laquelle notre misérable espèce est soumise ? Vérité terrible, tant enseignée dans Homère et dans Sophocle ; mais vérité utile, puisqu’elle nous apprend à nous résigner et à savoir souffrir.
Vous dirai-je que, tandis que le désastre étonnant des Calas et des Sirven affligeait ma sensibilité, un homme, dont vous devinerez l’état à ses discours, me reprocha l’intérêt que je prenais à deux familles qui m’étaient étrangères ? De quoi vous mêlez-vous ? me dit-il ; laissez les morts ensevelir leurs morts. Je lui répondis : J’ai trouvé dans mes déserts l’Israélite baigné dans son sang, souffrez que je répande un peu d’huile et de vin sur ses blessures : vous êtes lévite, laissez-moi être Samaritain.
Il est vrai que pour prix de mes peines on m’a bien traité en Samaritain ; on a fait un libelle diffamatoire sous le nom d’Instruction pastorale et de Mandement ; mais il faut l’oublier, c’est un jésuite qui l’a composé. Le malheureux ne savait pas alors que je donnais un asile à un jésuite. Pouvais-je mieux prouver que nous devons regarder nos ennemis comme nos frères.
Vos passions sont l’amour de la vérité, l’humanité, la haine de la calomnie. La conformité de nos caractères a produit notre amitié. J’ai passé ma vie à chercher, à publier cette vérité que j’aime. Quel autre des historiens modernes a défendu la mémoire d’un grand prince contre les impostures atroces de je ne sais quel écrivain qu’on peut appeler le calomniateur des rois, des ministres, et des grands capitaines, et qui cependant aujourd’hui ne peut trouver un lecteur ?
Je n’ai donc fait, dans les horribles désastres des Calas et des Sirven, que ce que font tous les hommes ; j’ai suivi mon penchant. Celui d’un philosophe n’est pas de plaindre les malheureux, c’est de les servir.
Je sais avec quelle fureur le fanatisme s’élève contre la philosophie. Elle a deux filles qu’il voudrait faire périr comme Calas, ce sont la Vérité et la Tolérance ; tandis que la philosophie ne veut que désarmer les enfants du fanatisme, le Mensonge et la Persécution.
Des gens qui ne raisonnent pas ont voulu décréditer ceux qui raisonnent : ils ont confondu le philosophe avec le sophiste ; ils se sont bien trompés. Le vrai philosophe peut quelquefois s’irriter contre la calomnie, qui le poursuit lui-même ; il peut couvrir d’un éternel mépris le vil mercenaire qui outrage deux fois par mois la raison, le bon goût, et la vertu : il peut même livrer, en passant, au ridicule ceux qui insultent à la littérature dans le sanctuaire où ils auraient dû l’honorer : mais il ne connaît ni les cabales, ni les sourdes pratiques, ni la vengeance. Il sait, comme le sage de Montbar, comme celui de Vore rendre la terre plus fertile, et ses habitants plus heureux. Le vrai philosophe défriche les champs incultes, augmente le nombre des charrues, et par conséquent des habitants ; occupe le pauvre et l’enrichit ; encourage les mariages, établit l’orphelin ; ne murmure point contre des impôts nécessaires, et met le cultivateur en état de les payer avec allégresse. Il n’attend rien des hommes, et il leur fait tout le bien dont il est capable. Il a l’hypocrite en horreur, mais il plaint le superstitieux ; enfin il sait être ami.
Je m’aperçois que je fais votre portrait, et qu’il n’y manquerait rien si vous étiez assez heureux pour habiter la campagne.
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
Paradoxically, the notion of conflict of interest seems to be at the center of Economic Law only recently in Economic Law, in both Corporate and Public Law. This is due to the philosophy which animates these two branches of Law, very different for each, and which has changed in each.
In fact, and in the first place in Public Law, in the Continental legal systems and especially in French legal tradition, on the side of the State, the one who serves it, by a sort of natural effect,, makes the general interest incarnated by the State pass before its personal interest. There is an opposition of interests, namely the personal interest of this public official who would like to work less and earn more, and the common interest of the population, who would like to pay less taxes and for example benefit trains that always arrive on time and the general interest which would be for example the construction of a European rail network.
But this conflict would be resolved "naturally" because the public official, having "a sense of the general interest" and being animated by the "sense of public service", sacrifices himself to serve the general interes. He stays late at his office and gets the trains on time. This theory of public service was the inheritance of royalty, a system in which the King is at the service of the People, like the aristocracy is in the "service of the King." There could therefore be no conflict of interest, neither in the administration nor in the public enterprises, nor to observe, manage or dissolve. The question does not arise ...
Let us now take the side of the companies, seen by the Company Law. In the classical conception of corporate governance, corporate officers are necessarily shareholders of the company and the profits are mandatorily distributed among all partners: the partnership agreement is a "contract of common interest". Thus, the corporate officer works in the knowledge that the fruits of his efforts will come back to him through the profits he will receive as a partner. Whatever its egoism - and even the agent must be, this mechanism produces the satisfaction of all the other partners who mechanically will also receive the profits. Selfishness is indeed the motor of the system, as in the classical theory of Market and Competition. Thus, in the corporate mechanism, there is never a conflict of interest since the corporate officer is obligatorily associated: he will always work in the interest of the partners since in this he works for himself. As Company Law posits that the loss of the company will also be incurred and suffered by all partners, he will also avoid this prospect. Again, there is no need for any control. The question of a conflict of interest between the mandatary and those who conferred this function does not structurally arise...
These two representations both proved inaccurate. They were based on quite different philosophies - the public official being supposed to have exceeded his own interest, the corporate officer being supposed to serve the common interest or the social interest by concern for his own interest - but this was by a unique reasoning that these two representations were defeated.
Let us take the first on Public Law: the "sense of the State" is not so common in the administration and the public enterprises, that the people who work there sacrifice themselves for the social group. They are human beings like the others. Researchers in economics and finance, through this elementary reflection of suspicion, have shattered these political and legal representations. In particular, it has been observed that the institutional lifestyle of public enterprises, very close to the government and their leaders, is often not very justified, whereas it is paid by the taxpayer, that is, by the social group which they claimed to serve. Europe, by affirming in the Treaty of Rome the principle of "neutrality of the capital of enterprises", that is to say, indifference to the fact that the enterprise has as its shareholder a private person or a public person, validated this absence of exceeding of his particular interest by the servant of the State, become simple economic agent. This made it possible to reach the conclusion made for Company Law.
Disillusionment was of the same magnitude. It has been observed that the corporate officer, ordinary human being, is not devoted to the company and does not have the only benefit of the profits he will later receive as a partner. He sometimes gets very little, so he can receive very many advantages (financial, pecuniary or in kind, direct or indirect). The other shareholders see their profits decrease accordingly. They are thus in a conflict of interest. Moreover, the corporate officer was elected by the shareholders' meeting, that is to say, in practice, the majority shareholder or the "controlling" shareholder (controlling shareholder) and not by all. He may not even be associated (but a "senior officer").
The very fact that the situation is no longer qualified by lawyers, through the qualifications of classical Company Law, still borrowing from the Civil Contract Law, the qualifications coming more from financial theories, borrowing from the theory of the agency, adically changed the perspective. The assumptions have been reversed: by the same "nature effect", the conflict of interest has been disclosed as structurally existing between the manager and the minority shareholder. Since the minority shareholder does not have the de facto power to dismiss the corporate officer since he does not have the majority of the voting rights, the question does not even arise whether the manager has or has not a corporate status: the minority shareholder has only the power to sell his securities, if the management of the manager is unfavorable (right of exit) or the power to say, protest and make known. This presupposes that he is informed, which will put at the center of a new Company Law information, even transparency.
Thus, this conflict of interests finds a solution in the actual transfer of securities, beyond the legal principle of negotiability. For this reason, if the company is listed, the conflict of interest is translated dialectically into a relationship between the corporate officer and the financial market which, by its liquidity, allows the agent to be sanctioned, and also provides information, Financial market and the minority shareholder becoming identical. The manager could certainly have a "sense of social interest", a sort of equivalent of the state's sense for a civil servant, if he had an ethics, which would feed a self-regulation. Few people believe in the reality of this hypothesis. By pragmatism, it is more readily accepted that the manager will prefer his interest to that of the minority shareholder. Indeed, he can serve his personal interest rather than the interest for which a power has been given to him through the informational rent he has, and the asymmetry of information he enjoys. All the regulation will intervene to reduce this asymmetry of information and to equip the minority shareholder thanks to the regulator who defends the interests of the market against the corporate officers, if necessary through the criminal law. But the belief in managerial volunteerism has recently taken on a new dimension with corporate social responsability, the social responsibility of the company where managers express their concern for others.
The identification of conflicts of interests, their prevention and their management are transforming Financial Regulatory Law and then the Common Law of Regulation, because today it is no longer believed a priori that people exceed their personal interest to serve the interest of others. It is perhaps to regain trust and even sympathy that companies have invested in social responsibility. The latter is elaborated by rules which are at first very flexible but which can also express a concern for the general interest. In this, it can meet Compliance Law and express on behalf of the companies a concern for the general interest, if the companies provide proof of this concern.
To take an example of a conflict of interest that resulted in substantial legal changes, the potentially dangerous situation of credit rating agencies has been pointed out when they are both paid by banks, advising them and designing products, While being the source of the ratings, the main indices from which the investments are made. Banks being the first financial intermediaries, these conflicts of interest are therefore systematically dangerous. That is why in Europe ESMA exercises control over these rating agencies.
The identification of conflicts of interest, which most often involves changing the way we look at a situation - which seemed normal until the point of view changes - the moral and legal perspective being different, Trust one has in this person or another one modifying this look, is today what moves the most in Regulation Law.
This is true of Public and Corporate Law, which are extended by the Regulation Law, here itself transformed by Compliance Law, notably by the launchers of alerts. But this is also true that all political institutions and elected officials.
For a rule emerges: the more central the notion of conflict of interest becomes, the more it must be realized that Trust is no longer given a priori, either to a person, to a function, to a mechanism, to a system. Trust is no longer given only a posteriori in procedures that burden the action, where one must give to see continuously that one has deserved this trust.
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
The procedural guarantees enjoyed by a person whose situation may be affected by a forthcoming judgment are mainly the right of action, the rights of defense and the benefit of the adversarial principle.
The rights of the defense have constitutional value and constitute human rights, benefiting everyone, including legal persons. The mission of positive Law is to give effect to them in good time, that is to say from the moment of the investigation or custody, which is manifested for example by the right to the assistance of a lawyer or the right to remain silent or the right to lie. Thus the rights of the defense are not intended to help the manifestation of the truth, do not help the judge or the effectiveness of repression - which is what the principle of adversarial law does - they are pure rights, subjective for the benefit of people, including even especially people who may be perfectly guilty, and seriously guilty.
The rights of the defense are therefore an anthology of prerogatives which are offered to the person implicated or likely to be or likely to be affected. It does not matter if it possibly affects the efficiency. These are human rights. This is why their most natural holder is the person prosecuted in criminal proceedings or facing a system of repression. This is why the triggering of the power of a tribunal or a judge offers them in a consubstantial way to the one who is by this sole fact - and legitimately - threatened by this legitimate violence (one of the definitions of the State ).
The rights of the defense therefore begin even before the trial because the "useful time" begins from the investigation phase, from the searches, even from the controls, and continues on the occasion of appeals against the decision adversely affecting the decision. The legal action being a means of being a party, that is to say of making arguments in its favor, and therefore of defending its case, shows that the plaintiff in the proceedings also holds legal defense rights since he is not only plaintiff in the proceedings but he also plaintiff and defendant to the allegations which are exchanged during the procedure: he alleged to the allegation of his opponent is not correct.
They take many forms and do not need to be expressly provided for in texts, since they are principled and constitutionally benefit from a broad interpretation (ad favorem interpretation). This is the right to be a party (for example the right of intervention, the right of action - which some distinguish from the rights of the defense - the right to be questioned, such as the right to be brought into question (or examination), right to be assisted by a lawyer, right to remain silent, right not to incriminate oneself, right of access to the file, right to intervene in the debate (the rights of the defense thus crossing the adversarial principle), right to appeal, etc.
It is essential to qualify an organ as a tribunal because this triggers for the benefit of the person concerned the procedural guarantees, including the rights of the defense, which on the basis of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights man was made about the Regulators yet formally organized in Independent Administrative Authorities (AAI). This contributed to the general movement of jurisdictionalization of Regulation.
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
The procedural guarantees from which the person benefits are mainly the right of action, the rights of defense and the benefit of the adversarial principle.
While the rights of the defense are subjective rights which are advantages given to the person at risk of having his situation affected by the decision that the body which is formally or functionally legally qualified as a "tribunal", may take, the adversarial principle is rather a principle of organization of the procedure, from which the person can benefit.
This principle, as the term indicates, is - as are the rights of the defense - of such a nature as to generate all the technical mechanisms which serve it, including in the silence of the texts, imply a broad interpretation of these.
The adversarial principle implies that the debate between all the arguments, in particular all the possible interpretations, is possible. It is exceptionally and justified, for example because of urgency or a justified requirement of secrecy (professional secrecy, secrecy of private life, industrial secrecy, defense secrecy, etc.) that the adversarial mechanism is ruled out. , sometimes only for a time (technique of deferred litigation by the admission of the procedure on request).
This participation in the debate must be fully possible for the debater, in particular access to the file, knowledge of the existence of the instance, the intelligibility of the terms of the debate, not only the facts, but also the language (translator, lawyer , intelligibility of the subject), but still discussion on the applicable legal rules). So when the court automatically comes under the rules of Law, it must submit them to adversarial debate before possibly applying them.
The application of the adversarial principle often crosses the rights of the defense, but in that it is linked to the notion of debate, it develops all the more as the procedure is of the adversarial type.
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Référence complète : Lebovici, S., C'est pas juste, in Baranès, W. et Frison-Roche, M.-A., La justice. L'obligation impossible, coll. " Nos valeurs", Éditions Autrement, 1994, p. 16-27.
Consulter la présentation générale de l'ouvrage.
« Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l’article via le Drive de Sciences po en allant dans le dossier « MAFR – Régulation ».
Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary
The distinction between "Public Law" and "Private Law" is important. In the systems of Continental Law, or still called under Roman-Germanic Law, or even called Civil Law systems, it is even around it that legal systems are built: it can be a basic distinction, a summa divisio, as it it in the Civil Law systems. In the so-called Common Law or Anglo-American systems, the distinction is less fundamental, but it remains, justifying in particular that the rules and disputes concerning the administration call for special rules and are apprehended by special tribunals.
In principle, this distinction is based on the nature of the persons whose legal situation is examined. Under"Public Law" a legal situation involving a person who is itself a public-law entity: the State, a local authority, a public undertaking, etc. That is why, for example, the contract which may be concluded will be of public law, and the judge who may be seized of it will be an administrative court. If the situation does not involve a person governed by public law, then it will be governed by "Private Law". There are a thousand exceptions, but this is the starting and basic and fondamental principle.
Two essential remarks, bearing a system of values, explaining that the systems of Civil Law and Common Law are in fact confronting each other.
The two bodies of rules and institutions are not of equal strength because one of the categories is "closed", corresponding to one criterion (the "public person"), while the other is open: Public Law is a closed category; on the contrary, Private law becomes "active" as soon as there is no public person (a "private person" who or which must define himself or itself as a "non-public person").
One can consider this articulation between Public Law and Private Law in two ways, radically opposed. It may express a mark of inferiority in disfavour of private law: we are all "ordinary" persons in "ordinary" situations with "ordinary" activities (this will be the French conception ....). On the contrary, Public Law is the mark of the State, of Public Order, of Sovereignty, of public power, of the general will, in the interstices of which individuals slip in to act and satisfy their small particular interests
On the contrary, Private Law can be considered as the expression of the "common law": people are free and do what they want, through ownership and contract. As an exception and because they have elected people to do so, the rulers (whom they control), by exception, enact norms that constrain them. But this is an exception, since repression - public law and criminal law, which has the same status in this respect - is only a tribute to the freedom of persons, since this freedom remains wholly in the form of the private enterprise on the market.
It is then measured that the articulation between Public and Private Law profoundly reflects a philosophy and a political position. If it is considered that Regulation is the underlying order by which the Sovereign allows the deployment of his subjects who also benefit from a long-term policy constructed by the autonomous and measured political will, then Public Law in Is the master, the Regulation Law expressing a renewed search for efficiency, this but only this. If we believe that Regulation is whereby economic rationality manages to protect persons and companies from risks and to compensate for market failures, a market whose liberal principle remains the ideal, then Private Law is the core, whith contract and private property as basis tools.
France and the Latin countries adhere rather to this metaphysics of values which entrusts to the Public Authorities and the State the legitimacy and the power to express the general interest by Public Law, Regulators and Constitutional Courts, expressing it on a technical form renewed by the Regulatory tools: incitations, soft law, etc. The legal systems whose history draws on British history put more trust in the person of the entrepreneur and conceive of Regulation Law as an efficient outsourcing of functions to administrations that are efficient, informed and impartial.
Certainly, in the technical daily of the Law of Regulation and following the different sectors, Public and Private Law mix up: public companies take the form of publicly traded companies under private law or private companies will be entrusted with missions of public service, instituting them as second-level regulators as are the infrastructure network operators.
But the fundamental conception of systems (rooted in the history of the people) and practice marry. In the silence of regulations (and the more they are gossiping and the more the judge must interpret them, which amounts to a "silence"), what sense to give to the system?
To take only a few questions, frequent in practice:
The absence of a firm and shared definition of what is the Law of Regulation does not facilitate practice. Hesitations in translations from one language to another increase confusion.
For the time being, there is a tendency to refer to Public Law in the sectors where whe take precedence over public operators' monopolies, such as telecommunications, energy, railways, air and postal services, and to refer to Private Law in the sectors which have long been the subject of competition between operators, namely banking, finance and insurance.
It should be recognized that the criterion of distinction has little economic rationale. The notion of risk would be a clearer and more manageable criterion. But it would then lead to a greater challenge to the distinction between Public and Private Law. Because the Law of Regulation, impregnated with Economy and Economic Analysis of Law, has sometimes little basis of legal tradition, it put in question of this summa divisio. If this were to be the case, it would be the totality of the legal systems which would be upset, especially in its judicial organization, since the judicial civil and commercial system is so distinctly distinguished (that of "ordinary" persons, that of "common law ) and the administrative judge (the "natural judge" of the State). It is then realized that the Law of Regulation challenges the whole Law, especially in the Latin countries and the Civil Law systems.
Thesaurus : Films
Henri-Georges Cluzot est un cinéaste qui utilise ici Brigitte Bardot, au sommet de sa célébrité, à contre-emploi.
Nov. 2, 2021
Thesaurus : Jurisprudence
March 2, 2021
Thesaurus : 08. Juridictions du fond
Full reference: Tribunal administratif de Paris (Paris administrative court), 4th section, 1st Chamber, Oxfam France, Notre Affaire à tous, Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme et Greenpeace France, 3rd of February 2021, n°1904967, 1904968, 1904972, 1904976/4-1
Feb. 10, 2021
Teachings : Banking and Financial Regulatory Law - Semester 2021
Résumé de la leçon : Dans une conception classique et du Droit et du "libre marché", le principe est la liberté d'action de la personne. Même si l'exercice de cette liberté, voire d'un droit subjectif peut causer un dommage, par exemple un dommage concurrentiel, c'est en quelque sorte le prix légitime d'une société libre et concurrentielle. Ainsi dans une conception libérale, seul l'abus est sanctionné, c'est-à-dire l'exercice fautif que l'on fait de sa liberté ou de son droit, allant parfois jusqu'à l'exigence d'une faute qualifiée.
Mais les secteurs bancaires et financiers ne sont pas gouvernés par le principe de libre concurrence. Ils sont gouvernés par le principe de régulation, le principe de concurrence n'y a qu'un rôle adjacent. Cela ne pourra qu'engendrer de graves difficultés lorsque le Droit de la concurrence et le Droit bancaire et financier font s'appliquer d'une façon cumulée ou confrontée sur une même situation.
Les marchés financiers sont construits sur le principe de régulation qui pose le principe de transparence et de partage d'une information exacte : c'est ainsi que l'intégrité des marchés financiers est assurée, l'Autorité des Marchés financiers en étant le gardien.
La prévention et la sanction des "abus" de marché est donc non pas une part résiduelle du Droit financier, mais un pilier de celui-ci, contrairement au Droit des marchés ordinaires concurrentiels, sur lesquels l'opacité et le non-partage des informations est la règle.
Cela explique l'état du droit des "abus de marché", dont l'effectivité de la prohibition est essentielle pour le bon fonctionnement ordinaire des marchés financiers. Leur prohibition nationale a été harmonisée par le Droit de l'Union européenne, à travers des textes dont les signes reprennent l'appellation anglaise : Market abuses (ainsi le nouveau Règlement communautaire sur les abus de marché est dit Règlement MAR (Market Abuses Regulation) et la directive qui l'accompagne MAD (Market Abuses Directive) .
Il sanctionne un certain nombre de comportements, qui portent atteinte à l'intégrité des marchés,
Mais il n'exprime plus des exceptions par rapport à un principe : des fautes par rapport à des libertés ou à des droits. Il exprime des moyens par rapport à des principes dont la sanction des abus ne constitue que la concrétisation de principes dont ils sont la continuité même : l'efficacité du marché, son intégrité, sa transparence, l'information de l'investisseur.
C'est pourquoi la sanction des abus de marché ne sont pas du tout un phénomène périphérique par rapport à la Régulation des marchés financiers et à l'activité et au fonctionnement des bancaires, comme l'est le Droit pénal : elle est au contraire à la fois ordinaire et centrale. Cette différence des deux ordres publics va se retrouver dans la question lancinante de la sanction pénale et de la sanction administrative des mêmes abus de marché (par exemple "manquement d'initié" et "délit d'initié", qui ont tendance à se cumuler dans des techniques de répression qui seront l'objet de la prochaine leçon.
Revenir à la présentation générale du cours
Se reporter au plan général du cours
Utiliser les matériaux ci-dessous pour aller plus loin et pour préparer votre conférence de méthode:
Feb. 2, 2021
Thesaurus : 05. CJCE - CJUE
Full reference: CJEU, 2nd of February 2021, DB v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), case C‑481/19
Summary of the decision by CJEU:
"Natural persons who are subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing have the right to remain silent when their answers might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability".
To go further, read:
Updated: Jan. 14, 2021 (Initial publication: Dec. 14, 2020)
The Economic Attractiveness of Impartiality ("L'attractivité économique de l'impartialité"), in ""Economic Attractiveness, Judge Office and Impartiality. Thinking the judge Office" ("L'attractivité économique, l'office du juge et l'impartialité. Penser l'office du juge")
Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Economic Attractiveness of Impartiality ("L'attractivité économique de l'impartialité"), in ""Economic Attractiveness, Judge Office and Impartiality. Thinking the judge Office" ("L'attractivité économique, l'office du juge et l'impartialité. Penser l'office du juge"),
This conference was held in French.
Read the colloquium program ( in French)
See the conference (in French)
This Working Paper is significantly different from the conference because it was conceived befor the colloquia cycle beginning. In addition, since this manifestation was a Round Table, the conference has taken more into account previous conferences and what said the other two speakers.
See the slides basis of the conference (in French)
The slides could not be shown during the conference. Orally, it was appropriate to more develop the introductory remarks for emphasizing the human and unique dimension of the Judge Office, expected in economic matters. As a result, the second part of the conference was not given orally, so slides therefore remain the only media available.
Summary of the conference : To fit into the ambition of this general colloquia cycle, which is to "Think the Judge Office" and in this round table which apprehends the imperative of economic attractiveness of this office, firstly emerges the seemingly contradictory relationship between this imperative and the distance that the judge must maintain. Thus it is often asserted that the judge should be internalized at this point in the "places", - an economic concept of great scope (to which the first part of the introduction is devoted, defining the "place" at the same time as a closed and porous space and as a "systemic litigant" -, that he/she should ipso facto lose his/her distance, that is to say his/her impartiality. As places are in competition, even if weighing on one hand the effectiveness of the place, and on the other hand the impartiality of a judge who is external to this place - Judge referring to the Law , Impartiality would necessarily emerge weakened. It would then be necessary on a case-by-case basis to get the judge to give the desired concessions...
The conference aim is to take the opposite position and to state that the Place - in particular because they must be strongly distinguished from the Markets, of which they were the ancestors - require a Judge, who is at the same time "singular", that is to say with a personality, a face, opinions, and in distance so that his/her imagination does not surprise Place. Indeed, these require a human Justice, and a not mechanical one and singular judges, of whom the juge des référés or the arbitrator are the epigone, meets this need. But for reducing their "margins of discretion", how Economy qualifies the Impartiality of a person who can never be neutral, the singular Judge's Office must be inserted into mechanisms reducing these margins. In this way, the Place may reach a Judge who is always more impartial, and in doing so the Place becomes always more attractive.
To achieve this in practice, the place expresses two legitimate expectations, as a "systemic litigant", whose satisfaction increases and the singular Judge's Impartiality and increases the Attractiveness of the Place as a space. This clearly shows that the Place's Attractiveness and the Judge's Impartiality, because judges are inserted into procedures, into institutions and into a "jurisdictional family", are not only not contradictory, but are on the contrary convergent, one fueling the other.
Concretely, and judicial practice shows it, it is necessary to consolidate the particular Judge's Impartiality by inserting him/her into collective processes. As it is necessary to promote a radiance of Impartiality by strengthening the "jurisdictional family".
To consolidate the singular Judge's Impartiality by inserting him/her into collective processes, it is necessary to admit without hesitation the subjectivity of the judge, to seek it even. The reduction of the margins of discretion, definition of impartiality, being obtained by the inclusion of the judge in a procedure of which he /her alone is the master but in which he/her is not alone. This has the technical consequence that he/her is himself/herself in an adversarial debate, not only during the proceedings, but also before (in the media), inside the judgment (and the decision of the Criminal Chamber of 25 November 2020 is a model of that) and after the judgment. By that, the Judge shows that by his/her office he/she is in the future, as climate justice will show. In addition, to limit his/her margins of discretion, the singular judge must fit into a rational principle of coherence, vertical and horizontal. Vertical coherence, because he/she integrates what it is said and the technique of the "determining opinion" is to be encouraged, the singular judge having to avoid it only if he/she has "strong reasons" to do it. This is to follow this general rule Comply or Explain (which is the very opposite of blind obedience). Horizontal coherence, because the singular judge either sticks to what he/she said, estoppel also being a rule of logic. But above all, the institution must extract as much as possible from " institutional doctrines", by all means, of which the annual reports are an example.
To consolidate the singular Judge's Impartiality by strengthening the notion and reality of the "Jurisdictional Family", it is necessary to have of it a broader conception, which could lead to "guidelines" common to various jurisdictions, and a stronger one, by integrating those surrounding the judge to lead to judgment. In this, the procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union, working on a common file, is a model. If this community were even stronger, the Judge Office would be even more useful than it is already in the digital space.
Thus, Judges who are always human, always diverse, always singular, who listen, consider and adjust to the situation, who within a Jurisdictional Family fit into an Institutional Doctrine which transcends and supports them but which they transform if there is a strong reason to do so, a reason always expressed said: this is the embodied Impartiality that makes an economic and financial Place attractive.
Updated: Dec. 3, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)
Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July 2020.
This Working paper is the basis for an article to be published in the collective book Compliance Tools .
There was a time when Regulatory techniques were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them
Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ....
In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required
It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle
If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail
The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools".
Indeed, because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve, because every effort must be made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools" (I).
But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II).
Rights are the Compliance Law future.
Contre cela, la critique radicale, savante et fondée d'Alain Supiot, dans l'ensemble de son oeuvre et plus particulièrement dans La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015.
Sur la définition de l'entreprise comme un groupe de personnes qui se réunissent pour entreprise, v. le travail de référence d'Alain Supiot, par exemple son article d'introduction "L'entreprise...", dans l'ouvrage qu'il a dirigé L'entreprise dans la mondialisation ...., 2015 ...
Si l'entreprise pouvait renaître comme idée de cristallisation d'une idée commune entre des personnes, naturellement titulaires de droits subjectifs, exerçant ensemble leur liberté d'entreprendre pour réaliser un projet commun, ce qui correspond à la définition classique du contrat d'entreprise donnée à l'article 1832 du Code civil, cela renforcerait considérablement la présence des droits subjectifs dans le Droit de la Compliance et conforterait la nature humaniste de celui-ci.
En outre, dans une telle définition la loi de la majorité, qui n'est qu'une loi de fonctionnement d'une catégorie de sociétés que sont les sociétés de capitaux, deviendrait moins puissante, au profit des "droits propres" de tout associé (au-delà du cercle des sociétés de personnes), sans qu'il soit besoin d'aller chercher au-delà du cercle des associés ou titulaires de titres émis par la société ou l'entreprise (dit shareholders) et d'aller donner le "droit à la parole" à des personnes qui, parce qu'elles sont "concernées" (les "parties prenantes", les skateholders) ont désormais de plus en plus le "droit à la parole".
La Compliance by Design reflète ces tensions. Elles sont particulièrement bien décrites par Cécile Granier. V. ....
Contre cette conception de la légalité, qui prévoit tout et à laquelle il faudrait prouver par avance et que l'on se "conforme" entièrement, ce qui est contraire aux principes mêmes du libéralisme dont le principe est la liberté d'agir et non pas l'obéissance, Carbonnier affirme que les règles sont faites ne pas s'appliquer et qu'elles ne sont que le "mince vernis" des choses, qu'il convenait de se méfier de la "passion du Droit". V. not. son dernier ouvrage Droit et passion du droit sous la Vième République, 1995. Carbonnier est considéré comme le plus grand juriste français du XXième siècle. Il rédigea les lois qui réformèrent en profondeur le Code civil et publia des ouvrages sur "l'art législatif".
Au contraire, l'Etat de Droit n'est pas un coût extérieur au système de Compliance efficace, que celui-ci doit internaliser. Il est le fondement même du Droit de la Compliance. Voir dans ce sens la démonstration faite par le président de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne, Koen Laearnt, ..., in Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019.
Sur la démonstration comme quoi la Constitution, en ce qu'elle contient de l'incalculable, est broyée dans cette façon de faire, v. Alain Supiot, Intervention 2019.
Dec. 1, 2020
Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., New SEC Report to Congress about Whistleblower Program: what is common between American and European conception, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of December 2020
Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Summary of the news
Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process.
If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing).
However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future.
Nov. 27, 2020
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Full reference: Lagarde, P., Preface of Le tournant global en droit international privé, Muir-Watt, H., Biziková, L., Brandão de Oliveira, A., Fernández Arroyo, D. P., Ma, M. (ed.), Editions Pedone, 2020, pp. 9-14
Nov. 25, 2020
Thesaurus : 02. Cour de cassation
Full reference: Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, 25th of November 2020 (18-86.955), Decision n°2333, société Iron mountain France SAS
Summary of the decision
In this decision constituting a case law reversal, the Chambre criminelle of the Cour de Cassation decides that the firm which absorbs the one to which are imputable facts which can receive a penal qualification leading to penalties of fines has the aptitude to answer penally.
The decision precises that this reversal is applicable only to future cases, to respect the principle of predicability, except if this merging was operated only to escape from criminal responsibility of moral persons.
This case is an example of the use of Criminal Liability Law as an incentive.
Nov. 18, 2020
Thesaurus : 02. Cour de cassation
Lire le billet publié à propos de cet arrêt.
Nov. 12, 2020
Thesaurus : Doctrine
Nov. 3, 2020
Law by Illustrations
Dans un article du 3 novembre du site The Conversation, est remis en lumière la valeur de l'exemplaire annoté par le juge qui eût à connaître du cas "The Lady Chatterley's Lover" : les pages de l'ouvrage sont recouverts d'annotations du juge, Mr Lawrence Byrne, qui présida le Tribunal saisi en raison du caractère "obscène" de ce livre.
Comme quoi l'aspect juridique l'emporte sur l'aspect littéraire, c'est le département de Droit et non de Littérature de l'Université de Bristol qui acquit en 2019 "l'exemplaire du juge.
Le Tribunal avait été saisi sur le fondement de la loi Obscene Publication Act de 1959.
Cette loi définit l'obscénité si les effets de la publication, pris dans son ensemble, sont de nature à dépraver ou à corrompre les personnes susceptibles de la lire, la voir ou l'entendre ("its effect, taken as a whole, was such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who were likely to read, see or hear it"), ce qui constitue un "publishing offence" et justifie notamment la saisie de la publication, sauf à démontrer l'intérêt public ("public good defence") justifiant la publication “in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern”.
L'article raconte que dans ce procès, constituant la première application de cette loi, la Couronne affirmait que le livre était "obscène" et appela à la barre un témoin, tandis que l'éditeur affirmait que la qualité artistique de l'oeuvre excluait toute condamnation, s'appuyant donc sur "the interests of literature" et appela à la barre 35 personnalités, notamment des auteur et des universitaires, pour se prévaloir des mérites littéraires du livre. .Le jury acquitta l'éditeur.
Le juge et les jurés peuvent lire le livre (avec interdiction de l'emporter chez eux le soir...) tel que certains purent le lire dès les années 40...
Il apparaît que des exemplaires de l'ouvrage furent distribués au juge et aux jurées et qu'en ce qui concerne l'exemplaire du Juge, c'est l'épouse de celui-ci qui a rédigé les différentes notes manuscrites insérées dans l'ouvrage, le couple travaillant ensemble, à tel point qu'il convient de parler plutôt de "l'exemplaire de Lady Byrne".
Après le procès qui a eu lieu en 1960, la famille du juge Byrne a vendu aux enchères l'exemplaire du Juge en 1993, puis en 2018 à un acheteur américain, ce à quoi le Royaume-Uni s'opposa par un "temporary export deferral", tandis que l'Université de Bristol manifestait son intention d'acquérir l'exemplaire du Juge.
Nov. 1, 2020
Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Due process and Personal Data Compliance Law: same rules, one Goal (CJEU, Order, October 29, 2020, Facebook Ireland Ltd v/ E.C.), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of November 2020
Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation
Summary of the news:
As part of a procedure initiated for anti-competitive behaviors, the European Commission has three times requested, between the 13th of March and the 11th of November 2019, from Facebook the communication of information, reitarated in a decision in May 2020.
Facebook contests it alleging that the requested documents would contain sensitive personal information that a transmission to the Commission would make accessible to a too broad number of observers, while "the documents requested under the contested decision were identified on the basis of wideranging search terms, (...) there is strong likelihood that many of those documents will not be necessary for the purposes of the Commission’s investigation".
The contestation therefore evokes the violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality but also of due process because these probatory elements are collected without any protection and used afterwards. Moreover, Facebook invokes what would be the violation of a right to the respect of personal data of its employees whose the emails are transferred.
The court reminds that the office of the judge is here constraint by the condition of emergency to adopt a temporary measure, acceptable by the way only if there is an imminent and irreversible damage. It underlines that public authorities benefit of a presumption of legality when they act and can obtain and use personal data since this is necessary to their function of public interest. Many allegations of Facebook are rejected as being hypothetical.
But the Court analyzes the integrality of the evoked principles with regards with the very concrete case. But, crossing these principles and rights in question, the Court estimates that the European Commission did not respect the principle of necessity and proportionality concerning employees' very sensitive data, these demands broadening the circle of information without necessity and in a disproportionate way, since the information is very sensitive (like employees' health, political opinions of third parties, etc.).
It is therefore appropriate to distinguish among the mass of required documents, for which the same guarantee must be given in a technique of communication than in a technic of inspection, those which are transferable without additional precaution and those which must be subject to an "alternative procedure" because of their nature of very sensitive personal data.
This "alternative procedure" will take the shape of an examination of documents considered by Facebook as very sensitive and that it will communicate on a separate electronic support, by European Commission's agents, that we cannot a priori suspect to hijack law. This examination will take place in a "virtual data room" with Facebook's attorneys. In case of disagreement between Facebook and the investigators, the dispute could be solved by the director of information, communication and medias of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission.
We can draw three lessons from this ordinance: