Food for thoughts

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

Complete reference : Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD), Le procès, tome 39, ed. Sirey, 1995, 545 p. 


Read the forth of cover.

Read the table of contents.

Read the summaries of the articles in English. 


See the presentation of other volumes of Archives de Philosophie du Droit.

Thesaurus : Doctrine

► Référence complète : Association des professionnels du contentieux économique et financier (APCEF), La réparation du préjudice économique et financier par les juridictions pénales, 2019.


Lire le rapport


Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Lalande, P.-A., Le pouvoir d’injonction au service de la réparation du préjudice écologique : une mise en œuvre de l’office du juge administratif en matière climatique, Actu-Juridique, 9 décembre 2021.



Lire l'article. 


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:

  •      What judge to seize? The administrative judge or the civil judge? What is the "natural judge" of the Regulatory Law?
  •      What standard to apply? The contractual will? The implicit will of the legislator? What is the "natural author" of the Law of Regulation?
  •      Does the silence of the text prohibit action for operators or on the contrary does silence mean their freedom to act?

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.

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

Référence complète: Christodoulou, H., Le parquet européen : prémices d'une autorité judiciaire de l'Union européenneDalloz, coll. Bibliothèque de thèses, 2021. 

Lire la synthèse des propositions de l'étude. 

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Douvreleur, O.,  Compliance and Judge ruling only on points of Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisationseries "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. 


 Article Summary (done by the Journal of Regulation): Compliance maintains with the judge complex relations, and even more with the judge ruling only on points of Law  (in France, the Court de Cassation in the judicial order, the one who, in principle, does not know the facts that he leaves to the sovereign appreciation of the judges ruling on the substance of the disputes. At first glance, compliance is a technique internalised in companies and the place occupied by negotiated justice techniques leave little room for intervention by the judge ruling only on points of Law

However, his role is intended to develop, in particular with regard to the duty of vigilance or in the articulation between the different branches of Law when compliance meets Labor Law, or even in the adjustment between American Law and the other legal systems, especially French legal system. The way in which the principle of Proportionality will take place in Compliance Law is also a major issue for the judge ruling only on points of Law.



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






Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary

Impartiality is the quality, maybe the virtue, that is demanded of the judge, not only the one who is called like that but also the one who has the function to judge the others (maybe without this name).

It can not be defined as the absolute positive aptitude, namely the total absence of prejudice, the heroic aptitude for a person to totally ignore his or her personal opinions and personal history. This heroic virtue is nonsense because not only is it inaccurate, impossible but it is also not desirable because a person is not a machine. It must not be so because good justice is human justice. In this respect, impartiality refers to a philosophical conception of what is justice and what is Regulation, not machines, but systems that must keep the human person in their center (Sunstein).

Thus Impartiality is articulated with the subjective nature of the assessment not only inevitable but also desirable that the judge makes of situations. Because Law is reasonable, Impartiality is defined only negatively: the absence of bias.

Impartiality is defined first and foremost as a subjective and individual quality, namely, the prohibition on the person who makes a decision affecting the situation of others (as is the case of a judge) to a a personal interest in this situation. The constitutional prohibition of being "judge and party" is thus the expression of the principle of impartiality. This definition is in line with the otherwise general requirement of no conflict of interests.

Impartiality is defined secondly as an objective and individual quality, namely the prohibition for a person who has already known of the case to know again (because he or she has already had an opinion about it, this having constituted an objective pre-judgment).

Impartiality is defined thirdly as an objective and structural quality, which obliges the organ which takes judgments to "give to see" a structure that makes it fit for this impartiality, objective impartiality that third parties can see and which generates confidence in its ability to judge without bias. This theory of English origin has been taken up by European law in the interpretation given to the European Convention on Human Rights. The expression "apparent impartiality" has sometimes given rise to misunderstandings. Indeed, far from being less demanding (in that it is "only" to be satisfied with an appearance of impartiality and not of a true impartiality), it is rather a matter of demanding more, not only of a true impartiality, but also of an impartiality which can be seen by all. This leads in particular to the obligation of transparency, to which the institutions, notably the State, were not necessarily bound by the law.

For a long time the Regulator, in that it took the form of an Administrative Authority, was not considered a jurisdiction, it was long considered that it was not directly subject to this requirement. It is clear from the case law that the national courts now consider that the regulatory authorities are courts "in the European sense", which implies a fundamental procedural guarantee for the operators concerned

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference:  Sillaman, B., Privilege and Cooperation: Procedural Lessons Learned from the U.S. for Global Application in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisationseries "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. 


 Article Summary (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance : The French legal system is evolving, organizing interaction between lawyers with regulators and prosecutors, specially in investigations about corruption or corporate misconduct, adopting U.S. negotiated resolutions such as the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, which encourages "collaboration" between them. 

The author describes the evolution of the U.S. DOJ doctrine and askes French to be inspired by the U.S. procedural experience, U.S. where this mechanism came from. Indeed, the DOJ released memoranda about what the "collaboration" means. At the end (2006 Memorandum), the DOJ has considered that the legal privilege must remain intact when the information is not only factual in order to maintain trust between prosecutors, regulators and lawyers.

French authorities do not follow this way. The author regrets it and thinks they should adopt the same reasoning as the American authority on the secret professionnel of the avocat, especially when he intervenes in the company internal investigation.


📝 read the general presentation of the book, 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published.



Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : Galli, M., Une justice pénale propre aux personnes morales : Réflexions sur la convention judiciaire d'intérêt public , Revue de Sciences Criminelle, 2018, pp. 359-385.


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 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.

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Consulter la lettre.

Sur l'affaire Sirven.

Sur la présentation de l'ouvrage, compilant les différentes correspondances adressées par Voltaire et son Avis au public sur les parricides.

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

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.


Référence complète : Grandjean, J.P., rapporteur, Rapport sur l'avocat chargé d'une enquête interne, Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats, Paris, 8 mars 2016. 


Lire le rapport. 


Thesaurus : Films

Voir l'extrait du film dans lequel l'avocat plaide l'innocence de sa cliente.

Henri-Georges Cluzot est un cinéaste qui utilise ici Brigitte Bardot, au sommet de sa célébrité, à contre-emploi.

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Wennerström, E., Quelques réflexions sur la Compliance et la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme ("Some Reflections on Compliance and the European Court of Human Rights"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancesérie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.


 Article English Summary (done by Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : The development of the European Court of Human Rights case law, contributing to European integration, has incorporated the substantial concept of ​​"compliance" which goes beyond the idea of ​​legality with respect to which companies remain passive, and promotes legal orders as systems in interaction with one another.

The author develops the spirit and scope of Protocol 15 by which both the principle of subsidiarity and the margins of appreciation the signatory States are organized, mechanisms governed by the principle of proportionality. Subsidiarity means that the States are in the best position to design the most adequate application of the Convention, the close links between the States allowing its effective application. In addition, the new opinion procedure which allows a national court to have during a case the non-binding opinion of the ECHR ensures better compliance with the objectives of the Convention.

The case-law of the Court takes up this substantial requirement through its doctrine, in particular identified in the Bosphorus case, by stressing that the accession of a State to the European Union presumes its compliance when implementing EU law with the obligations arising from the ECHR, even if this presumption can be refuted if the protection is manifestly lacking, which was admitted in several cases, in particular concerning the right to an impartial tribunal in matters of economic regulation. The different legal orders are thus articulated. 

The author concludes that the European Court of Human Rights, like the Court of Justice of the Union, contributes to the construction of Compliance Law in Europe, from an Ex Ante perspective favoring opinions rather than Ex Post sanctions and creating, in particular through the Bosphorus doctrine, elements of security and confidence for European integration around common values.


📝 read the general presentation of the book une présentation générale du livre, 📕 La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published.


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.


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.

Consulter une analyse dans laquelle cet article est cité.


« Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l’article via le Drive de Sciences po en allant dans le dossier « MAFR – Régulation ».

June 23, 2022

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Augagneur, L.-M., Le traitement réputationnel par et sur les plateformes, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 


 Article Summary (done by the author): The large platforms are in the position of arbiter of the reputation economy (referencing, notoriety) in which they themselves act. Although the stakes are usually low on a unit basis, the jurisdiction of reputation represents significant aggregate stakes. Platforms are thus led to detect and assess reputation manipulations (by users: SEO, fake reviews, fake followers; or by the platforms themselves as highlighted by the Google Shopping decision issued by the European Commission in 2017) that are implemented on a large scale with algorithmic tools.

The identification and treatment of manipulations is itself only possible by means of artificial intelligence tools. Google thus proceeds with an automated downgrading mechanism for sites that do not follow its guidelines, with the possibility of requesting a review through a very summary procedure entirely conducted by an algorithm. Tripadvisor, on the other hand, uses an algorithm to detect false reviews based on "fraud modeling to identify electronic patterns that cannot be detected by the human eye". It only conducts a human investigation in limited cases.

This jurisdictionality of reputation has little in common with that defined by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (legal origin, contradictory procedure, independence, application of the Rules of Law). It is characterized, on the one hand, by the absence of transparency of the rules and even of the existence of rules stated in predicative form and applied by deductive reasoning. It is replaced by an inductive probabilistic model by the identification of abnormal behaviors in relation to centroids. This approach of course raises the issue of statistical bias. More fundamentally, it reflects a transition from Rule of Law, not so much to "Code is Law" (Laurence Lessig), but to "Data is Law", that is, to a governance of numbers (rather than "by" numbers). It also comes back to a form of collective jurisdictionality, since the sanction comes from a computational apprehension of the phenomena of the multitude and not from an individual appreciation. Finally, it appears particularly consubstantial with compliance, since it is based on a teleological approach (the search for a finality rather than the application of principles).

On the other hand, this jurisdictionality is characterized by man-machine cooperation, whether in the decision-making process (which poses the problem of automaticity bias) or in the contradictory procedure (which poses, in particular, the problems of discussion with the machine and the explicability of the machine response).

Until now, the supervision of these processes has been based essentially on the mechanisms of transparency, a limited adversarial requirement and the accessibility of appeal channels. The French Law Loi pour une République Numérique ("Law  for a Digital Republic"), the European Legislation Platform-to-Business Regulation and the Omnibus Directive, have thus set requirements on the ranking criteria on platforms. The Omnibus Directive also requires that professionals guarantee that reviews come from consumers through reasonable and proportionate measures. As for the European Digital Services Act, it provides for transparency on content moderation rules, procedures and algorithms. But this transparency is often a sham. In the same way and for the moment the requirements of sufficient human intervention and adversarial processes appear very limited in the draft text.

The most efficient forms of this jurisdictionality ultimately emerge from the role played by third parties in a form of participatory dispute resolution. Thus, for example, FakeSpot detects false Tripadvisor reviews, Sistrix establishes a ranking index that helped establish the manipulation of Google's algorithm in the Google Shopping case by detecting artifacts based on algorithm changes. Moreover, the draft Digital Services Act envisages recognizing a specific status for trusted flaggers who identify illegal content on platforms.

This singular jurisdictional configuration (judge and party platform, massive situations, algorithmic systems for handling manipulations) thus leads us to reconsider the grammar of the jurisdictional process and its characteristics. If Law is a language (Alain Sériaux), it offers a new grammatical form that would be that of the middle way (mesotès) described by Benevéniste. Between the active and the passive way, there is a way in which the subject carries out an action in which he includes himself. Now, it is the very nature of this jurisdictionality of compliance to make laws by including oneself in them (nomos tithestai). In this respect, the irruption of artificial intelligence in this jurisdictional treatment undoubtedly bears witness to the renewal of the language of Law.



📝 Consulter une présentation générale du volume dans lequel l'article est publié.


April 22, 2022

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

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2022, to be published.


📅  This book is based on the 2021 colloquia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners.


► This book in few words: Sanctions, controls, appeals, deals: judges and lawyers are everywhere in the Compliance mechanisms, creating unprecedented situations, sometimes without a solution yet available.  Even though Compliance was designed to avoid the judge and produce security by avoiding conflict. This jurisdictionalisation is therefore new. Forcing companies to prosecute and judge, a constrained role, perhaps against their nature. Leading to the adaptation of major procedural principles, with difficulty. Confronting arbitration with new perspectives. Putting the judge at heart, in mechanisms designed so that he is not there. How in practice to organize these opposites and anticipate the solutions? This is the challenge taken up by this book.


► Read the presentation of the other books of this Collection:

📘  Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Compliance Monumental Goals2022 ;

📘  Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Compliance Tools, 2020.


► Book Summary: There have always been Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law, in particular because this branch of Law is an extension of Regulatory Law in which they have a core place. This results from the fact that the decisions taken in respect of Compliance are contestable in Court, including Arbitration, those issued by the Company, such as those of States or Authorities, the Judge in turn becoming what Compliance Law is effective.

The novelty lies more in the phenomenon of "jurisdictionalisation", that is to say that the trial model penetrates all Compliance Law, and not only the Ex Post part that it includes. Moreover, it seems that this jurisdictionalisation influences the non-legal dimension of Compliance. This movement has effects that must be measured and causes that must be understood. Advantages and disadvantages that must be balanced. If only to form an opinion vis-à-vis Companies that have become Prosecutors and Judges of themselves and others ...: encourage this "Jurisdictionalisation of Compliance", fight it, perhaps influence it? In any case, understand it!



► Read the first presentations of the book through some articles of its 4 parts :


📝 ​Frison-Roche, M.-A., Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law



📝 Granier, C., The Jurisprudence of the Compagnies established as prosecutors and Judges of themselves by Compliance Law

📝 Coulon, J.-M., How a company works to make Compliance Law a reality: the example of the construction sector

📝 Lapp, Ch., How a Company works to make Compliance Law a reality: the statues of processes

📝 Augagneur, L.-M., Reputational Treatment by and on the platforms 

📝 Bruno, A., The way in which compagnies in the banking sector organize themselves and behave in order to fulfill their role as "prosecutor and judges of themselves"


📝 Siproudhis, J.-B., The transfer of responsibility from the regulator and the judge to the company: demonstration by the whistleblowing mechanism

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Judge-Judged ; articulating words and things in the face of the impossible conflict of interests

📝 Heymann, J., La nature juridique de la "Cour suprême" de Facebook

📝 Lapp, Ch., How a Company works to make Compliance Law a reality: the statues of processes

📝Latour, D., Les enquêtes internes au sein des entreprises

📝Merabet, S., Etre juge et ne pas juger

📝 Siproudhis, J.-B., Le transfert de responsabilité du régulateur et du juge vers l’entreprise : la démonstration par le système d’alerte

📝 Bavitot, A., Shaping the company through negotiated Criminal Justice Agreements



📝 ​Cayrol, N., General Procedural Law in Compliance Law

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les outils de la Compliance au crible du Droit processuel

📝Sillaman, B., Privilege and Cooperation: Procedural Lessons Learned from the U.S. for Global Application

📝 Scemla, S.& Paillot, D., The supervisory Authorities face difficulties to apprehend the Rights of the Defense

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Prolégomène pour le système probatoire du Droit de la Compliance

📝Linden, A., Motivation and publicity of the decisions of the restricted committee of the French Personal Data Protection Commission (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés-CNIL) in a compliance perspective

📝 Schiller, S., A single judge in the event of an international breach of compliance obligations?



📝Racine, J.-B., Compliance and Arbitration: Problematisation

📝Kessedjian, C.,  Arbitration serving the fight against Human Rights violations by Businesses 

📝 Kleiman, E., The goals of compliance confronted to arbitration and its actors

📝 ​Audit, M., The position of the arbitrator in matters of Compliance

📝 Jourdan-Marques, J., The arbitrator, ex ante judge of compliance?

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'adossement de la Compliance à l'arbitrage international




📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le rôle du Juge dans le Droit de la Compliance

📝Morel-Maroger, J.,, Application of Compliance standards by EU Judges

📝Toe, S., L’application judiciaire des normes de la compliance en remède aux insuffisances des procédures collectives 

📝Douvreleur, O., Compliance and Judge ruling only on points of Law

📝Wennerström, E., Some Reflections on Compliance and the European Court of Human Rights





Feb. 9, 2022

Teachings : Droit de la régulation bancaire et financière - semestre 2022

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:

Jan. 13, 2022

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: Wennerström, E., Some Reflections on Compliance and the European Court of Human Rights, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisationseries "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. 


 Article Summary: (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): The development of the European Court of Human Rights case law, contributing to European integration, has incorporated the substantial concept of ​​"compliance" which goes beyond the idea of ​​legality with respect to which companies remain passive, and promotes legal orders as systems in interaction with one another.

The author develops the spirit and scope of Protocol 15 by which both the principle of subsidiarity and the margins of appreciation the signatory States are organized, mechanisms governed by the principle of proportionality. Subsidiarity means that the States are in the best position to design the most adequate application of the Convention, the close links between the States allowing its effective application. In addition, the new opinion procedure which allows a national court to have during a case the non-binding opinion of the ECHR ensures better compliance with the objectives of the Convention.

The case-law of the Court takes up this substantial requirement through its doctrine, in particular identified in the Bosphorus case, by stressing that the accession of a State to the European Union presumes its compliance when implementing EU law with the obligations arising from the ECHR, even if this presumption can be refuted if the protection is manifestly lacking, which was admitted in several cases, in particular concerning the right to an impartial tribunal in matters of economic regulation. The different legal orders are thus articulated. 

The author concludes that the European Court of Human Rights, like the Court of Justice of the Union, contributes to the construction of Compliance Law in Europe, from an Ex Ante perspective favoring opinions rather than Ex Post sanctions and creating, in particular through the Bosphorus doctrine, elements of security and confidence for European integration around common values.



📘 read the general presentation of the book la présentation, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published.



Dec. 24, 2021


'► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.Concevoir le pouvoir, document de travail, déc. 2021.


📝 ce  document de travail sert de base à un article à paraître dans les Mélanges élaborés en hommage à Emmanuel Gaillard. 


► Résumé du document de travail : En 1985, l'œuvre d'Emmanuel Gaillard sortit sous le titre Le pouvoir en droit privé 📎!footnote-2418, mais lors de sa soutenance en 1981, sa thèse dirigée par le Doyen Cornu avait pour titre La notion de pouvoir en droit privé 📎!footnote-2419.

Redonnons pleine force au titre originel du travail de thèse.  

La suppression du terme notion suppose peut-être qu'en définissant quelque chose l'essentiel est fait, qu'il y aurait comme un pléonasme en visant La notion de pouvoir et Le pouvoir, le Droit aimant faire économie de mots.  

Mais c'est bien une conception renouvelée, plus simple et plus puissante de la notion de pouvoir, contenant ainsi tout le régime nécessairement imputé, que cet ouvrage imposa, éclairant désormais le droit positif. Tandis qu'à l'inverse la définition qu'en offrit Emmanuel Gaillard excède le Droit privé. L'on aurait volontiers plaidé pour conserver l'exergue du terme Notion, proposant plutôt de se libérer de la mention du seul droit privé ....

Peut-être était-ce parce que la notion est immense que dans cette recherche fondatrice son emprise fut restreinte au droit privé, l'auteur devant déjà rendre compte de la lourde multiplicité des manifestations dans cette partie-là du Droit ; ou bien était-ce parce que la notion de "pouvoir" étant si familière au Droit public qu'elle aurait eu dans celui-ci moins besoin de définition (d'ailleurs si diversement proposée dans cette zone plus politique, qui veille déjà par principe à distinguer les pouvoirs, ceux-ci devant toujours être pluriels afin d'être séparés), et qu'il était donc raisonnable de vouloir parvenir à une seule notion de pouvoir dans ce Droit privé où le droit subjectif est plus familier. 

Pourtant la définition élaborée par Emmanuel Gaillard de la notion de pouvoir comme ce qui est une prérogative remise, par la loi ou le contrat, entre les mains de celui qui en est investi au bénéfice, au moins partiel, d'autrui, rend compte aussi bien du Droit public que du Droit privé. Cela participe même à la solidité de cette thèse et explique sa prospérité aujourd'hui dans un Droit où la distinction entre le Droit privé et le Droit public s'affaiblit.

La puissance de cette définition tient à sa simplicité. Les esprits simples et braves sont souvent les plus fructueux. Comme le souligne Gérard Cornu dans sa préface, l'auteur, notamment parce qu'il s'appuie davantage sur du droit positif, par exemple celui relatif aux pouvoirs des mandataires sociaux, ne s'abîme pas dans des discussions entre des auteurs pour finir par préférer plutôt l'un que l'autre. Il arrive à une définition proche de celle de notre expérience quotidienne : celle que nous connaissons lorsque nous retirons un pli pour autrui et que le préposé nous demande à quel titre nous prétendons faire cet acte en son nom. Nous lui montrons alors notre "pouvoir", cette puissance juridique de le faire pour le bénéfice de celui auquel est adressé le courrier et pouvons ainsi exercer la puissance de retirer la missive, pourtant personnelle. Quand le sens juridique et le sens commun se rejoignent, c'est de bon augure, non seulement sur la forme parce que chacun peut le comprendre et que le Droit doit rester chose compréhensible mais encore sur le fond parce que chacun doit pouvoir contrôler l'exercice d'un pouvoir qui se concrétise pour et sur autrui. Car cette lettre qui s'adresse à autrui, celui qui a pu la prendre par le pouvoir qui lui en a été conféré, pourrait ainsi aussi bien la décacheter et la lire puis la détruire ou la donner au pire ennemi de celui auquel elle était adressée. Dans le pouvoir, il y a toujours la puissance, et le danger pour autrui que celle-ci contient. 

Cette définition très juridique de ce qu'est le pouvoir met à distance non seulement le titulaire de son propre intérêt mais encore cela canalise la puissance qui lui est ainsi accordée vers celui qui en bénéficie. En cela, non seulement Emmanuel Gaillard distingua le pouvoir et le droit subjectif, mais il cerna le juste volume de puissance requis pour que ce pouvoir remplisse effectivement cette "mission", à travers la notion d'abus de pouvoir, lorsque le titulaire utilise pour d'autres bénéficiaires cette puissance qui ne lui fut conférée que pour cela.

Plus encore, cette conception permet de distinguer le pouvoir de la force discrétionnaire, car le titulaire du pouvoir exerce de ce fait une puissance, en agissant pour autrui, en décidant pour autrui, en décidant sur autrui. Parce que le pouvoir est indissociable de la puissance mais que la puissance doit rester le moyen du pouvoir et pas davantage, le Droit va produire les anticorps que sont non seulement la théorie de l'abus de pouvoir mais encore une responsabilité si forte que des comptes doivent toujours être rendus, soit à cet autrui pour lequel tout est fait soit devant un tiers. Car ce troisième est souvent là et dès le départ, le juge des tutelles par exemple : car le pouvoir fut mis en place en raison de la faiblesse du bénéficiaire, en lui-même et par la situation, il faut donc un tiers, impartial et désintéressé pour, dès le départ, veiller à la bonne exécution, sans même qu'il y ait litige. En cela, comme cette thèse est utile pour penser ce qu'est aujourd'hui la Supervision !  

Cette thèse si nette, si simple et si forte dépasse le droit civil. Elle est à la fois beaucoup plus restrictive que la définition plus factuelle et politique de ce qu'est le pouvoir, qui serait la possibilité de faire quelque chose, et beaucoup plus ample que les définitions usuelles puisqu'elle embrasse et légitime de jure toutes les situations où une personne va agir juridiquement pour le bénéfice d'autrui.  Le Doyen Cornu montre d'ailleurs en deux phrases qu'une telle notion de pouvoir restitue aussi bien l'office du juge, qui n'a de pouvoir sur autrui que pour le servir 📎!footnote-2420. La définition correspond à la mission de celui qui n'a de puissance que pour remplir son office. Cela convient si bien à la conception que nous avons aujourd'hui de l'administration, surtout si elle prend la forme d'autorités indépendantes.

Plus encore le pouvoir contient ainsi dans sa définition même sa propre limite, puisqu'autrui y est présent : le titulaire n'a de puissance que pour servir autrui. Dès lors, ce n'est une puissance que parce que c'est une sorte de charge. Emmanuel Gaillard utilise immédiatement le terme : "Un individu se voit confier une charge qu'il exerce dans un intérêt au moins partiellement distinct du sien propre" 📎!footnote-2422. Il se réfère d'ailleurs souvent au tuteur, dont Carbonnier, qui en réforma le Droit en la matière 📎!footnote-2456, souligna que pèse sur lui une charge publique puisque l'État lui confie un enfant. De la même façon l'autorité parentale est une charge des parents au bénéfice des enfants. D'une façon plus générale, le pouvoir est une charge que le Droit fait peser sur une personne afin qu'elle satisfasse les intérêts d'un autre.

Cette définition offerte par Emmanuel Gaillard en 1981, ancrée dans le Droit civil qu'en ce que celui-ci est le Droit commun des systèmes juridiques, est prémonitoire du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance, tel qu'il se déploie aujourd'hui. Il suffirait de continuer les phrases, comme si elles avaient été à demi-écrites, pour les finir 40 ans plus tard et y trouver les mécanismes de Supervision des autorités publiques sur les entreprises qui sont désormais en place non pas pour réduire leur pouvoir mais pour s'assurer en permanence qu'elles l'exercent bien au bénéfice d'autrui 📎!footnote-2457. Toute l'évolution du Droit des sociétés, du Droit financier est là. L'on voit aussi entre les lignes de l'ouvrage qui développe la notion de devoir 📎!footnote-2421, ce que le droit positif élabore aujourd'hui à travers notamment le "devoir de vigilance", cette charge personnelle au bénéfice d'autrui (I).

La définition du pouvoir ainsi conçu contient en elle-même son régime et permet de mieux l'anticiper aujourd'hui : parce que le titulaire n'exerce le pouvoir que pour autrui,  au moins partiellement, il doit consubstantiellement en rendre compte, la responsabilité, n'étant qu'une forme de cette accountability ; parce que ce service doit être effectif et qu'autrui doit en bénéficier pleinement, car contrairement au droit subjectif qui permet au titulaire de librement de ne pas user de sa puissance, le pouvoir n'a jamais été la "plus absolue" disponibilité d'user de sa puissance : il est même l'inverse. Il est l'expression d'une puissance affectée à un but, contraignant le titulaire à utiliser sa puissance à cette fin.  Mais il faut pareillement que ce titulaire ait toute la puissance pour le faire, car sinon la notion même de "pouvoir" n'a plus de sens. C'est la définition qu'il convient de donner au principe de proportionnalité : celui sur lequel pèse le pouvoir doit avoir plus de puissance qu'il n'est nécessaire mais toute la puissance nécessaire pour atteindre le but pour lequel ce pouvoir lui a été remis afin qu'autrui en tire plein bénéfice (II). 

Dans le droit positif d'aujourd'hui, l'on retrouve la définition du pouvoir comme un devoir, non seulement en Droit privé mais encore en Droit public, notamment parce que les puissances pures, c'est-à-dire ne rendant pas compte de l'usage de leur puissance, régressent tandis que le souci d'autrui s'accroît. Le temps des pouvoirs discrétionnaires est révolu, l'indépendance accrue de ceux qui exercent du pouvoir sur autrui exigeant qu'ils rendent des comptes. Au-delà de cette reddition des comptes, la responsabilité personnelle de celui qui a le pouvoir de servir autrui est en train de se mettre en place. Mais, sans doute parce que le Droit est lent à se mouvoir, l'idée corrélative comme quoi le titulaire du pouvoir doit avoir toute la puissance requise pour mener à bien sa mission est quant à elle moins ancrée :  le Droit n'a donc fait qu'une partie du chemin en sanctionnant les excès du pouvoir, comme le montra Emmanuel Gaillard, quand le titulaire utilise sa puissance à d'autres fins,  mais n'a pas encore clairement posé que le titulaire - parfois forcé - d'un pouvoir est légitime à  utiliser tous  les moyens requis pour atteindre le résultat pour lequel un pouvoir, c'est-à-dire une charge et un devoir, lui a été conféré.  

Sans doute faut-il lire une nouvelle fois la thèse d'Emmanuel Gaillard dans toutes ses potentialités, pour en imaginer la lecture que nous pourrions aujourd'hui faire de ce qu'il aurait pu écrire comme sur des pages blanches qui s'écriraient toutes seules, une thèse magique où tout est déjà là, une thèse si courte (250 pages) et si belle, si dense qu'elle contient déjà le Droit qui vient. Droit de l'Avenir 📎!footnote-2458 où il y doit y avoir beaucoup plus de responsabilité au bénéfice d'autrui📎!footnote-2423 et de pouvoirs puisque cette notion inclut autrui qui en est le bénéficiaire. Droit de l'Avenir où Emmanuel Gaillard sera présent, notamment grâce à ce travail de doctrine offert en 1981.  Pour que, concrètement ceux que l'on charge de veiller sur autrui, par exemple aujourd'hui toutes les entreprises contraintes par le Droit de la Compliance de veiller sur autrui afin que celui-ci ne soit pas anéanti par la haine dans l'espace numérique, par la corruption dans le système économique ou par le changement climatique dans un futur projeté, ne se voient pas contester par le même Droit les moyens d'exercer au profit d'autrui ce pouvoir, par exemple lorsque cela implique de "juger". Puisque le doyen Cornu lui-même soulignait l'identité des deux offices.

Lire les développement ci-dessous