► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law", in , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation , série "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, à paraître.
► Résumé de l'article: Before examining the issue of the role of the Judges in Compliance Law, it is necessary to ask the preliminary question : is it useful to tolerate the Judge and/or the Lawyers presence in Compliance Law ?
This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer.
But It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Differed Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong.
However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before inventing - after this enormous systemic disaster - the "general procedural law".