► Réference complète : L.-M. Augagneur, "The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp.109-125 

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : 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.

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : J.-M. Coulon, "Compliance law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and deadlocks that companies face", in M.-A. Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 148-154 

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law, co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Christophe Lapp, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Christophe Lapp's Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law ).

___

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : The construction industry is not a regulated sector. Its market is made up of a superposition of territorial strata which are all relevant markets, to which corresponds a specific microcosm of companies. Finally, the temporary association between companies for the purposes of carrying out a project or a work is consubstantial with this sector.

The penetration of Compliance in this sector is inevitably very heterogeneous and results from both exogenous factors (other partners within temporary associations, influence of economic operators from other sectors of activity, capital providers and lenders, incitations from professional organizations) the endogenous (submission to a Financial Regulatory Authority because the company is listed ; application of the laws on duty of vigilance, and French Law called "Sapin 2"). For example, subject to all these factors combined, the Bouygues group is particularly sensitive to compliance.

Not only internal "legislator", the Bouygues group finds itself in turn "prosecutor and judge" both of itself and of others. Indeed, leading an investigation, filing a complaint, triggering an ethics alert, making use of the leniency program, this group is, however, no other than a sort of assistant for the Prosecutor. In addition, scrutinizing its stakeholders, sanctioning its employees, resorting to a Convention Judiciaire d'intérêt public (judicial agreement in the public interest) or negotiating its sanction within the framework of a procedure instituted by a multilateral bank, it fulfills the function of a judge. Legislator, prosecutor, judge, the Bouygues group is faced with a paradox, in a way encouraged to exercise “sovereignty”, yet it does not benefit from the attributes attached to it or from the unwavering support of the competent Public Authorities.

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Reference complète : A. Bruneau, "The company judges itself: the Compliance function in the bank", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 127-145

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Summary of the article :  First of all, it should be remembered that the compliance function was born within finance, and that by being structured, it has evolved to support the transition from regulatory law to compliance law. Through these changes, compliance has gone from an ex-post controlling function to an ex-ante binding function. The LIBOR crisis imperfectly illustrates the primacy of this transition. The evolution of this role is illustrated by concrete examples

Firstly, the management of reputational risk is a fundamental part of the company as prosecutor and judge of itself. Reputational risk is a significant element for a financial institution, because it can have negative consequences on its capitalization, or even culminate in a systemic crisis. Avoiding a large-scale financial crisis is also part of the monumental goals of compliance.

In order to avoid complex and inopportune scenarios, compliance law intervenes as early as possible and identifies issues that may impact reputation. The regulations require the implementation of certain ex ante mechanisms. The French law known as "Sapin 2" requires the implementation of tools that concern all companies (and not just banks). Indeed, beyond the risk of reputation, it is essential to consider the risk of corruption. Consideration of reputational risk may justify refusing to execute certain transactions. From this perspective, compliance must assess the potential consequences of entering into a relationship with a new client upstream, sometimes to decline the provision of services. The compliance function therefore unilaterally judges the relationship with a view to managing the company reputational risk.

Secondly, the internal sanction mechanism established by compliance law is also discussed in this article, in particular the internal sanctions adopted by compliance in a financial institution. Compliance can act as a prosecutor via management committees set up within the business lines. In addition, compliance can determine and apply sanctions against employees. In this way, there is a dual role of prosecutor and judge for the compliance function within the framework of an extraordinary mechanism of ordinary law.

Finally, the analysis deals with the case of the "judge-judged": following a decision by the bank, the regulator may take an even stricter position by believing that the bank is applying its guidelines incorrectly. Thus, the compliance law, which takes hold within the banking enterprise, finds itself under the judgment of its own regulator. The company finds itself judged and comes to be a prosecutor and judge of itself, but also of its clients.

____ 

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Main Aspects of the Book. Compliance Jurisdictionalisation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 11-38

____

📝Cet article constitue l'introduction de l'ouvrage ; il est en accès libre ICI.

____

📘lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : Cet article en accès libre ⤵️explique en premier lieu le propos général de l'ouvrage et en deuxième lieu sa structuration en 4 chapitres.

Puis, en troisième lieu, en suivant la table des matières, cet article reprend en quelques lignes chacune des contributions.

C'est ainsi qu'apparaissent plus nettement encore les "lignes de force" de l'ouvrage" Compliance Jurisdictionalisation

____

🔓Lire l'article en intégralité⤵️

________

► Reference complète : C. Granier, "Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 95-107

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteure) : Because Compliance shakes up established frameworks, Compliance forces to look at certain concepts in a new light, which until then seemed to be well tamed. This is particularly the case with the notion of "Jurisprudence". Recent developments in Compliance indeed raise questions about the possible existence of "jurisprudence" (case law) that would be produced by companies during the implementation of compliance procedures.

At first glance, the concept of "business jurisprudence" may appear unnatural because case law is traditionally understood as the fruit of the office of the Judge and, more particularly, of the State Judge. However, the observation that the company can position itself as a Judge with regard to itself and others in the context of the implementation of Compliance legitimately raises the question of the possibility for the latter. to produce case law. The example of Facebook's supervisory board and the first decisions rendered by this body increases the legitimacy of this crucial question.

Thinking about the concept of "Jurisprudence of companies" implies to compare the process of emergence of the case law standard emanating from the Judge with the process of emergence of a "Jurisprudence" that would be produced by companies during their "jurisdictional functions". On the material level, an analogy between State case law and company case law seems conceivable. It then remains to overcome an obstacle of an organic nature: can an institution other than the judge be understood as producing case law?

In view of contemporary developments in Law and the practical interest that exists in designing business case law, it seems appropriate to adopt a broader view of case law, which is detached from the traditional organic criterion. It therefore seems that it is possible but above all that it is necessary to think about the concept of "business case law" in order to highlight a new facet of the normative power of companies in the context of compliance, in particular with a view to its supervision.

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : Ch. Lapp, "Compliance in Companies: The Statutes of the Process", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 155-166 

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Jan-Marc Coulon, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Jean-Marc Coulon's  Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law).

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : The Company is caught in the grip of Compliance Law, the jaws of which are those of Incitement (1) and Sanction that the Company must apply to ensure the effectiveness of its processes to which it is itself subject (2 ).

First, the Company has been delegated to fabricate reprehensible rules that it must apply to itself and to third parties with whom it has dealings. To this end, the Company sets up "processes", that is to say verification and prevention procedures, in order to show that the offenses that it is likely to commit will not happened.

These processes constitute standards of behavior to prevent and avoid that the facts constituting the infringements are not themselves carried out. They are thus one of the elements of Civil Liability Law in its preventive or restorative purposes.

Second, the sanction of non obedience of Compliance processes puts the Company in front of two pitfalls. The first  dimension place the company, with regard to its employees and its partners, in the obligation to define processes which also constitute the quasi-jurisdictional resolution of their non-compliance, the company having to reconcile the sanction it pronounces with the fundamental principles of classical Criminal Law, constitutional principles and all fundamental rights. The processes then become the procedural rule.

The second dimension is that the Company is accountable for the effectiveness of the avoidance by its processes of facts constituting infringements. By a reversal of the burden of proof, the Company is then required to prove that its processes are efficient. at least equivalent to the measures defined by laws and regulations, the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA), European directives and various communications on legal tools to fight breaches of probity, environmental attacks and current societal concerns. The processes then become the constitutive element, per se, of the infringement.

Thus, in its search for a balance between Prevention and Sanction to which it is itself subject, the Company will not then be tempted to favor the orthodoxy of its processes over the expectations of the Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA, regulators and judges, to the detriment of their efficiency?

In doing so, are we not moving towards an instrumental and conformist Compliance, paradoxically disempowering with regard to the Compliance Monumental Goals of Compliance?

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : S. Merabet, "Vigilance, being a judge and not judge", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 218-228

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : 

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète: J. Heymann, "The Legal Nature of the Facebook “Supreme Court”", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 167-182

____

📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Le résumé ci-dessous décrit un article qui fait suite au colloque L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance, coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et la Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. Ce colloque a été conçu sous la direction scientifique de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche et Jean-Christophe Roda et s'est déroulé à Lyon le 23 juin 2021.

Dans l'ouvrage, l'article sera publié dans le Titre I, consacré à  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance.

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : Taking place in the general theme aiming at making “words and things coincide”, the article offers some thoughts on the “conditions of the discourse” – in the sense in which Foucault understood it in his Archéologie des sciences humaines – relating to the phenomenon of “jurisdictionalization” of Compliance.

The thoughts are more specifically focusing on the nature of the so-called “Supreme Court” that Facebook instituted to hear appeals of decisions relating to content on the digital social networks that are Facebook and Instagram. Is this really a “Supreme Court”, designed in order to “judge” the Facebook Group?

A careful examination of the Oversight Board – i.e. the so-called “Supreme Court” created by Facebook – reveals that the latter, in addition to its advisory mission (which consists of issuing policy advisory opinions on Facebook’s content policies), exercises some form of adjudicative function. This is essentially conceived in terms of compliance assessment, of the content published on the social networks Facebook or Instagram with the standards issued by these corporations on the one hand, of content enforcement decisions taken by Facebook with the Law on the other hand. The legal framework of reference is yet rather vague, although its substantial content seems to be per se evolutive, based on the geographical realm where the case to be reviewed is located. An adjudicative function can therefore be characterized, even if the Oversight Board can only claim for a limited one.

The author can ultimately identify the Oversight Board as a preventive dispute settlement body, in the sense that it seems to aim at avoiding any referral to state courts and ruling before any court’s judgement can be delivered. Some questions are thus to be raised, relating with both legitimacy and authority of such a Board. But whatever the answers will be, the fact remains that the creation of the Oversight Board by a private law company already reveals all the liveliness of contemporary legal pluralism.

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

_________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, 464 p.

____

📕Parallèlement, un ouvrage en français, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, est publié dans la collection coéditée par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz. 

____

🧮Cet ouvrage vient à la suite d'un cycle de colloques 2021 organisés par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et des Universités qui lui sont partenaires.

____

► Présentation générale de l'ouvrage : 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.

____

Ce volume s'insère dans la ligne des ouvrages qui, dans cette collection en langue anglaise, sont consacrés à la Compliance.

📚Lire la présentation des autres ouvrages de la Collection portant sur la Compliance :

• les ouvrages suivants :

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2024 

• les ouvrages précédents :

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2023

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

____

► Résumé de l'ouvrage : 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!

____

🏗️Construction générale de l'ouvrage :

The book opens with a double Introduction. The first, which is freely accessible, consists of a summary of the book, while the second, which is substantial, deals with the need to bring the Judge and the Lawyer into line if Compliance Law is to be the hallmark of States governed by the Rule of Law.

The first Chapter is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, and even of others.  

The second Chapter examines the interference between General Procedural Law and Compliance techniques.

The third Chapter measures the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in methods of dispute resolution where it has not, with a few exceptions, been present, but where it has a great future: arbitration. 

Because trials and judgements are indissociable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law must not be dissociated, and because Compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon used to dissociate them, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding it must not be dissociated, because Compliance and the Rule of Law must therefore be conceived and practised together, the rise in power of one being a sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Chapter deals with the role of the Judge in Compliance.

____

► Appréhender l'ouvrage à travers la table des matières ci-dessous et les résumés de chacun des articles : 

DOUBLE INTRODUCTION

🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Main Aspects of the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation

🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law 

I. THE COMPANY ESTABLISHED PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE OF ITSELF BY COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The "Judge-Judged". Articulating Words and Things in the face of Conflicts of Interest

🕴️C. Granier, 📝Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters

🕴️L.-M. Augagneur, 📝The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms

🕴️A. Bruneau, 📝The compagny judges itself: the Compliance function in the bank

🕴️J.-M. Coulon, 📝Compliance law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and deadlocks that companies face

🕴️Ch. Lapp, 📝Compliance in companies: the statues of process

🕴️J. Heymann, 📝The Legal Nature of the Facebook "Supreme Court"

🕴️D. Latour, 📝Internal investigations within companies

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

🕴️S. Merabet, 📝Vigilance, being a judge and not judge

II. PROCEDURAL LAW IN COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️​N. Cayrol, 📝Procedural Principles in Compliance Law

🕴️F. Ancel, 📝Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial?

🕴️B. Sillaman, 📝Taking the Compliance U.S. Procedural Experience globally

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

🕴️S. Scemla, & 🕴️D. Paillot, 📝The difficulty for Compliance Enforcement Authorities to comprehend the Rights of the Defence in compliance matters

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the nature of things

III. ARTICULATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE LAW AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

🕴️J.-B. Racine, 📝Compliance and arbitration. An attempt at problematisation

🕴️E. Silva-Romero & 🕴️R. Legru, 📝What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration?

🕴️​M. Audit, 📝The arbitrator's position on compliance

🕴️E. Kleiman, 📝The objectives of compliance confronted with the actors of arbitration

IV. THE JUDGE IN COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System

🕴️J. Morel-Maroger, 📝The application of compliance standards by European Union judges 

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

🕴️O. Douvreleur, 📝Compliance and Judge of the Law

🕴️F. Raynaud, 📝The Administrative Judge and Compliance

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

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, 464 p.

____

📕Parallèlement, un ouvrage en français, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, est publié dans la collection coéditée par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz. 

____

► Présentation générale de l'ouvrage : 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!

____

🏗️Construction générale de l'ouvrage :The book opens with a double Introduction. The first, which is freely accessible, consists of a summary of the book, while the second, which is substantial, deals with the need to bring the Judge and the Lawyer into line if Compliance Law is to be the hallmark of States governed by the Rule of Law.

The first Chapter is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, and even of others.  The second Chapter examines the interference between General Procedural Law and Compliance techniques.The third Chapter measures the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in methods of dispute resolution where it has not, with a few exceptions, been present, but where it has a great future: arbitration. Because trials and judgements are indissociable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law must not be dissociated, and because Compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon used to dissociate them, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding it must not be dissociated, because Compliance and the Rule of Law must therefore be conceived and practised together, the rise in power of one being a sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Chapter deals with the role of the Judge in Compliance.

____

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOUBLE INTRODUCTION

🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Main Aspects of the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation

🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law 

I. THE COMPANY ESTABLISHED PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE OF ITSELF BY COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The "Judge-Judged". Articulating Words and Things in the face of Conflicts of Interest

🕴️C. Granier, 📝Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters

🕴️L.-M. Augagneur, 📝The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms

🕴️A. Bruneau, 📝The compagny judges itself: the Compliance function in the bank

🕴️J.-M. Coulon, 📝Compliance Law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and. deadlocks that companies face

🕴️Ch. Lapp, 📝Compliance in companies: the statues of process

🕴️J. Heymann, 📝The Legal Nature of the Facebook "Supreme Court"

🕴️D. Latour, 📝Internal investigations within companies

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

🕴️S. Merabet, 📝Vigilance, being a judge and not judge

II. PROCEDURAL LAW IN COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️​N. Cayrol, 📝Procedural Principles in Compliance Law

🕴️F. Ancel, 📝Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial?

🕴️B. Sillaman, 📝Taking the Compliance U.S. Procedural Experience globally

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

🕴️S. Scemla, & 🕴️D. Paillot, 📝The difficulty for Compliance Enforcement Authorities to comprehend the Rights of the Defence in compliance matters

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the nature of things

III. ARTICULATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE LAW AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

🕴️J.-B. Racine, 📝Compliance and arbitration. An attempt at problematisation

🕴️E. Silva-Romero & 🕴️R. Legru, 📝What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration?

🕴️​M. Audit, 📝The arbitrator's position on compliance

🕴️E. Kleiman, 📝The objectives of compliance confronted with the actors of arbitration

IV. THE JUDGE IN COMPLIANCE LAW

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System

🕴️J. Morel-Maroger, 📝The application of compliance standards by European Union judges 

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

🕴️O. Douvreleur, 📝Compliance and Judge of the Law

🕴️F. Raynaud, 📝The Administrative Judge and Compliance

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

________