► Référence complète : A. Lyon-Caen, "Querelle de mots", RDT, 2023, p. 665

____

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

________

Mais c'est d'une façon plus systématique encore qu'il faut sans cesse appliquer, par réflexe, une définition, une qualification. Par exemple : qu'est-ce qu'une banque ? qu'est-ce qu'une entreprise ? qu'est-ce que l'intérêt social ? qu'est-ce qu'un conseil ? qu'est-ce qu'une sanction ? etc.

En prenant tous ces exemples, l'on mesure qu'en matière de régulation bancaire et financière, le droit - comme partout ailleurs - ne saurait se réduire à une réglementation : c'est un art pratique dans lequel l'imagination est libre cours.

Accéder au plan de la leçon sur La primauté des définitions et des qualifications dans le droit de la régulation bancaire et financière.

Lire l'explicitation du thème de la leçon sur La primauté des définitions et des qualifications dans le droit de la régulation bancaire et financière.

Accéder aux slides de la leçon  La primauté des définitions dans le droit de la régulation bancaire et financière

Consulter le Glossaire du Droit de la Régulation.

Consulter ci-dessous la bibliographie sommaire et approfondie.

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Articulation systémique entre Vigilance, Due diligence, conformité et Compliance : la Vigilance, part totale de l’Obligation de Compliance", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : Le "devoir de vigilance" déchaine d'autant plus de positions radicales et passionnées, parfois chez les professeurs de droit, qu'il n'a pas été défini. L'on emploie un mot pour un autre, par mégarde ou par dessein, par dessein si l'on peut attirer tel ou tel élément d'un régime juridique de l'on convoite, par mégarde car c'est souvent par inadvertance que les mots du Droit sont maltraités.  L'exercice même de définition, notamment celui très périlleux de "devoir" étant mené dans la partie de l'ouvrage visant à "cerner l'obligation de compliance", il s'agit ici de démêler ce que l'on semble utiliser l'un pour l'autre : la vigilance, le duty of care, la due diligence. 

La loi française de 2017 dite "Vigilance" reprenant les dispositifs techniques de la loi de 2016 dite "Sapin 2", avec les plans, les audits, etc., cela renvoie au Droit de la compliance, auquel l'on substitue souvent le terme de "conformité", avec des conséquences pratiques très dommageables, comme on le fit il y a 20 ans quand on affirmait que le "Droit de la Régulation" devait être dénommé le "Droit de la réglementation"!footnote-3440.

Chacun de ces termes renvoient à des notions différentes. Le Législateur n'aide pas puisqu'il les utilisent souvent les uns pour les autres, le passage entre l'anglais et le français valant circonstance atténuante mais laissant le dysfonctionnement entier.

Il convient donc tout d'abord de redonner à chacun de ces termes juridiques leur signification (I). Il apparaît ainsi que le la Vigilance est la "pointe avancée" du Droit de la Compliance, lequel ayant été distingué de ce qui n'est que son outil, à savoir la "conformité". 

En effet, la Vigilance est une "pointe avancée en ce qu'elle est qui donne plus de visibilité à un système plus vaste qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, ce qui justifie donc un esprit de système et implique une méthode de réalisation du Droit qui est ici de nature téléologique, puisque le Droit de la Complique puise sa normativité dans les Buts Monumentaux, ce dont la technique de vigilance donne un exemple éclatant à travers le souci de l'environnement et des droits subjectifs de la personne (II).

A partir de ces bases méthodologiques, il est possible de s'extraire de la masse réglementaire qui prolifère dans les sujets de vigilance qui ne sont en rien limités à la loi  de 2017, pour traiter les sujets impliqués par la Vigilance en la replaçant dans le système du Droit de la Compliance, sans la pulvériser dans toutes les réglementations sectorielles où elle est déjà très présente ni être suspendu à l'adoption ou pas à la Directive européennes, ni se demander si un juge ou un autre va décider d'une façon ou d'une autre. 

En effet, ce Droit de la Compliance produit ce que j'ai pu qualifier de "causes systémiques", qui sont portées devant le juge, notamment par des parties prenantes, ce qui est en train de produire un renouvellement de l'office du juge (III). En raison d'un activisme judiciaire d'organisations, c'est par cette pointe avancée de la Vigilance que l'ensemble du Droit de la Compliance est en train de mettre le Juge au centre, comme cela fût montré dans l'ouvrage de 2023 La juridictionnalisation de la compliance, puis repris par le Conseil d'Etat et la Cour de cassation dans l'ouvrage à paraître De la Régulation à la Compliance : la place du juge. 

L'évolution du Droit positif confirme que la Vigilance est donc la "part totale" du Droit de la Compliance.

________

The goal for which a mechanism, a solution an institution or a rule is adopted, instituted or elaborated, is in principle external to them. Knowledge of this goal is a tool to better understand them and is only that.

On the contrary, in Regulation Law, the goal is the heart itself. By definition, Regulation Law is a set of instruments that articulate to take their meaning in relation to a goal. Moreover, these instruments are legitimate to represent a constraint only because they realize a goal which is itself legitimate. The interpretation of Regulation Law is based on the aims pursued: the reasoning is teleological.

This teleological nature explains that efficiency is no longer merely a concern - as for ordinary legal mechanisms, but rather a principle of Regulation Law. It explains the welcome, especially through the European Union Law of the theory of the useful effect. This link between rules, which are only means, and aims, refers to the principle of proportionality, which requires that constraints and exceptions be applied only when they are necessary, proportionality being the form off the classic principle of necessity.

Because the aim is the center, it must be expressed by the author of the Regulation standards, and this is all the more so if they are of a political nature, being not limited to mitigating technical failures of markets. This goal can be varied: the management of systemic risks, but also the consideration of the fundamental rights of people, the preservation of the environment, public health, civilization, education, etc. The silence of the legislature, which limits itself to the making of rules whereas these are merely instruments, without explicating the goal whereas the latter is a political decision, is a fault in the legislative art.

Moreover, in order that the person who applies the Regulation norm, in particular the Regulator and the Judge, has no excessive margin for interpretation and does not substitute for political power, the author of the Regulation norm needs to aim specifically for one goal : in this way, the one who applies the norm will be constrained. Or, if the author targets several purposes, then he must articulate them in relation to each other, by hierarchizing them for example. If he fails to do so, the institution which applies the regulatory standards will itself have to choose the purpose and exercise a power which he does not possess.

This express designation of purpose has been made for the European Banking Union,  this Regulation and Supervision construction, whose primary aim is to prevent systemic risks and resolve crises. Similarly, the purpose of the Regulation of essentiel infrastructures is to provide third parties access to the network. Similarly, in the case of a transitional regulation introduced following liberalization, the aim is to establish competition, the principle of which has been declared by the liberalization law. When this is not clearly stated, there is a lapse in the legislative art.

Référence complète : Boy, , "Réflexion sur le "droit de la régulation". A propos du texte de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche",  D., chron., 2001, p.3031 et s.

____

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le devoir de vigilance : comment progresser", in A. Bres & C. Maubernard (dir.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité ?, Bruylant, coll. "Droit & Economie", à paraître

____

📝lire l'article 

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes.

____

► Résumé de l'article : La critique est toujours facile, l'art est toujours difficile et le progrès est toujours possible. C'est ainsi qu'il est raisonnable d'appréhender ce "devoir de vigilance" que le Législateur français fît rentrer avec éclat dans l'ordre juridique, chacun se demandant s'il était tout à fait nouveau, ou non, si l'on pouvait le retrouver sous d'autres appellations, ou non. 

Comme si la Loi dite Vigilance avait réussi à attraper dans sa cage ce bel oiseau dont on attend tant de choses et dont on craint tant la puissance📎!footnote-3441 :

L'on peut songer à 8 façons d'améliorer le Droit qui exprime le devoir de vigilance, ces voies ne s'excluant en rien les unes des autres.

La première voie est la progression par l'écoulement du temps, retrouvant ce qui dans le passé était déjà de la vigilance et ce qui dans le futur sera son déploiement. Il n'y a jamais de page blanche, ce qui est vrai pour le Code civil l'est aussi pour la Vigilance qui est la pointe avancée du Droit de la Compliance, laquelle est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation.

La deuxième voie est la progression par la fixation du vocabulaire, car nous assistons à une grande bataille des mots, ouvertement ou en sourdine, en français ou en anglais. Or, le Droit est fiable pour l'attribution de régimes juridiques à des mots ancrés, ce qui n'est pas pour l'instant le cas.

La troisième voie est la progression par l'émergence de principes, voire d'un principe, retrouvés ou inventés. Le principe est cela d'une "obligation de vigilance" qui repose sur certaines entreprises, obligation qui consiste à "détecter" et à "prévenir" afin de préserver à l'avenir des systèmes qu'elles ont contribué à structurer, les "chaines de valeur" étant un exemple de cela. Cette obligation de moyens conduit à observer les "efforts" que l'entreprise assujettie (et non pas débitrice, sauf à ce qu'elle contractualise son obligation légale) déploie pour atteindre ce but systémique monumental. 

La quatrième voie est la progression par la mise en cohérence du ou des systèmes juridiques, pour l'instant frappés de lacunes et d'incohérences, ce à quoi pourraient pallier des méthodes comme la centralisation du contentieux ou, plus radicalement, l'indifférence aux frontières. Les marges de progrès sont ici très grandes et il ne faut le reprocher ni aux juges ni en entreprises, Rome ne s'est pas faite en un jour. Cette mise en cohérence ne passe pas forcément par le Droit international privé ou public, mais par des dialogues, voie plus souple et incertaine, tout au long des processus, aussi bien dans l'élaboration des plans et programmes que dans les contentieux eux-mêmes. La médiation est ainsi une voie à privilégier.

La cinquième voie est la progression par le fait que cela marche car les techniques de vigilance étant celles de la Compliance, dont la vigilance est la pointe avancée, l'enjeu est de trouver des solutions. La notion de "remédiation", qui est assez peu mise en valeur, doit être mise au centre. Le tryptique "effectivité, efficacité, efficience", issue du Droit de la Compliance doit être repris. Les techniques d'évaluation d'une part et de supervision d'autre part en découlent.

La sixième voie est la progression est le fait d'utiliser la puissance du Droit non seulement pour construire de nouvelles pertinences, et pour commencer la notion de vigilance mais aussi celle de chaine de valeur, mais encore pour imposer de nouvelles indifférences, à savoir l'indifférences à la figure du marché (à laquelle on préfère l'entreprise et la filière) et l'indifférence aux frontières. Le premier mouvement revient à revenir à 50 ans d'excès où le principe de concurrence semblait suffire à tout faire tourner en Droit, pour une conception des espaces publics, notamment celui de l'Union européenne, où l'articulation de deux piliers complémentaires, celui de la concurrence et celui de la compliance, que la vigilance écrit en lettres plus discernables, permet de maintenir un système durable et humain.

La septième voie est la progression par le rapprochement des perspectives, afin de trouver des solutions alors même que les intérêts soient opposés. C'est pour cela que les deux techniques que sont le contrat d'une part et la médiation d'autre part sont au cœur. Les "engagements", dont on mesure assez mal la portée, certains voulant leur en donner trop peu, d'autre voulant leur en donner trop, montrent l'articulation entre la volonté et la dimension structurelle de la Vigilance.

La huitième voie est la progression par la culture, car la culture de vigilance, comme la culture de compliance, doit se développer dans les entreprises et les filières, et doit devenir commune à celles-ci et aux parties prenantes. Pour le développement de cette culture de Vigilance, le juge est au centre, cela va apparaître de plus en plus. Il s'agira des juges civils, mais aussi des juges commerciaux, des juges administratifs et des arbitres internationaux.

________

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance and conformity: distinguishing them to articulate them, Working Paper, February 2024.

____

📝 this working paper was drawn up to serve as a basis for the article published in French in the Chronique MAFR -  Compliance Law, published in the Recueil Dalloz.  

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The words "conformité" and "compliance" are sometimes used interchangeably, presenting "conformité" as the translation into good legal French vocabulary of "compliance", which would come from the American system. This is not true, however, because each of these terms refers to two distinct and even opposing concepts. 

"conformity"' would require companies to show that they are actively obeying all the 'regulations' applicable to them, regardless of their content. "Compliance Law" is a new substantial branch of Law that derives its normativity from the "Monumental Goals" targeted by the political and public authorities: these monumental goals are intended to ensure that systems do not collapse in the future (Negative Monumental Goals), or even improve (Positive Monumental Goals). The systems concerned are banking, finance, energy, health, transport, digital and climate systems. The scope of Compliance Law is therefore both much more limited and more ambitious.

Distinguishing between the two allows us to put conformity back where it belongs, as a tool of Compliance Law. As such, conformity justifies the collation and correlation of information, with the algorithmic system playing a major role in this. On the other hand, the human concern that underpins Compliance Law justifies making training and the actions of in-house lawyers, attorneys and judges, central to it. The evidentiary system of Compliance that is currently being developed is based on evidentiary techniques rooted on the one hand in the tool of conformity and on the other in the culture of Compliance, which can be articulated as soon as they are no longer confused.

____

🔓read the working paper below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Préalable : ce qu'est l'obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: the Compliance Obligation"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration") which was finally not pronounced but will be the subject of an 📝article in the forthcoming book 📘Compliance Obligation 

____

► Presentation of the conference: I have first dealt with the very definition of the Compliance Obligation.

After showing that the relationship between Compliance Law and International Arbitration will naturally develop, because the companies subject to it are international, because they contractualise their legal Compliance obligations and because Compliance is being jurisdictionalised📎!footnote-3379, the arbitrator being the natural judge since he is a global judge and the judge of the contract, I pointed out that Compliance Law does not simply entrust arbitration with the task of preventing evils, such as corruption pacts, but that it creates positive obligations for companies: to detect and prevent behaviour whose systemic effect is deleterious.

This culture of compliance is achieved either through compliance contracts📎!footnote-3380 (which outsource the handling of audits, alerts, the drawing up of plans, etc.), or through compliance clauses📎!footnote-3380, which are inserted into distribution or supply contracts, etc.; arbitration clauses are linked to these. Thus, the alliance between Compliance and Contract is an indirect mode of alliance between Arbitration and Compliance Obligation.

The obligation of Compliance which then takes concrete form consists for the company not in making effective Ex Ante all the regulations which apply to it (conception of conformity which is at once unreasonable, blind and impossible), but in making its best efforts, which it must make visible (see Compliance Evidence System📎!footnote-3381) to achieve Monumental Goals.

These Monumental Goals are systemic. The aim is to protect systems from collapse (Negative Monumental Goals) or to make them better (Positive Monumental Goals)📎!footnote-3382. By making companies accountable, via this Ex Ante Law whose object is the future, the systemic evils of corruption, money laundering, discrimination, climate change and hatred are combated, thus finding substantial unity. The Positive Monumental Goals aim to engender sustainability, security, respect for human beings, etc. in systems, be they banking, financial, digital, climatic, etc.

The role of the Judge, and therefore also that of the Arbitrator, is renewed.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration") which was finally not pronounced but will be the subject of an 📝article in the forthcoming book 📘Compliance Obligation 

____

► Presentation of the conference: Having defined the Compliance Obligation in "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), I set out to define what a commitment is.

No one doubts that commitments, as words, constitute facts that can engage the liability of companies if there are inconsistencies or lies. The question today is whether a commitment can constitute a legal act, binding in ex ante.

Companies make commitments either to fulfil their legal Compliance obligations, which is simply obeying the law, or to express their own wishes, either for themselves or for others. The cases are often confused, even though the scope is not the same.

If the commitment takes the form of a contract, Compliance is concerned if the contract is used as an Ex Ante Compliance Tool📎!footnote-3383, either if the entire contract has this purpose, or if a compliance clause is inserted, and an arbitration clause may be linked to it.

The commitment, a concept that comes more from the Economics of Regulation, was conceived between a Regulatory Authority and a Company: it is the unilateral decision of the Authority that gives legal force to the commitment. Case law confirms this (Conseil d'État (French Council of State)📎!footnote-3384 and Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council)📎!footnote-3385) and this is particularly clear in Competition Law, but it is also true of the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public - CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement).

If commitment is central to Compliance, particularly Vigilance, it is because Compliance Law is an extension of Regulatory Law📎!footnote-3386. The company is forcibly instituted by the Compliance regulator, particularly in value chains, or on digital spaces (DSA).

In drawing up a plan, the company is fulfilling its legal obligation. But if we were to consider that it is a commitment, then we would also have to consider that the plan is the result of its will, that it must consult the stakeholders in its preparation, but that the source of the plan is its will: the provisions are not stipulations, are not applications of the law, but unilateral voluntary provisions.

In this respect, and because its source is the will of the company (which does not prevent its co-construction), a plan could contain a "graduated offer" of arbitration.

This offer could be included in commitments that are less regulated by law, such as those made in the context of CSR.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

📝This conference and the Working Paper on which it is based are to be linked with the article to be published in the book📘Compliance Obligation 

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), given at the same symposium

____

► Presentation of the conference: It was initially planned that I would speak on the subject Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international (Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration), but it was agreed with the other organisers of the symposium that after defining the concept of the Compliance Obligation📎!footnote-3390 I would refocus my second speech, mentioned above, on what a Commitment is📎!footnote-3391, an essential prerequisite for dealing with the subject of International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation. Developments on Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration will appear in the forthcoming books: L'obligation de Compliance (in French), Compliance Obligation (in English). Nevertheless, if I had dealt with this subject, I would have raised the following points:

• The inclusion of an offer of arbitration in the field of Compliance implies considering it in a contract as well as in a non-contractual commitment, and studying which category of Compliance Obligation the offer may apply to.
• This insertion benefits from taking the form of a "graduated offer", in a crescendo organised by the company ex ante and offered to the stakeholders: conciliation, mediation and arbitration, in "circles of trust"📎!footnote-3387. This is supported by the current French amicable settlement policy.
• The result was that I had to prepare a long "preliminary" discussion of what a "commitment" is, without which it seemed difficult to talk in concrete terms about the effective insertion of an offer of arbitration if we did not know whether such links or words had a constraining effect on the person issuing them in relation to the person benefiting from them. After discussions with the other speakers, it became clear that it would be more effective to give a talk devoted solely to the question of the legal definition of commitment. We therefore decided to allocate this second speaking slot to the notion of commitment. Since the written words do not have the same constraints, it will take up the initial construction, insisting on the different supports, either compliance contracts, or associations with compliance clauses, relating to different Compliance obligations, in particular on information or audit or Vigilance📎!footnote-3388, because the company must have the legal power corresponding to the mission that the State entrusts to it through Compliance📎!footnote-3389.
• The offer must be carefully drafted to explain its purpose, and its organisation must prove the reality of this purpose: to give access to a judge to people affected by the company's activity, and not to block it.
• This will therefore be available in detail in the forthcoming books:
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L'obligation de Compliance
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Droit de la compliance : tour d'horizon" ("Compliance Law: Overview"), in Droit de la compliance (Compliance Law), École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) in collaboration with the École de Formation professionnelle des Barreaux du ressort de la cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), Paris, February 1, 2024.

____

► This conference is given in French

____

🧮see the full programme of this event (in French)

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

🎤see a presentation of the other speech about "Compliance et Responsabilité civile : comprendre et raison garder" ("Compliance and Civil Liability: understanding and keeping our heads"), given at the same symposium

____

► Presentation of the conference: Compliance Law is mysterious in itself, because it is still in creation📎!footnote-3241, because its presence and power are felt, but it is difficult to grasp it. It is necessary, however, because it deals with the most important, even the most dramatic, facts and carries with it the greatest ambitions. Magistrates must also "make the effort" to participate in the "adventure of Compliance Law", because it affects, and even overturns, all subjects, and because the Prosecutor and the Judge play an increasing role in it📎!footnote-3242.

Because the purpose of this conference is to introduce the two days of a training course designed for magistrates and open to lawyers, it only provides an "overview" of, so that we do not get lost in the sprawling regulations, the global mechanisms and the political ambitions that permeate them.

Therefore, without going into any of the subjects, it is about opening up four ways of entering what is a branch of Law that is being born before our eyes:

1. Understanding Compliance Law through "regulations"

2. Understanding Compliance Law through "tools"📎!footnote-3243

3. Understanding Compliance Law through "methods"

4. Understanding Compliance Law through "goals"📎!footnote-3244

The four approches are legitimate because the four dimensions are articulated in the legal system, notably case law.

But the more positive Law is consolidated, the more its normativity through the goals that give normativity, or even a simplicity without which the whole is not humanly controllable.

These Goals are Monumental and Europe bears them more and better than other areas of the world📎!footnote-3245.

________

♾️suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (colloque 13 et 14 juin 2023)", Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 6 juin 2023.

____

📧Lire par abonnement gratuit d'autres news de la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

____

🔴 Comprendre l'Obligation de Compliance afin d'en maîtriser la pratique (colloque des 13 et 14 juin 2023 du Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), du Centre de recherche sur la justice et le règlement des conflits (CRJ) et du Centre de recherche en économie et droit (CRED) de l'Université Paris Panthéon-Assas).

La compliance parait inmaîtrisable dans sa diversité et son ampleur et l'on doute parfois de sa juridicité.
Pour favoriser la maîtrise de cette pratique et construire le Droit de la Compliance, il est essentiel de mieux cerner l'Obligation de compliance.
C'est l'objet de ce colloque.

____

📧lire l'article ⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law", in M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.

___

► Article Summary: Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a form of universality.

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, an extremely dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools regarding these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore, Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

🚧 read the bilingual Working Papier, with more technical developments, references, and links

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goal, in which this article is published.

________

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance" ("Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 21-44.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

________

📝 lire la présentation générale du livre, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, dans lequel l'article est publié.

_____

► Lire les présentations des autres contributions de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : 

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

________

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes pour une synthèse sur le vif pour le colloque "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : radioscopie d'une notion" (Notes for an on the fly synthesis for the Colloquium "The Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy for a Notion"), September 16, 2021. 

____

► Read the general programme of the Colloquium Compliance Law Monumental Goals

► Read the  presentation of the synthesis Report, notably its Summary. 

____

► Methodology: The topic is not treated in a strictly personal point of view, as it will be in the book on The Compliance Monumental Goals, in an article devoted to "Defining Compliance Monumental Goals  and their branch of Law", more personal article. It will be even more clearly the expression of a personal vision of the definition of what is "Compliance" and what is "Compliance Law", with in particular the distinctions that should be done, in particular with "conformity" because these are these "Monumental Goals", a notion proposed in 2016!footnote-2164  which makes it possible to distinguish the procedural notion of "conformity" (just obey) and the substantive notion of "Compliance Law". This article will include the multiple academic and technical references that should be done to do this. 

But in the time allotted in a day's collloquium and because the purpose of a synthesis is to highlight on the spot what was common in the contributions heard, the document is based only on the different speechs made and is not enriched with technical references, nor does it refer to personal works.

____

🔻read below the notes exhaustely taken

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.,La nouvelle loi de protection des données en Chine est un « anti-RGPD », entretien avec Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, 2 septembre 2021. 

► Lire l'entretien complet. 

____

Les 3 questions posées étaient :

❓ La Chine a adopté fin août une grande loi de protection des données personnelles. Celle-ci est présenté dans les médias comme un équivalent de notre RGPD. Est-ce le cas ?

La réponse est : non.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

❓ S'agit-il de simples effets indésirables ou bien du but poursuivi par le Législateur ?

La réponse est : Le but du Législateur n'est pas d'armer l'individu contre le pouvoir de l'Etat, c'est au contraire d'accroître le pouvoir de l'Etat, éventuellement contre lui.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

❓ Si la compliance peut servir les intérêts d'Etats non-démocratiques, c'est donc qu'elle est potentiellement dangereuse ?

La réponse est : elle n'est dangereuse que définie comme "méthode d'efficacité des règles ; il faut définir le Droit de la Compliance par son "but monumental" qui est la protection des personnes. La contradiction de la loi chinoise nouvelle apparaît alors.

(lire la réponse développée dans l'entretien)

____

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, Working Paper, August 2021

____

📝This Working Paper is the basis for the article, "Les buts monumentaux, cœur battant du droit de la compliance", constituting the introduction ⤵

📕in its French version, of the book Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in  the Series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 📘in its English version, of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in the Series 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of the Working Paper:

Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

________

Read the developments below⤵️

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Potential of Compliance Law (Les potentialités du Droit de la Compliance), conference given to Muriel Fabre-Magnan's students, Paris I, 17th of March 2021.

_____

This conference has been designed for Paris I's students following a Law cursus, specialized in Law of obligations and especially in Tort Law. 

It therefore aims to show the technical content of Compliance Law and what it can become. 

It has been followed by a debate with students. 

Summary: Compliance Law is a branch of Law in the process of being born. We can be sure of its existence in the French positive Law, through the technical examination of laws called "Sapin 2" (2016) and "Vigilance" (2017). It appears at radically new. It is the reason why it is perceived as an attack, especially from United-States and we rather use legal knowledge to counter it. But if we study the historical reasons of its adoption in the United-States and the "monumental goals", whether they are negative (what should not appear in the future) or positive (what should appear in the future), we can measure that this Law, which is essentially Ex Ante could be the means through which scattered but legitimate public authorities and powerful but illegitimate big firms could ally. Therefore potentially Compliance Law could be the worst, simple tool of obedience (mechanical "conformité") or the best: what through which we could do something face to global problems, like global warming, or what we would accept to look in the face: the care for others. 

Read the slides on which this conference was based (in French)

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Devoir de vigilance des entreprises : vers un Droit de la responsabilité ex ante ? (Duty of vigilance for companies: towards an ex ante liability law?), conference-debate, The Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway, 9th of February 2021. 

The conference-debate is moderated by Catherine Banet, Associate Professor, Scandinavian Insitute of Maritime Law, Department of Energy and Resources Law, University of Oslo

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Law, an adequate legal framework for GAIA-X", in Pan-European GAIA - X Summit, The World with GAIA-X, November18, 2020.

____

🧮See the general presentation of the Summit

____

📈​See the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

► Summary of the intervention: Europe may offer an adequate legal framework for the GAIA-X project through Compliance Law. Compliance Law is a new form for Regulatory Law, driven by "Monumental Goals", negative Monumental Goals, for instance prevention of systemic failures, and positive Monumental Goals, for instance innovation or stability. This very new branch of Law works on these Monumental Goals, which must be explicit and internalized in Crucial Enterprises. These Crucial Enterprises concretize these Goals, supervised by public Authorities. 

European Compliance Law already works, for instance about Personal Data protection (case law and GDPR) or prevention banking systemic failures (Banking Union), Compliance Tools being in balance with Competition principle. European Union Law is moving from the Ex-Post Competition Law to the Ex-Ante Compliance Law, internalizing Monumental Goals in Crucial Enterprises. 

There is a perfect adequacy between European Compliance Law and GAIA-X. This project built by Crucial Enterprises must be supervised by public authority, maybe a specific or the European Commission. The governance of GAIA-X must be transparent and accountable. This private organization must use it powers in respect of the proportionality principle, controlled by the public supervisory body. The legal framework is required but it is sufficient. 

___

📈see the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

🎥watch the video of this intervention. 

________

Résumé de la leçon : Le Droit de la Régulation a eu beaucoup de mal à trouver sa place dans le système juridique, oscillant entre le Droit de la concurrence et le Droit public. Cette difficulté laisse des traces. Les difficultés à situer le Droit de la régulation dans le système juridique rejoint les difficultés de définition qu'il rencontre. Ces difficultés sont aujourd'hui accrues par les espérances de "Régulation du numérique", avatar des réflexions sur les désirs de "Régulation de la mondialisation", certains estimant qu'il faut construire une concurrence effective dans cet espace-là, tandis que d'autres affirment que la solution est une reprise en main des Etats. Trois définitions du terme "Régulation" sont effectivement  actuellement actifs dans le Droit de la Régulation.

La première définition du Droit de la Régulation vise la Régulation comme "Voie vers la concurrence". Certains limitent le Droit de la Régulation à cela, la concurrence étant alors comme son "idéal", certes sans cesse retardé, son Graal.  Cela conduit à une application technique des règles qui posent la concurrence en principe, et non pas en son exception. Cela implique une méthodologie en matière d'interprétation des textes.  La deuxième définition du Droit de la Régulation vise la Régulation comme mécanisme "adjacent" à un système concurrentiel, ce qui conduit à surestimer parfois ce qui ne sont que des insertions adjacents de mécanismes de droit de la concurrence dans des secteurs économiques par principes régulés. Ainsi et pour prendre un exemple les mécanismes techniques constituant des monopoles économiquement naturels sont régulés, tandis que tous les autres comportements ou structures du secteurs relèvent de l'ordinaire, c'est-à-dire du Droit de la concurrence, qui constitue le "Droit commun". La question qui peut alors se poser est le régime juridique des contrats d'accès aux facilités essentielles, lesquelles ne sont pas le seul apanage des réseaux de transport. Les enjeux de qualification sont ici préalables et majeurs.  Dans la troisième définition du Droit de la Régulation, la Régulation peut se définir non plus en perspective mais en part égale voire en préférence à la concurrence, lorsque des raisons de durée, confiance, dangers, risques, conduisent à concevoir la Régulation comme un équilibre instable et durable entre le principe de concurrence entre d'autres principes, un équilibre entre le principe de concurrence et d'autres soucis. Il peut s'agir de principes que la technicité même de l'objet requiert mais cela peut être aussi que le regarde qui est porté sur cet objet lui fait porter : par exemple le souci de soin que l'on fait porter au médicament, le souci d'inclusion que l'on fait porter à la banque, le souci de chaleur partagée que l'on fait porter à l'électricité, le souci de civilisation, que l'on fait porter à une entreprise, où que l'on voit à travers un bien marchand mais dans lequel l'on a injecte un "droit de propriété intellectuelle" qui est lui-même un instrument de Régulation. Là encore, la propriété intellectuelle comme instrument de Droit de Régulation est un enjeu majeur, et cela plus que jamais. 

Mais qui est légitime à porter ce regard juridiquement créateur : le juge ? l'entreprise (socialement responsable) ? le législateur national ? l'organisme international ? Ou bien, parce que ce sont des "choix", un politique, mis à cette position de choisir par le Peuple ? 

___

Consulter les slides servant de support à la Leçon

Accéder au Plan général du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation.

Se reporter à la présentation générale du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation.

Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance.

Consulter la Bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit commun de la Régulation

Consulter la bibliographie ci-dessous, spécifique à cette Leçon relative au Droit de la Régulation dans la perspective de la Concurrence

Consulter le Dictionnaire bilingue du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance (v. ci-dessous des entrées plus précises)

Consulter dans la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation ce qui est plus particulièrement afférent à la définition de la Compliance (v. ci-dessous des articles plus précis)

_____

Consulter la Bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance

Consulter la bibliographie ci-dessous, spécifique à cette Leçon relative à la définition de la Compliance et du Droit de la Compliance.

Résumé de la leçon. L'exercice de définition n'est en rien théorique. Surtout pas concernant la Compliance, relevant d'une terminologie anglaise ce qui semble compliquer encore les choses mais il faut au contraire partir de là, à savoir le fossé qui semble exister entre le mot "Compliance" et le mot "Conformité". Il apparaît en premier lieu que celui-ci comporte une dimension mécanique que le premier ne comporte pas de prime abord. Cela renvoie à des effets techniques et à une conception, qui convie dès lors à des algorithmes la prise en charge de ces sujets. Une des questions est alors la responsabilité et le sort des êtres humains. L'enjeu disciplinaire apparaît en second lieu, car l'idée que la Compliance relève du Droit ne s'impose pas. En outre, si on ramène la Compliance vers le Droit, de quelle branche du Droit relève-t-il, ce qui implique des compétences juridictionnelles et substantielles ? Sauf à dire qu'il pourrait constituer une branche du Droit autonome... Presque tous y sont réticents. Pourtant, c'est bien vers cela que non seulement nous allons mais vers cela que nous devons aller. 

____

Consulter les slides servant de support à la Leçon

Se reporter à la Présentation générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance.

Consulter la Bibliographie générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance

Consulter la bibliographie ci-dessous, spécifique à cette Leçon relative aux enjeux pratiques du Droit de la Compliance

► Full Reference: M. Canto-Sperber, "La compliance et les définitions traditionnelles de la vertu" ("Compliance and traditional definitions of virtue"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Dalloz, 2019, p. 73-77.

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Pour une Europe de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): 

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________