April 15, 2022
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.A., La fonction sociale du Droit de la Compliance, Table-ronde "Les nouvelles formes d'un Droit embrassant son rôle de régulation", in📅Association du Master de Droit privé de Paris I (ADPG), Le rôle de régulateur social du Droit privé, Paris, 15 avril 2022.
► Présentation générale de la conférence : En raison de la conception générale de la journée, ancrée dans le "Droit privé", mais qui oscillait en permanence sur la définition générale de ce qu'est la "régulation sociale" et qui est constitué depuis plus de vingt ans dans une branche du Droit spécifique, le Droit de la Régulation, parce qu'on m'avait demandé de présenter La fonction sociale du Droit de la Compliance, à un public sans doute peu averti du Droit économique, j'ai procédé de la façon suivante :
Je suis partie du souci actuel accru de savoir si le Droit peut avoir une part pour contenir les forces qui régissent le monde et s'y affrontent. Je suis partie de deux cas pratiques. Le premier irait plutôt vers une réponse positive, est celui de l'adoption en cours du Digital Services Act, législation européenne de Compliance qui utilise la puissance des opérateurs numériques cruciaux qui prévenir et lutte contre la haine et la désinformation dans l'espace numérique. Le second cas pratique qui débute est la possible prise de contrôle de Twitter par Elon Musk, opérée par celui-ci au nom de la "Démocratie" et pour l'instant le peu de contrôle que le Droit en cas.
A partir de de ces deux exemples, j'ai repris la définition du Droit de la Compliance, qui n'est pas la procédure par laquelle certains opérateurs devraient montrer qu'ils respectent la totalité des règles qui leurs sont applicables mais qui est substantiellement défini par des buts monumentaux substantiellement voulus posés par le Politique qui trouvent des alliés, volontaires ou contraints, en position de le faire. Ce Droit Ex Ante porte sur le futur, est de nature systémique et utilise des moyens qui traversent toutes les branches du Droit, notamment le contrat et la responsabilité.
Le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation. Il opère une régulation sociale et présente trois caractéristiques. Il est forcément mondial. Il est forcément politique. Il est forcément humain.
Pour aller plus loin⤵️
📝Le droit de la Régulation, 2001
📝Le Droit de la Compliance, 2016
April 13, 2022
Editorial responsibilities : Direction of the collection "Cours-Série Droit privé", Editions Dalloz (33)
Complete reference: Seube, J.-B., Droit des sûretés, Coll. "Cours Dalloz-Série Droit privé", 10th éd., Dalloz, 2020, 273 p.
Professor Jean-Baptiste Seube just released the 10th ed. of his book on Law of Security Interests.
A security interest gives the creditor an additional chance to get paid. Full of property law and contract law, securities law strikes a balance between protecting the interests of creditors and interest expense. The manual gives the characteristic features of personal guarantees and guarantees given on things.
This Course is 273 pages.
Updated: April 4, 2022 (Initial publication: Oct. 4, 2021)
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques portés devant le juge, document de travail, oct. 2021 et avril 2022.
►Ce document de travail sert de base à une intervention introductive🎤 L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques, dans une conférence plus générale, coordonnée et modérée, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, qui fait partie d'un cycle général portant sur Penser l'office du juge, et se tiendra le 9 mai 2022 dans la Grand Chambre de la Cour de cassation.
Il a été élaboré en octobre 2021 pour construire la conférence à partir de cette hypothèse selon laquelle parmi la diversité des "causes" apportées aux juges par les justiciables, certaines constituent une catégorie spécifique : les "causes systémiques", justifiant un traitement à la fois spécifique (en ce qu'elles sont systémiques, appelant notamment des solutions procédurales communes à toutes et se distinguant du traitement des causes non-systémiques) et un traitement commun au-delà de la diversité des juges qui en connaissent (juges judiciaire et administratif, juge pénal et non-pénal, juge français et non-français, juge de l'ordre juridique internet et juge de l'Union européenne, etc.). Ce thème spécifique des "causes systémiques", l'hypothèse de l'existence de celles-ci, a été enrichi en avril 2022.
Ce document de travail ne vise pas à traiter l'ensemble du sujet, à savoir à la fois déterminer cette catégorie des "causes systémiques" et les conséquences qu'il faut en tirer sur l'office du juge, puisque c'est l'objet même de la conférence construite sur plusieurs interventions : il vise la première partie du sujet, à savoir l'existence même de cette catégorie processuelle nouvelle qui serait les "causes systémiques", laissant pour d'autres travaux les conséquences pratiques à en tirer dans le traitement processuel qu'elles appellent.
📝Ce document de travail sert également de base à un article à paraître.
►Résumé du document de travail : xx
Lire ci-dessous les développements⤵️
March 31, 2022
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.A., Ex-Ante Compliance, in Gaia-X, Towards Automated Compliance in the Data Economy, 31 mars 2022.
► Voir le programme (en anglais)
► Présentation générale de l'intervention : (en anglais)
This intervention before the Board of Gaia-X is built on four observations about the evolution of the European legal system, showing how it is in favor of Gaia-X, articulated with an article on Ex Compliance Law and Labelling mechanisms, co-written with Martine Gourié and Hubert Tardieu.
The principal idea of this speech is to show that if Competition Law and Compliance Law are two different branches of Law, they are articulated. More now than before, and certainly they will be increasingly articulated.
As I shall show it, the European Institutions develop both as two pillars, notably through the Digital Markets Act (DMA) for Competition Law and the Digital Services Act (DSA) for Compliance Law.
The European Union does not have to choose between Compliance and Competition: the European space is built on both, for instance Flexibility through the principle of free Competition and Sustainability through the principle of Compliance.
The speech develops 4 remarks.
1. Compliance Law is not appropriation of legal rules by private sector. The first principles are always made by Legislators (European and National public rule makers, in our case) and everything must always be challenged before courts.
2. Competition Authorities want to increase the efficiency of Competition Law, bringing Competition Law to Compliance Law. They always do (see European Commission, Compliance matters, 2013). Moreover, this is the object of the Digital Markets Act, putting Competition Law from Ex Post to Ex Ante concernant the digital space. It is a revolution, but the purpose of Competition Law does not change: Compliance Legal tools are implemented by this so important Act, but it is always free and fair competitive markets. The purpose is to obtain to obtain more efficiency without change the substantial goal.
3. But the European Union is moving to a more substantial Compliance Law, by the Digital Services Act, the twin of the DMA. This more political text wants to impose safety in the digital space and protect users' rights in Ex Ante, by Compliance. This is a Monumental Goals, to obtain a European sovereignty. This political ambition is served by the private sector. It is impossible to apprehend DMA without consider DSA: they are twins. Their articulation will be protected by courts and explained to them.
4. They illustrated a more general European evolution. Two examples: the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Transfer Framework, articulating free flow of data and effective protection of individuals, and the proposal of European directive for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, with Compliance Ex Ante mechanisms, public authorities helping and supervising private sector fighting human rights' violations and climate change in the perspective of sustainable economy.
Because at the end of the day, the future of Europe is in common values, protected by courts.
Pour aller plus loin⤵️
March 31, 2022
Publications : Chronicles MAFR - Compliance Law
► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., La responsabilité ex ante, pilier du droit de la compliance ("Ex-Ante Responsibility, Compliance Law Pillar"), D.2022, chronique MAFR - Droit de la Compliance, Recueil Dalloz, March 31, 2022.
► Article English Summary: The Law must help to face the future, which can be totally catastrophic in terms of climate and digital issues. Courts are s best placed for this, without “governing”, only relying on the commitments made by companies, governments, and legislators. On the ordinary Tort Law, court decisions oblige these different entities to be consistent in the commitments they have made, obliging them to act in the future, formal “compliance” with the regulations cannot be sufficient. This ex-ante responsibility, founding the powers, thus constitutes a pillar of a substantial Compliance Law, showing the part that CSR and the companies with a raison d'être play in it.
📝 read the article. (written in French)
📚go to the presentation of the other articles published in this Chronique Droit de la Compliance made in the Recueil Dalloz.
March 29, 2022
► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., The part of Compliance Law in the fight against Corruption and Climate Change, in Paris Arbitration Week (PAW), Compliance: Corruption and Climate Change - how legal systems adapt?, Jones Day, March 29, 2022.
Debate with Mathias Audit coordinated by Claire Pauly, Vice-President of the Paris Arbitration Week.
► Presentation of the intervention: After the presentation made by Mathias Audit of the consideration of facts of corruption, notably by the red flags method, in an arbitration trial, it seems a low-performing system of proof in compliance: the more diligent a party is in showing that it tried to meet its compliance obligations, the more it is exposed to demonstrating its own failure to doing so. It seems a perversity … Therefore, I can understand why companies often so dislike Compliance Law because more they make efforts, more they put money and more they are punished…
But this representation is not totally exact.
My first observation is about the definitions themselves. It is particularly important to have a precise definition of “compliance obligations”, to not confuse them with obligations coming from Criminal Law. The confusion between Criminal Law and Compliance Law is frequent, maybe because what Compliance Law want to eradicate is also prohibited by Criminal Law, for instance corruption. Indeed, technically criminal legal rules and compliance legal rules have many points of contacts, but they are not the same: the obligations are different, the legal persons obliged are different, the reasoning are different the purposes are different.
Because the general definition of Criminal Law and Compliance Law are different. Criminal Law, very old branch of Law, which prohibits and sanctions corruption, does it for everyone because the singular behavior is wrong (to corrupt; to be corrupted). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law, is a systemic branch of economic Law, which wants to eradicate in the future mechanisms because they destroy economic systems, such as corruption does. Its wants that not to protect moral values but to protect economic systems. Therefore, Compliance Law asks some entities, large companies, to do something only because they are in position to do so: to detect and to prevent this corruption, in order to obtain in the future, the protection against this systemic risk threating the economic systems. The compliance legal tools are more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post: risk mapping, audit, code of conduct, training, obtention of information through the chains of suppliers.
The proof to give is not the non-corruption everywhere from everyone but this concrete action of prevention and education, companies being entities helping public authorities in this global fight.
More precisely, in this definition Compliance Law is not the general obligation to obey the regulations applicable (because this is simply the definition of Law itself, applicable to everybody). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law which exists only for some systemic “global policies” (as the title of your manifestation says) applicable only on systemic entities (large companies) in a global perspective: for instance, fighting corruption, fighting money laundering, fighting climate change, fighting discrimination between human beings.
In your example, for fighting corruption, specific legal obligations are taken, such as FCPA (with extraterritorial effects) or in French legal system the so-called the 2016 “Sapin 2” Law. These obligations don’t concern everybody: they concern entities in position to do so: large companies.
My second remark is about the burden of proof. These compliance obligation or compliance duties are obligations of means. Companies are obliged to adopt Compliance plans, organize risk mapping, and so on. A lot of them organize them through code of compliance, or code of ethic, or code of corporate social responsibility, because Compliance Law is in an intimacy with Corporate Law. Because Compliance Law is a very concrete branch of law, these disposals are adopted at the level of the group and replicated in the contracts with suppliers.
But he success of these compliance tools is only an obligation of means. For instance the supervisory authority does not require the company to have seen all the risks, in their existence or their exact quantification. In this sense, about money laundering, the French Financial Markets Authority said that the setup of these compliance tools must be “effective”, but after that the company must only do its “best efforts” to aim an “efficient” result (obligation de moyens). The French Regulatory Authority for the digital space says the same about the eradication of speeches of hate that Compliance Law oblige digital companies to fight (using the term of obligation de moyens).
Moreover, about corruption, the Commission of sanction of the French Anticorruption Agency said in a decision of July 2019 that the firm is free to choose the technics to detect and to prevent the corruption (confirming that Compliance is not just following what the Regulator says), but offered a legal certainty: if the company just follows what the Regulators had said in its guideline (rule based compliance behavior), it is no more possible to punish it.
My third remarks could be a proposal for a more efficient system of proof. It is true that the burden of proof is on the company’s shoulders. But the object of proof is not the absence of corruption (it would not be possible…). The object of proof is the existence of due diligence to detect and prevent corruption.
Companies must prepare that, must constitute these proofs by advance. “Due diligence” is a legal concept frequently used in Compliance Law. Regulators, supervisors, and courts ask companies to show the reality of these diligences. It would not be sufficient to present the cost of Compliance… It will be sufficient to show the effectivity of Compliance programs freely adopted, taking in consideration the guidelines released by public authorities.
Public authorities say they want to help companies to diffuse an effective “culture of compliance” : a dialogue with civil and corporate courts, not only with criminal courts would be efficient, for instance for the protection of human rights.
In a second part of this debate, on Climate change and Compliance, Claire Pauly asked the question: "My question is two-fold: do you consider that climate change issues should be treated in the same way as corruption issues? And do you think that arbitrators are well suited to tackle those issues, by upholding the method applied to determine and demonstrate corruption issues?".
The response has been:
Firstly, on the technical similarity between fighting Corruption and fighting Climate Change in Compliance Law, it is the same perspective effectively.
If we come back to the definition of Compliance Law, the Compliance tools are organized to obtain in the future systemics results, such as no more corruption, no more money laundering, what we can name “Monumental goals”. This is a political decision: to design the future for excluding some systemic catastrophes. Corruption is an example of systemic risk; but climate change is another one.
Fighting against Climate Change is a Monumental Goal, of the same nature than fighting Corruption.
As everyone knows, we suffer of a lack of tools to address one of this fundamental challenge of our times which is climate change (more difficult than corruption...). But we are lucky to have some Compliance legal tools: we need to use them, because we have so few techniques about this Climate issue…
And Compliance Law is the more adequate branch of Law because it is an Ex-Ante branch of Law : generally, its obligations are on the future, and the Climate change drama is in the future also.
We can already see that Compliance Law is applicable to Climate Change issue
It is easy to see it through the legal techniques.
In the French legal system, the Sapin 2 law invented in 2016 some new compliance techniques, such as risk mapping, audit, due diligence, to detect and prevent corruption.
One year after, in 2017, the so-called Loi Vigilance took the same techniques, copying exactly the legal dispositions of Sapin 2 in this law to oblige large companies to detect and to prevent violation of human rights and environmental obligation, not only inside the corporate group but also through the supply chains. The manager will be accountable for that.
On February 23, 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a European Directive in the same direction of a “global policy” to impose a “corporate sustainability due diligence” on large companies, notably for fighting climate change. This new text will be effective in two years in the Internal legal systems.
By a rules-based analysis and a principle-based analysis, we can see this is the same reasoning.
Of course, this “corporate sustainability due diligence” is only an obligation of means.
But it is extremely ambitious, linked to the direct consideration of the Corporate Social Responsibility.
And I guess it will be efficient because all these tools are not only Ex Post but also Ex Ante: when the issue is to exclude the catastrophic perspective of the disappearance of the humankind on our planet, having Compliance Law, this Ex-Ante branch of law, is so precious!
Secondly, about the role of Arbitration in this issue, I am tempted to say: everyone is required in this global crucial policy!
It is quite difficult for a national court to decide on this sort of issue because Climate change is a global issue, while arbitrators are global judges.
Technically it is necessary and technically possible that Arbitration takes its place, because these due diligences about detection, prevention, action for a better Climate balance are organized non only in corporate mechanisms, such as code of conduct, corporate commitments, or manager remuneration calculation, but also a lot of contractual dispositions.
We will see a lot of new legal techniques: a lot of international public global policies will be adopted. The obligation to give information about that not only to investor but also to stakeholders will be adopted worldwide. The technique of “compliance by design” will be used on the corporate policy of fighting against Climate change.
Meanwhile, the classical branch of law, were Compliance Law steps in, will remain active, such as International Law, Corporate Law, Tort Law Contract Law, where Arbitration is so central.
So, in short, your question was: are Arbitrators able to deal with climate change issue? my response is: “oh, yes!”
► Read the repport made by the fait par la Paris Week of Arbitration ( on the distinction between Compliance Law and Criminal Law, and their articulation)
Pour aller plus loin⤵️
📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022.
📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022.
March 24, 2022
💬 "Faire du Droit pour qu'à l'avenir le monde soit moins injuste" - à propos du projet de directive européenne sur le devoir de vigilance. ("Making Compliance Law for a world less unfair in the future" - about the draft European directive on the corporate sustainability due diligence)
► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A.,, "Faire du Droit pour qu'à l'avenir le monde soit moins injuste" - à propos du projet de directive européenne sur le devoir de vigilance ("Making Compliance Law for a world less unfair in the future" - about the draft European directive on the corporate sustainability due diligence), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, March 24, 2022.
► Interview English Summary: This interview comments on the draft directive presented by the European Commission aimed at unifying European Union Law about Corporate Sustainability Due diligence in global supply chains to protect environnement and human rights effectively, putting companies under same legal rules. including non-European companies.
The interview emphasizes that this text and reinforces Compliance Law perspective in that the legal instruments are Ex Ante, aim at the functioning of groups, constitute incentives, and seek effectiveness to prevent violations of human rights and the environment, 80% of which taking place outside the European Union.
The goal is both ethical, for example to fight against child labor and the endangerment of people, and systemic: the promoting of a sustainable economy, through the help of companies which have some power in value chains which are global.
This future directive clearly shows the difference between simple "conformity" (just obeying all applicable regulations...) and "compliance", illustrated here: aiming to achieve "monumental goals", here fighting against attacks on the climate balance and protect people, to obtain in the future these damages do not occur or are reduced.
March 23, 2022
► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A. et Roda, J.-Ch., Droit de la concurrence, Précis, Dalloz, 2ième éd., Dalloz, 2022, 814 p.
► Cette deuxième édition fait suite à la première édition écrite avec Marie-Stéphane Payet.
📝 Lire l'avant-propos écrit en dédicace à Marie-Stéphane.
📝 Lire la table des matières de l'ouvrage.