The recent news

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les voies d'innovations juridiques face aux nouveaux "défis climatiques" ("Innovative legal solutions to the new "climate challenges""), in C. Arnaud, O. de Bandt et B. Deffains (dir.), Nouveaux défis - Regards croisés : Droit, Économie et Finance. Quel Droit face au Changement Climatique ? (("New challenges - Crossed perspectives : Law, Economics and Finance. What Law in the Face of Climate Change?"), Banque de France (French Central Bank) and CRED/Paris Panthéon-Assas University, Paris, Centre de Conférence de la Banque de France, April 2, 2024

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

🔲see the slides, basis of this conference (in French)

____

► Summary of this conference: In response to the question of how the Law can produce 'innovations' to meet the 'climate challenges', the process is based on the three traditional sources of Law, which are, firstly, laws and regulations, secondly, the commitments of individuals, mainly contracts, and thirdly, court rulings.

At first sight, the Law in its traditional conception and practice is weak in the face of climate change. This weakness is inherent in the nature of climate change, which is at once future, global and systemic, in the face of these three sources of Law, which do not address all three dimensions at once. The scale of the legal innovation required to ensure that one or more articulated sources can grasp the future, the global and the systemic is therefore clear. And yet this is what is happening.

As far as laws and regulations are concerned, they do not seem very appropriate because they are, by their very nature, a territorial limit, and international treaties are very difficult to negotiate. The interweaving of European regulations, for example the CSRD and the CS3D, which mirror each other, may be more effective. As far as 'commitments' are concerned, a concept which in Law is not very precise outside of contracts and liability cases, contracts are above all a means for companies to fulfill their legal obligations, and a contract always implies a judge. At first sight, however, the judge is the least well placed to respond to 'climate challenges', particularly in France where he is said or wished to be powerless, where he rules on the past and where, especially the civil judge, he settles a one-off dispute between two singular parties.

But a major change has occurred with the emergence of a new branch of law: the Compliance Law, a teleological branch of Law whose legal normativity is lodged in the Monumental Goals that it pursues, namely the preservation of systems, for example the climate system. In France, the so-called "Sapin 2" law in 2016, followed by the so-called "Vigilance" law in 2017, illustrate this. And the Judge is at the centre of it all.

In this global, systemic, extraterritorial perspective, the object of which is the future - Compliance Law is, moreover, rejected by many legal experts - the legislative innovation is major. Indeed, the law of 23 March 2017, known as "Vigilance" designated large companies, because they are "powerful", because they are "in a position to act" to "detect and prevent" breaches of the environment and human rights. The 2017 law copied the "compliance tools" put in place by the Sapin 2 anti-corruption law: risk mapping, plans, alerts, audits, internal investigations, and so on. 

Only large companies are subject to the Compliance Law, notably the Vigilance Law, since they are the only ones in a position to act, in this case "parent companies or principals", and borders are no longer limits since the obligation, creating personal liability for the company, extends throughout the "value chain". The notion and fact of "systemic dispute" is emerging before the courts. In France, the Paris Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction. European legislation is proving more difficult to draw up, because although it is compulsory to provide information on these "extra-financial" subjects (CSRD), the directive on the duty of vigilance, which has just been adopted, does not go any further than the French law of 2017.

On the second point, that of commitments, we are only at the beginning. Judges do not transform ethical statements into "unilateral legal commitments", and vigilance does not transform company law into co-management. But contracts do form a global network through which companies adjust their various legal obligations. This is why arbitrators, the only "global judges", will soon be involved in this systemic litigation, and more general case law is to come on "contracts and compliance clauses".

But the most innovative aspect undoubtedly comes from the courts. Perhaps and notably in France because it is from where we least expect it, the civil courts, that the imagination comes, but also the guarding of the great principles of the Rule of Law, because for the moment the case law is reasonable. This innovation has not come about proprio motu: the judges are not taking action, it is the NGOs that are conducting a kind of litigation policy, systematically giving formal notice to the major energy companies, but also to the major banks and insurers on climate issues, alleging non-compliance with their vigilance plans. The interim relief judge at the Paris Court of First Instance must then provide answers in systemic disputes, of which the so-called "Total Uganda" case is an example.

The courts are demonstrating a great deal of innovation. The Court of First Instance's interim relief judge has appointed amici curiae, the Paris Court of Appeal has set up a specialised chamber, and training conferences have been set up on this "Emerging Systemic Litigation".

In conclusion, the Law is in the process of being rebuilt through a new branch of Law, the Compliance Law, whose the very purpose, as an extension of and going beyond the Regulatory Law, is to preserve systems, in particular the climate system, in a profoundly renewed role for judges.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’émergence du Contentieux Systémique" ("Emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), in Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Masse

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🧮see the programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn the report of this speech (in French)

____

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

____

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

____

🔲see the slides used to support this intervention (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this speech

____

► English Summary of the conference: We are seeing the emergence of what should be referred to as a category of its own: the "Systemic Litigation". This concept, proposed in 2021📎!footnote-3521, refers to the hypothesis in which a system is 'involved' in a particular 'case' submitted to the judge. The presence of a system should not be confused with a systemic analysis of a phenomenon. The term 'cause' must be understood in the procedural sense, as used in article 5 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Specifically, the prohibition contained in article 5 of the French Civil Code does not apply because a system thus involved calls for factual responses and solutions and not necessarily general and abstract solutions: the solution of a systemic nature and scope, that the presence of a system in a cause calls for, may be a factual solution, even if it radiates out from the system as a whole. But precisely because the presence of a system in the case often gives rise to a question that is itself systemic, the judge, if he wishes to comply with article 4 of the French Civil Code, must respond not only a minima by not evading the question, for example of systemic risks, but also fully by providing systemic solutions, for example remedies to preserve in the future the solidity and durability of the systems involved in the case. 

These systems may be of different kinds: banking, financial, transport, health, energy, digital, algorithmic or climatic. Their presence in cases brought to the attention of judges, the variety and difficulties of which will be seen in later contributions, leads to basic questions relating to the emergence of Systemic Litigation: firstly, how can Systemic Litigation be defined? Secondly, what makes this category of litigation emerge? The answers to these two questions have essential practical consequences. 

The new solutions must be based on a classic distinction, used in particular in criminal and administrative proceedings, which are more objective, but also in civil proceedings, notably by Hébraud, namely the distinction between the "party to the dispute/litigation" and the "party to the proceedings". Depending on whether it is accepted that the system should be considered as a "party to the litigation", which would allow it, through an entity that is legitimate in expressing it, to allege claims and formulate demands against an adversary, or as a "party to the proceedings", a much broader category, which would allow the judge to hear the interests of the systems involved without individuals being able, on behalf of a system, to formulate claims against or for the benefit of a party to the litigation.

This makes it possible to innovate while preserving the measure of which the judge is the guardian.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Nous voyons émerger aujourd’hui le contentieux systémique"" (""We are now seeing the emergence of the Systemic Litigation""), interview with Olivia Dufour, counterpoint to the interview with the Premier Président de la Cour d'appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) Jacques Boulard, "Contentieux systémique : "Il est important, pour les magistrats, de rester au plus près des réalités"" ("Systemic litigation: "It is important for judges to remain as close as possible to reality""), Actu-Juridique, March 28, 2024

____

💬read the interview (in French)

____

This interview is a counterpoint to the interview conducted with Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d'appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal), on the Court of Appeal's threefold initiative in establishing the Conseil de Justice Économique - CJE (Economic Justice Council), the additional chamber (5-12) to hear vigilance litigation in particular  and the setting up of the series of conference-debates on the Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation): read the interview (in French).

This interview highlights Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's position at the Conseil de Justice Économique and her role as scientific director of the series of conference-debates. 

As a counterpoint, the journal conducts a specific interview with Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on the specific issue of the Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation) cycle.

____

► Presentation of the interview by the journal : "Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur de droit de la régulation et de la compliance et responsable scientifique du cycle « Contentieux systémique émergent » nous explique la notion de contentieux systémique et l’importance de la démarche engagée par le Premier président."

(Free translation : "Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law and Scientific Director of the "Contentieux systémique émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation") cycle, explains the concept of Systemic Litigation and the importance of the approach adopted by the First President.")

____

For the record, the 2024 conference-debates of the "Contentieux systémique émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation") cycle:

• Conférence inaugurale – Vendredi 29 mars 2024, de 11h à 12h30, IMPORTANCE ET SPÉCIFICITÉ DU CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT
   
• Deuxième conférence – Vendredi 26 avril 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LA VIGILANCE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE
   
• Troisième conférence – Lundi 27 mai 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LES TECHNIQUES DE SUPERVISION DES CONTENUS NUMÉRIQUES DISPONIBLES SUR LES PLATEFORMES
   
• Quatrième conférence – Lundi 24 juin 2024, de 11h à 12h30, L’INTELLIGENCE ARTIFICIELLE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE
   
• Cinquième conférence – Lundi 9 septembre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LA PORTÉE DES NORMES DE DROIT DUR, DE DROIT SOUPLE ET DES NORMES TECHNIQUES DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT
   
• Sixième conférence – Lundi 14 octobre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LES TECHNIQUES PROBATOIRES ADÉQUATES DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT
   
• Septième conférence – Lundi 18 novembre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, DISCUSSION OUVERTE
   
• Conférence de clôture de l’année 2024 – Lundi 16 décembre 2024, de 16h à 18h, L’EXPÉRIENCE DES JURIDICTIONS DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT

____

► For the record, presentation of the interview of the Premier Président (First President) by the journal (in French): "Vendredi 29 mars aura lieu la première conférence-débat du cycle de formation « Contentieux systémique émergent » à la Cour d’appel de Paris. Cette initiative s’inscrit dans le cadre d’une politique qui a menée à la création d’un Conseil de justice économique ainsi qu’à la mise en place d’une nouvelle chambre dédiée au devoir de vigilance et à la responsabilité écologique. Le Premier président de la Cour d’appel de Paris, Jacques Boulard, nous explique les objectifs et les enjeux de ces innovations.".

____

________

► Référence complète : R.-O. Maistre, "La place du Droit de la compliance dans la régulation de l’espace numérique", entretien mené par M.-A. Frison-Roche à l'occasion d'une série d'entretiens sur le Droit de la Compliance, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion, émission de J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, enregistré le 12 décembre 2023, diffusé le 16 mars 2024

____

🌐consulter sur LinkedIn la présentation en décembre 2023 de l'entretien avec Roch-Olivier Maistre 

____

🌐 lire la Newsletter Mafr Law-Compliance-Regulation de mars 2024 sur la base de l'entretien avec Roch-Olivier Maistre 

____

🎥visionner l'interview complète sur Xerfi Canal

____

► Point de départ : En 2022, Roch-Olivier Maistre écrit une contribution sur 📝Quels buts fondamentaux pour le régulateur dans un paysage audiovisuel et numérique en pleine mutation ?, dans 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance.

🧱lire la présentation de cette contribution ➡️cliquerICI

____

► Résumé de l'entretien : 

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche : Question : L’Arcom a un rôle central en matière de Compliance. Pourriez-vous nous présenter cette Autorité de régulation qu’est l’Arcom ?

Roch-Olivier Maistre : Réponse : le Président Roch-Olivier Maistre décrit le rôle de l'Arcom, autorité qui résulte du CSA et de l'Hadopi, le législateur décidant de créer un nouveau grand Régulateur en charge à la fois de l'audiovisuel et du numérique. Cette Autorité collégiale s'assure du bon fonctionnement de ce secteur et est engagée dans la régulation des nouveaux acteurs du numérique.

____
 

MaFR : Q. : Comment Régulation et Compliance s’articulent-elles dans la mise en œuvre des missions de l’Arcom ? 

R.O.M. : R. : Il répond qu'il s'agit d'une approche complémentaire. Coercition, sanctions s'y articulent. Il s'agit de préserver la liberté d'expression et de communication. Pour cela, objectifs de valeur constitutionnelle, les opérateurs doivent agir pour que ces objectifs soient atteints. Pour cela, ils sont supervisés par l'Autorité qu'est l'Arcom, qui intervient qu'ils ne se conforment à ces obligations de compliance. Lorsqu'il ne s'agit pas de l'audiovisuel, où le contenu est encore possible car il s'agit d'un "monde fini", mais qu'il s'agit du monde numérique, où les contenus se répandent d'une façon virale, c'est aux opérateurs d'agir : la Régulation et la Compliance agissent donc d'une façon complémentaire.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Duty of vigilance: the way forward, Working Paper, 2023.

____

🎤 This working paper has been drawn up to serve as a basis for the conclusions of the colloquium Le devoir de vigilance: l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?") organised by the University of Montpellier on 25 May 2023.

_____

📝 Updated and developed, it serves as the basis for the article that concludes the book Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises : l'âge de la maturité? ("The duty of vigilance: the age of maturity?"), Editions Bruylant, 2024.

____

► Working Paper summary: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development.

It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B).

In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D).

This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources - the contract and the judge - must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law. 

The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance.

____

🔓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, "Compliance et conformité : les distinguer pour les articuler" ("Compliance and conformity: distinguish them in order to articulate them"), D. 2024, chron., pp. 497-499

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

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

____

► English Summary of the article: "Compliance" and "conformité" ("conformity") are sometimes presented as synonyms, with "conformité" simply being the translation of "compliance". On the contrary, they are two opposing concepts. "Conformity" refers to the obligation to obey all applicable regulations, regardless of their content. A godsend for the regulator... Compliance Law is quite different! Political and public authorities set systemic 'Monumental Goals' to ensure that systems do not collapse tomorrow, or even improve, and then entrust large companies with the task of activating the means to achieve these goals. Conformity then resumes its place in Compliance Law: being one of its tools.

____

📚read the other articles published in this chronique of Compliance Law published in the Recueil Dalloz

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Discussion" ("Discussion"), in E. Renaud & L. Turcat (dir.), Regards sur la justice, 10ième séance, École normale supérieure (ENS), Paris, Salle Dussane, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, April 24, 2024

____

🧮See the full programme of this event

____

► Presentation of the conférence: 

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "You Porn : La CJUE face au défi de la protection des mineurs" ("You Porn: The CJEU faces the challenge of protecting minors"), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, March 11, 2024

____

💬read the interview (in French)

____

► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French): "Depuis bientôt deux ans, l’Arcom tente de contraindre les sites pornographiques à mettre en place des procédés techniques sérieux de contrôle d’âge des internautes qui accèdent à leurs sites, afin que la protection des mineurs organisée par le droit pénal soit effective. Il y a à la fois une procédure civile en cours, basée notamment sur le décret qui met en œuvre ce dispositif, et un recours administratif, contestant la légalité du décret sur lequel s’appuie le régulateur pour mettre en demeure les sites d’adopter ces dispositifs techniques. Dans ce dernier contentieux, le Conseil d’État a, par sa décision du 6 mars 2024, adressé plusieurs questions préjudicielles à la CJUE pour déterminer quelle était la marge de manœuvre des États membres à l’encontre des sites qui ne respectent pas leur législation. Nous avons demandé au professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, spécialiste de droit de la compliance, de nous éclairer sur les enjeux de ce contentieux hors normes.".

____

► Questions asked (in French): 

• Pouvez-vous nous rappeler brièvement la genèse de ce cas manifestement complexe ?
• C’est la première fois qu’apparaît dans une décision de justice la notion de « cause systémique » dont vous êtes l’auteure. De quoi s’agit-il exactement ?
• Sur ces entrefaites, une décision de la CJUE est venue bouleverser la donne…
• Revenons au recours devant le Conseil d’État contre le décret, il semble que le Conseil d’État avait donc le choix entre deux solutions : suivre la CJUE et donc renoncer à protéger les enfants de la pornographie en France ou bien s’émanciper de cette jurisprudence européenne au risque de se le voir reprocher. Qu’a-t-il décidé finalement ?

________