The recent news

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The role of will in the Compliance Obligation: Obligation upon Obligation is valid and useful, Working Paper, June 2023.

____

🎤  This working paper was originally drawn up as a basis for the talk, Obligation on Obligation is worth, on the first day of the conference I co-organised:🧮Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (Compliance: Obligation, duty, power, culture), on 13 June 2023.

____

It was subsequently used as the basis for a forthcoming article:

📝La part de la volonté dans l’obligation de compliance : Obligation sur Obligation vaut".

in📕L'obligation de compliance, in the collection 📚Régulations & Compliance

📝The role of will in the Compliance Obligation: Obligation upon Obligation is valid and useful,

in📘Compliance Obligation, in the collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The demonstration of the part played by the entreprises' Will in the Compliance Obligation incumbent on them is carried out in 3 stages.

The first stage of the demonstration consists in finding the part played by the free will of companies in their Compliance Obligation by putting an end to two confusions: the first which, within the Law of Contract and Tort itself but also within Compliance Law, splits and confuses "free will" and "consent", which would no longer require freely expressed acceptance; the second, specific to Compliance Law, which confuses "Compliance" and "conformity", reducing the former to mechanical obedience which could exclude any free Will.

Having clarified this, the rest of the study focuses on the 2 ways in which a company subject to a Compliance Obligation by compulsory regulations expresses a part of its free Will, which the study expresses in this proposed adage: Obligation upon Obligation is valid, since the legal obligation to which the company responds by the obedience owed by all those subject to the regulations may be superimposed by its free Will, which will then oblige it.

The first case of Obligation upon Obligation, studied in a second part, concerns the means by which the compulsory Compliance Obligation is implemented, the company subject to the Monumental Goals set by the Legislator remaining free to choose the means by which the company will contribute to achieving them. Its free Will will thus be exercised over the choice and implementation of the means. This can take two legal forms: Contracts on the one hand and "Commitments" on the other.

In the third part, the second case of Obligation upon Obligation, which is more radical, is that in which, in addition to Compliance's legal compulsory Obligation, the company draws on its free Will to repeat the terms of its legal Obligation (because it is prohibited from contradicting it), a repetition which can be far-reaching, because the legal nature (and therefore the legal regime) is changed. The judgment handed down by the The Hague Court of Appeal on 12 November 2024, in the so-called Shell case, illustrates this. What is more, the company's free Will can play its part in the Compliance Obligation by increasing the legal Obligation. This is where the alliance is strongest. The interpretation of the specific and diverses obligations that result must remain that of the Monumental Goals in a teleological application that gives coherence to the whole.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, La qualification juridique du système de noms de domaine comme infrastructure et ses conséquences juridiques ("The legal status of the domain name system as an infrastructure and its legal consequence"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space). Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique, 21 février 2025, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance et l'Institut de la Recherche en Droit de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRDJS), 12 place du Panthéon, Paris.

____

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

____

► Summary of this conference:  "Domain names" are a technical reality. This technical reality has come to the fore, seeming to have been both little "thought out" and little "conceived" in Law and, perhaps because it is little coveted, Competition Law, which neutralises the concreteness of things and services in order to focus on exchange, hardly qualifies them. It is rather from the 'Competition Policy' perspective that 'domain names' are apprehended. However, Competition Policy expresses wishes and perspectives, while Competition aw must make way for the perspective of Regulatory Law inside the liberal economic system.

Looking at the technicalities of the domain name system, we can proceed in 3 stages.

Firstly, if a domain name is taken in isolation, it may appear as property and/or a projection of a person, and has rightly been described as such by the courts. But domain names only exist in relation to each other, the addressing system on which the Internet itself and the digital space that enables everyone to spread, reach and be reached were built. In this way, they constitute an Infrastructure in their plurality, in a uniqueness (I). The legal system must take account of this technological reality through the concept of Essential Infrastructure, which is well known in Regulatory legal perspective(I).

Secondly, the legal consequences of this legal qualification of Infrastructure must be detailed (II). Regulatory Law does not necessarily imply institutions, a regulatory authority being an indication rather than a criterion. Rather, it requires specific charges, powers and controls to ensure that the Infrastructure is established and operates to fulfill, now and in the future, the function that is crucially expected of it. Because the digital space was born of the Internet, an a-sectional and a-territorial space, Compliance Law, which is an extension of Regulatory Law, outside the sectors and internalised in the crucial operators, is essential as it is appropriate without diminishing the public dimension of the organisation.

Thirdly, the evidential dimension should be emphasised (III). Indeed, because we need to ensure that the Domain Names Infrastructure is always solid and reliable, so as not to risk a systemic failure of the Internet, and therefore of the digital space, we must not remain with the traditional system of burden of proof that rests on the person making the complaint. Because there is a Compliance Obligation, it is up to the crucial operators to credibly show their ability to ensure the technical sustainability of this infrastructure on which the digital space in which we live is based.

It shall be different if the issue is one of non-technical Sustainability, for example that which is linked to a particular societal project, in which the operators of the domain name system are not at the origin and are required on an ad hoc basis because they are in a good position to help the Authorities or because they wish to do so.

_____

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine. Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS), Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 21 Fabruary 2025

____

► General presentation of this symposium: The digital space has been built on and as a system. Its primary interest is of a negative nature: it consists of to be preserved against the prospect of systemic failure, of not collapsing. Like all other systems, this 'Monumental Goal' specific to the digital system justifies resources that incorporate this concern for the future. As with all systems, it integrates and relies on the specific technical nature of this system.

The digital space is largely based on the invention, technology and architecture of domain names. Domain names, as an addressing system, enable users to enter the digital space and find other Internet users. The uniqueness and solidity of the domain name system, entrusted to a single root and decentralisation, makes this community possible for those who use the digital space and ensures the technical durability required, without which the digital space would be compromised.

The architecture, operation, operators and what they do under the control of legislators, regulators, judges and legal subjects are therefore examined from a dual technical and legal perspective, in the light of the imperative of sustainability.

This allows to progress in 4 stages.

Firstly, to examine the permanence in time and space of the domain name system, insofar as it is the foundation of the Internet and the digital system. This technical construction gives rise to legal qualifications, not only for the present but also for the future, since the Web3 offers new technical solutions.

Secondly, this technical sustainability is an imperative that is built into the operators of the domain names themselves, which are inter-linked not only at national level but also at global level, this cross-linking being necessary for the security of the system. The State is present through public law techniques that enable surveillance, control and possible recovery.

Thirdly, it imposes constraints on the operators subject to them in order to serve this monumental goal of technical sustainability, and these constraints themselves generate as many powers as they need to usefully achieve this mission. This proportionality must be at the heart of the method and the requirements. The relationship between constraints and powers also stems from it.

Fourthly, this imperative of technical sustainability, which is global in nature, gives way to imperatives of societal sustainability, more localised in space and time, when domain name operators are called upon by the legitimate authors of binding standards, legislators in the first instance, to express concerns such as the protection of people involved in the digital space and whose rights are compromised or who are in danger.

This second type of sustainability, which is more localised and less inherent in the architecture of the Internet, is justified by the available power of the operators concerned and their adherence to social imperatives. The resulting constraints and powers are therefore not the same.

The 2 sustainabilities must then be articulated in a conception that is both teleological and pragmatic.

____

____

► Speakers (they will speak in French, but the book to be published will be in English): 

🎤Pierre Bonis, Chief Executive Officer of the Association française pour le nommage Internet en coopération (Afnic)

🎤Lucien Castex, Adviser of the Afnic Chief Executive Officer for Research internet and society and Internet governance

🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Full Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎤Claire Leveneur, Senior Lecturer at Paris-Est Créteil University

🎤Grégoire Loiseau, Full Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

🎤Samir Merabet, Full Professor at the University of West Indies

🎤Antoine Oumedjkane, Senior Lecturer at Lille University

🎤Frédéric Sardain, attorney at law, Jeantet law firm

____

read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La clé de la proportionnalité pour établir l’équilibre des obligations, pouvoirs et droits -  Exemple de l’inclusion technique  assurée par les  opérateurs des noms  de domaine" (The key to proportionality in balancing obligations, powers and rights - Example of technical inclusion by domain name operators), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space). Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique, 21 février 2025, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance et l'Institut de la Recherche en Droit de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRDJS), 12 place du Panthéon, Paris.

____

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

____

► Summary of this conference:  The domain name operators operate in a liberal system and have internalised the tasks being technically inherent in the very architecture of the Internet, while the Public Authorities, because they recognise this nature, ensure in Ex Ante that there are no global failures.

This translates into a system of obligations. All the more so since domain name operators not only bear multiple obligations but also, by order of the laws and regulations, impose them on others, for example on their co-contractors and users.

It is from this perspective that  the Principle of Proportionality, which is central here, must be considered. It is another expression of the legal Principle of Necessity, which must be conceived in terms of goals: what is proportionate is what is necessary to achieve the objective with regard to which the duties and prerogatives are entrusted and/or exercised. This is why it is first necessary to recall and explain what the Principle of Proportionality is with regard to the operators obligations covered by Compliance Law, which goes beyond jurisdictional powers such as sanctions or dispute resolution, to explain the teleological control of obligations and powers (I). 

From this practical framework, the most relevant example is the technical obligation of inclusion (II) In the technical sense, Inclusion means that anyone who wants to enter the digital space must be able to do so and must be able to reach those who are there and be reached by others. This gives everyone the right to reach and be reached.

Is it possible to go  further and ask for comfort for everyone and equality in this comfort and advantages to rebalance this accessibility? For instance, to know everything about everyone beyond this simple digital adresse? To ask domains names operators to help everyone to develop his/her personality in the digital space, compensating his/her lack of initial chance?  This is social and political inclusion. It is not the same thing. It does not have the same sources. It does not follow the same paths. Not the same forces. The Sustainability that is then projected can be cumulative. A distinction has to be made on the one hand, and a link made on the other. Moreover, in the name of mistreated social inclusion, can we mistreat technical inclusion, i.e. exclude a person from the digital space?  (III).

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb/Overhang

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance" et "conformité" : les distinguer/mieux les articuler afin que le DPO trouve sa juste place" ("Compliance Law" and "conformity" : distinguish between them/better articulate them so that the DPO finds their rightful place"), , in  Association française des correspondants à la protection des données à caractère personnel (AFCDP),  19ème Université AFCDP des DPO - La gouvernance des données ("Data Governance"), Maison de la Chimie, Paris, 7 February 2025 , 10h-10h45.

____

🧮 see this manifestation full program (in French)

____

⬜ see les slides on which this conference is done (in French) 

____

► English Presentation of this conference: 'Compliance' and 'conformité' are often considered to be synonymous, notably in French in which the term "Compliance" is so often used to express only the "conformity" (conformité). This is a misunderstanding and a reduction, particularly of the role of professionals, notably DPOs. In fact, 'conformity' consists solely of ensuring that regulations are respected. Of course, an"active" conformity and "proven" conformity with these regulations, in particular the European GDPR. That and only that.

If that's the case, then on the one hand this task impossible, because no one can comply with all the regulations, and it's the obsession with avoiding or reducing penalties that actually replaces the desire to do the right thing. On the other hand, algorithms are going to replace the DPO, a human being, because algorithms will identify 'non-conformity', then conformity, then write it down by "smart" contracts.

But Compliance Law is more than conformity, which is only one of its tools. Compliance Law aim is to protect the human beings involved in the systems. Data protection is one of the best examples of this, and it underpins all the other areas of Compliance Law. Companies are asked to do less (obligation of means) and more: to help protect, by distinguishing between what must be revealed and what must be kept secret, sometimes to resolve conflicts between the 2 prescriptions, to educate, to make alliances.

To built a real "governance". In this human and humanist mission that anchors Europe, the algorithm is flat. We are waiting for the DPO. In this human and humanist mission that anchors Europe, the algorithm is flat. We are waiting for the DPO. There is the role of guardian of the spirit of the texts, of strategic aid for the data controller, of adjuster of complementary or contradictory subjective rights, of adjustment of the texts in the European puzzle of a Regulatory Europe, which is being put in place in the humanist tradition which is its own to preserve the durability of the systems to protect the people who are forcibly or voluntarily involved in them.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Who is responsible for making the Compliance provision effective? Is it the company or the public authority? Example of data: CE, 27 January 2025, B. c/ CNIL, Working Paper, February 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 8 February 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category.

►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: In its decision of 27 January 2025, B. v CNIL, the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d'État ) had to provide a solution to a case that the Compliance rules applicable to data had not expressly provided for. Can a person who believes that another person has failed to fulfill their obligations under the GDPR refer the matter to the French Data Protection Regulator (CNIL) and not the data controller?

The Conseil d'État considers that the question is clear and that there is no point in referring a preliminary question to the ECJ. Indeed, the texts require the person alleging that his or her right has been infringed to first contact the data controller to have the information deleted before subsequently referring the matter to the CNIL. Furthermore, this case involved personal information inserted by doctors in an expert report submitted to a court. The Conseil d'Etat agreed with the CNIL that it was not required to review and assess the evidence, which is the role of the court.

This shows that, while the right to alert can be used to refer cases directly to the administrative authorities, here the specific takes precedence over the general, with the spirit of the Law entrusting the direct preservation of rights to the data controller, with the CNIL's supervisory and sanctioning role coming only at a later stage. This illustrates the more general nature of Compliance Law, which relies primarily on the operators themselves. Furthermore, as a melting pot of various subjective rights, in this case the right to erasure but also the right to contribute to the debates, the Conseil d'Etat stresses that it is the role of the judicial judge to ensure the fairness of the debates.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Juger une situation familiale, une "obligation impossible"", in Collège de Droit de l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), Dialogue avec Éliette Abécassis autour de son roman  Divorce à la française, Amphi Turgot, Sorbonne, 28 janvier 2025, 20h-21h30, Paris. 

____

🪑🪑🪑Cette conférence a été ouverte par Philippe Stoffel-Munck, co-directeur du Collège de Droit de l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), qui a présenté les parcours, travaux et personnalités  d'Éliette Abécassis et de moi-même.

Puis, selon le principe du dialogue, Éliette Abécassis a présenté trois points d'un point de vue littéraire et philosophique sur lesquels elle m'a demandé d'exprimer ma perspective.

• Le premier point portait sur la procédure, les caractères contradictoires des discours des uns et des autres, la place de la vérité dans une procédure de divorce et la place de la vérité.
• Le deuxième point a porté sur la difficulté de juger, sur l'impossibilité même de juger, son roman étant construit pour mettre le lecteur dans la position qui est celle du juger : comment arriver à juger ?
• Le troisième point a porté sur le caractère "profondément humain" des divorces et du jugement de ceux-ci et, en conséquence, de ce qui donnerait l'application de ladite intelligence artificielle en la matière.

Selon la méthode convenue entre nous, n'ayant pas été prévenue du choix de ces perspectives-là mais connaissant bien Éliette Abécassis et son oeuvre, j'ai donc développé "sur le banc" les points suivants pour les articuler à l'auditoire composé d'étudiants en droit en 1ière, 2ième et 3ième année :

____

► Présentation de mes réponses aux questions ouvertes par Eliette Abécassis dans ce dialogue   : 🔴Éliette a montré comment dans Divorce à la français, elle a fait parlé de multiples personnes impliquées dans la procédure de divorce qui font des récits contradictoires, proposant des vérités qui se contredisent, reprenant comme trame du roman la procédure elle-même. Les vérités multiples sont ainsi confrontées, notamment celle de la littérature et celle du Droit.

I. LE PRINCIPE DU CONTRADICTOIRE, LA VÉRITÉ, LES PARTIES ET LE JUGE

La procédure est effectivement gouvernée par le "principe du contradictoire". Pour les parties au litige, il ne s'agit pas particulièrement de participer à la recherche de la vérité : une partie dans un procès veut gagner, c'est-à-dire notamment que son adversaire perde. Le débat et son alimentation notamment en éléments de preuve a pour bénéficiaire principe le juge. D'ailleurs et à ce titre le principe du contradictoire se démarque des droits de la défense, en ce que ceux-ci n'ont pas toujours pour objectif la vérité mais sont des prérogatives, de plus haut niveau dont les personnes sont titulaires parce qu'elles sont en risque dans la perspective de la décision susceptible d'être prise. Elles peuvent ainsi se défendre, par exemple en mentant, ou en se taisant. Les autorités sont donc davantage favorables au contradictoire, principe qui fonctionne en leur faveur, qu'aux droits de la défense, droits subjectifs qui leur sont parfois opposées. Parce que le juge est gardien de l'État de droit, il concrétise le contradictoire mais aussi les droits de la défense. Parce que la vérité peut aussi être un argument, elle peut aussi alimenter défense et débat mais gardons en tête cette opposition de départ qui fonde le Droit processuel, que Divorce à la française illustre. 

🔴Le deuxième point est sur la difficulté de juger. Éliette Abécassis souligne la difficulté de juger qui est d'autant plus pointée dans son roman que le juge est à la fois omniprésent qu'il est le seul à ne pas prendre la parole. C'est donc le lecteur qui est institué juge. Il perçoit lui-même à travers son expérience de lecteur la difficulté de juger, mais aussi l'importance de juger. Elle se réfère notamment notamment aux travaux de Paul Ricoeur sur l'enjeu du jugement et du juste.

II. LE DIFFICILE ART DE JUGER, OBLIGATION IMPOSSIBLE

Cela m'a fait penser à l'ouvrage publié avec un ami très cher qui étudia avec moi dans ce même Amphi Turgot la philosophie pour une licence de philosophie, ouvrage ayant pour titre La justice. L'obligation impossible. Il est "impossible" de juger, parce qu'il est "impossible" d'être juste.

Faut-il donc se détourner de cet office-là ? De cette prétention-là ? Non, car si la justice, comme la vérité, est un point que nul ne peut atteindre, alors que la Justice est une vertu qui contient toutes les autres et en cela si nous ne sommes pas justes nous n'avons plus aucune vertu (par exemple la vertu du courage), il convient (comme le fait tout juge) partir des situations.

Les situations sont injustes. Etre juste, c'est d'abord être sensible, être perspicace à l'intensité d'injustice de telle ou telle situation. C'est déjà ça. Puis, c'est agir. C'est-à-dire la dire, ce qui est déjà un premier jugement. Puis la trancher, la réparer, la consoler. C'est ainsi que l'on peut être juste. C'est sans doute pour cela que l'on devient juge. Notamment lorsqu'il s'agit des situations familiales. 

🔴Éliette insiste sur la violence des conflits qui s'exprime aussi dans les procédures de divorce et que son roman met en scène. Cette instabilité des rapports humains correspond à une société qui est en train de "liquéfier" les rapports entres les êtres humains, et bientôt les êtres humains eux-mêmes. Elle s'inquiète de ce que va produire sur la justice humaine l'usage de l'intelligence artificielle. 

III. LES ALGORITHMES, APPUI OU DESTRUCTION DE L'OFFICE DU JUGE

Le troisième point porte donc sur la pertinence, légitimité et efficacité de l'usage des algorithmes dans les contentieux de divorce. Il est tentant de répondre en bloc que le système algorithmique sans âme ne doit pas toucher ce contentieux-là car pour reprendre les mots d'Eliette Abécassis, il est "profondément humain" et donc seul un juge humain peut y toucher. Mais il faut aussi considérer que la procédure, dont on a montré tout à l'heure la dimension humaniste à travers le contradictoire et les droits de la défense, est une machinerie, avec des délais et des séries d'actes de procédure que des algorithmes aident à mener et à contrôler.

La procédure c'est par nature du temps, et plus exactement de la durée, du temps qui passe. Il faut que la dispute ait le temps de s'apaiser. Faire durer peut aussi l'exacerber. Les outils algorithmiques peuvent permettre aux parties de se libérer, d'en finir. Il ne s'agit pas seulement d'une logique de gestion de flux vue du côté de l'institution mais aussi de justice pour les parties en litige qui peuvent en être libérées grâce à ces outils-là. Temps utile, délai raisonnable, sont aussi des garanties de procédure. 

L'enjeu est alors d'avoir du discernement sur deux discernements. En premier lieu en distinguant ce qui relève de l'intendance procédurale que le système algorithmique et ce qui relève du choix qui doit être laissé au juge et aux parties. En second lieu, en distinguant ce qui dans les différents cas est identique malgré la singularité (définition de ce qu'est l'analogie) et se prêtent donc à la puissance algorithmique et qui n'est pas analogue. L'analogie est l'art même du juriste.

_____

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and the time saved: the Areva and Orano CJIP of 2 December 2024, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 25 January 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category.

►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: On 2 December 2024, Areva/Orano signed a Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP) with the French National Financial Prosecutor's Office, validated by the order of 9 December 2024 of the President of the Paris Judicial Court. The case concerns the bribery of a foreign public official in Mongolia through the use of an intermediary.

This perfectly illustrates the primary advantage of this Compliance Tool, which consists of closing a situation that could deprive a company of the means to act in the future. Even if neither the CJIP nor the validation order constitutes an admission of guilt or a conviction, the acts of bribery of a foreign public official can no longer give rise to prosecution.

However, the future has been taken care of, because as soon as Tracfin passed the first information to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the company cooperated and set up a programme to actively fight corruption ("compliance programme"). The CJIP extends this by a compliance programme supervised by the French Anticorruption Agency.

One month after the CJIP, the Mongolian government and the company, in the presence of the French government, announced on 17 January 2025 the signing of a contract to operate a uranium mine, the same industrial coopération that had given rise to these reprehensible acts. The CJIP made it possible to move forward in time.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️