Organisation of Academic Events Related to General Law and Civil Law

► Full reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I), Institut de Recherche juridique de la Sorbonne -IRJS (Sorbonne Legal Research Institute), Compliance et droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), 7 October 2026. - 🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract. - The symposium is under the scientific responsibility of Nicolas Bargue, 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and 🕴️Julia Heinich. - To register: - 🧮The event will take place at Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) on 15 October 2026. Il will be held in French. - Presentation of the topic:  While Contract Law, in its common rules expressed by the “general theory of contracts”, is often considered to be the most developed branch of Law in practice and the most studied at university, at first glance it seems to be given little consideration when it comes to compliance matter. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the company, which is at the heart of the action expected of it—action that is expected to be powerful (since it affects the collective future) and diversified (since it concerns all systems beyond the company’s direct activity)—seems above all to have the status of a subject of law. This is exacerbated if, by mistakenly confusing the latter terms, we only talk about “conformity” and assert that it is simply for businesses a matter of “complying with the regulations that apply to them”, which then leaves little room for contractual initiative. This would be associated only with Ethics, a normative order that also differs from a contract, which is a binding legal act. The relationship between Contract and many sorts of documents, standards and ethical acts that are so numerous in compliance techniques, to which we can add the soft law produced by courts, regulators, supervisors and the companies themselves, is therefore an open question. This delicate reconciliation, which the terms “CSR” and “Governance” express without referring to very precise legal definitions, can cause difficulties in relation to general Contract Law: thus, the “commitments” that punctuate the techniques and behaviours that make up the “culture of compliance” have a central place in Compliance Law. However, their place, if not their equivalence with the contract, is not established, and may even be excluded. This too is an open question. Based on these initial questions, it appears that in order to gain a firmer footing in the analysis of the practices of companies that include compliance clauses into multiple contracts, we must observe that compliance may consist of a comprehensive service that is the very subject of a specific contract, the “compliance contract, or even assist in the conception that judges may, or must, develop in their office when they are seized of “contractual litigation involving Compliance”, we must return to common contract law. Indeed, if we stop viewing Compliance Law solely through the prism of punishment, if we do not limit it to the “detection and prevention” of fraudulent behaviour which, if it occurred, would be punished, the contract does not have the same place in practice. In this initial restrictive conception of Compliance Law based on sanctions, simply by moving from ex post to ex ante, the company remains subject to the regulations that apply to it, and the contract would be just one of the ways in which it fulfils its legal compliance obligation. However, the obligation of compliance can also be considered to have its legitimate source in the Contract, which in general termes is based on the autonomy of will and all its consequences (contractual freedom, binding force, effect on third parties, etc.), with the Principle of Compliance fitting into it as a second pillar linked to the first pillar, which is the Principle of free Competition. It is therefore very useful to better understand practices by comparing the technical principles of general Contract Law with Compliance Principles, such as concern for others that contractors may pursue independently of any regulatory requirement (these others who are distant in space and time), preservation of systems, the obligation to provide evidence, etc. This is the subject of this symposium which, according to the classic dichotomy of contractual formation and contractual execution, revisits the contractual thread based on the founding principles of autonomy and freedoms, binding force and its relativity, the meeting of consents, groups of contracts, and regulatory contracts often drawn up to implement compliance policies. Enforcement and contractual liability under general Contract Law are themselves coloured in a unique way when a compliance concern or goal has been included in the contract or is implied by it. - The proceedings of this symposium will form the basis of a specific chapter in the following publications: 📕Compliance and Contracts, forthcoming in the series 📚Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz. 📘Compliance and Contract, to be published in the 📚Compliance & Regulation Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.   🔻 Read the schedule for the event below ⤵️  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., coordination and moderation of the conference L'office du juge et les causes systémiques (""The Office of the Judge and systemic causes"), in Cycle of Conferences, Penser l'office du juge ("Thinking the Office of the Judge"), Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation, Paris, May 9, 2021, 17h-19h. The conference is held in French. - ► General presentation of the conference: the conference is based on the intervention of three judges, Christophe Soulard, Fabien Raynaud, and François Ancel, who think and debate among themselves on a hypothesis: the existence of "systemic causes". The hypothesis is that beyond and through the diversity of disputes and cases that are submitted to the most diverse judges, there is a category of cases that are systemic, which means containing in what is submitted to the judge for resolution a system.  If such a category exists, which also raises the question of the diversity of systems and the difficulty arising from their submission to rules that are not legal (for example economic, biological, financial "laws", etc.) , then the judge should take this into account, both in the procedure and in the judgment they make on the case and in the way they formulate et restitute this judgment. - 📝read the presentation of this conference by the Cour de cassation (in French) 📝read the program of the cycle of conferences 2022 (in French) -  🎥see the conference video (in French)  🎥 see the synthesis video of the conference, made in situ by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche (in French)   - ​✏️read the notes taken during the conference to make the synthesis (in French) 📝read the article of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche restituting this conference, published in the Recueil Dalloz (in French) - ►read the works, basis of the two interventions of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche 🚧 L'hypothèse de la "cause systémique (made before the conference to prepare it), available en English 📝Synthese of the conference (made during the conference) -

Documents Invitation_CTaubira_16042015.png