Lectures Related to Justice and Procedure

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le maniement du temps dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance : de l’urgence au temps long (The management of time in contractual litigation involving compliance: from urgency to the long term)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 University, Contractual disputes involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects,  Faculty of Law, Lyon, 29 May 2026. - 🧮[lien a="le-contentieux-contractuel-de-la-compliance-aspets"]view the full programme for the event[/lien] (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based - Read the présenation of the other two papers presented at this conference: 🎥[lien a="lemergence-du-contentieux-contractuel-impliquant-l"]The emergence of contractual disputes involving compliance due to the convergence of legal areas[/lien] 🎥Appropriate adjudication in contractual disputes involving compliance and its effective enforcement - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat  with English summaries)  To be published in the 📚[rubrique p='Responsabilités éditoriales > Direction de la collection "Régulations & Compliance", JoRC & Dalloz']Regulations & Compliance[/rubrique] series, a book co-published by the [rubrique p="JORC"]Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)[/rubrique] and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this conference :  ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻J.-M. Coulon and 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche (eds.), Le temps dans la procédure (Time in Legal Proceedings), 19966 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️[lien a="coordination-scientifique-et-animation-du-cycle-de"]Compliance and Contracts[/lien],   - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "The Future of Compliance", series Compliance, Centre Perelman, Brussels, 23 February 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the series Compliance (in French) - ► English presentation of this concluding conference in the series Compliance : The future of Compliance: who knows what it holds? Anyone who practises and studies the texts, litigation, structures and behaviours will have to admit that they do not know what will become of what has emerged as a new branch of law. It is not easily recognised, probably for three reasons. Firstly, because the birth of a new branch of law is an unusual phenomenon, whose disruptive and regenerative waves are felt in all branches of law and other regulatory systems, accompanying and reflecting the new world we have already entered, whether we like it or not. Secondly, because it is unpleasant (especially if you are a professor...) to begin and conclude with the fact that you do not know. Thirdly, because it is not very marketable, and in today's large and growing "compliance market", it is not very smart, if you want to sell compliance products (whether they be algorithms, new services to be linked to the highest level of companies, specialities in law firms, new chairs in various schools), to say that you don't know. So the experts say they know. For my part, I meet many people who are "experts" and who are "knowledgeable". What is surprising is the diversity of their discourse, which casts doubt on the solidity of the projection, particularly on the meaning of words: for example, not only words that could be described as "new" (which we then try to anchor in old words) such as "compliance/conformity" and "governance", but also words that we are undoubtedly more familiar with, such as "commitment" and "responsibility" or "sanction", i.e. the very pillars of the matter. Why is this a cause for concern, apart from the fact that it is always better to know what we are talking about, rather than everyone talking in their own corner, for their own compliance corpus, for their like-minded friends, with the subject matter becoming increasingly siloed? Because the object of Compliance Law is the future. So, the future of this branch of law which its object is the future is by nature very uncertain.   It will therefore be assumed in advance that not knowing the future is a major difficulty when it comes to Compliance Law, in that this branch of law is unified in that it is ex ante and its object is the future. The difficulty is neither of the same nature nor of the same magnitude when it comes to the legislator, the "regulator", the regulated company (calculating or political), or the judge faced with systemic compliance litigation. That said, in a first part, one can imagine the future possibilities for Compliance (because that is what it boils down to, given the number of candidates eager to seize the instruments of power that are the " Compliance tools"). It is not a foregone conclusion that this future will be governed by Law. The consequences could take care of that. Or the order given by the leader (Trump, for instance), and that would go down all the better as he states that he certainly does not care about human beings but that he wields the power of Compliance to restore the climate balance (through Chinese regulations): except to say that there is no unified Compliance Law. That there would be one for the climate and another for human rights. So what about the future consistency of European Law, which links the two in the CSRD and the CS3D? Particularly in value chains. The question then is: what will be the uniqueness of Compliance Law in the future? -   In a second part, since we do not know how things will turn out, from omnibus to omnibus, from a government hostile to the Law to a government appealing to the Due Process, from case law to case law, from special law to common law, we must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the various perspectives. There is never one perspective where everything is good and another where everything is bad, because in that case there would be no choice and no policy: it would be enough to have information, to be "rational" and to go for the right solution rather than the wrong one. Beyond general statements that a combination of compliance and ethics is welcome, which is not in doubt in the superb statements made in this regard, it is necessary to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the direction we may take. Firstly, there is the disappearance of Compliance Law, with the advantage of reducing the regulatory burden on those subject to it and the disadvantage of abandoning altruistic and global ambitions (these two Monumental Goals may overlap). Secundly, it could involve the creation of a global empire, with the advantage of a simplified American empire, whether extraterritorialised by the state or by companies and their governance or technology, with the advantage of a Western model and the disadvantage of the crushing of "mondialisation" by globalisation and the disappearance of the specific ambitions of States. Thirdly, it may be a contribution to a war between powers, particularly through the European DSA and the data war, with the advantage of European maturity in Compliance Law as an extension of Regulatory Law and the disadvantage that we could move from a war in the metaphorical sense (never use metaphors in Law) to a war. Quaterly, it could be a new rule of Law in which systemic companies participate in an alliance to achieve Monumental political Goals decided by States and political authorities, preserving systems for the future ("sustainability") so that human beings are not crushed by them but benefit from them. The disadvantage is that we have to relearn the Law, because although it has nothing to do with conformity, which is only an instrument, Compliance Law changes all branches of Law and requires the integration of other techniques, particularly political and technological ones. -   In third part, in practice, we must strive in advance to reduce the disadvantages associated with the shortcomings of possible future developments in Compliance Law, just as we must strive in advance to increase the advantages associated with the qualities of possible future developments in Compliance Law. The disadvantage lies in the very nature of Compliance Law, namely its great power, because unlike Competition Law, it calls for and increases power. We must therefore counteract the prospect of compliance techniques, particularly those related to Information, being monopolised by those who only want to use them to consolidate or extend their power, laughing at Ethics and Monumental Goals. This means that supervision techniques on the one hand and a renewed role for judges on the other must be considered. The quality attached to possible futures stems from the fact that we could uphold a "Global Law" (reference to the work of Benoît Frydman, among others) and that, faced with the possible disappearance of Public International Law and the imperative preservation of value chains, particularly in the context of possible war, the alliance between supervised systemic companies and the political authorities in charge of the future of the social group that legitimises them may appear to be a legitimate, effective, efficiate and efficient system. -   ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="le-droit-de-la-compliance-2"]Compliance Law[/lien], 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="le-pouvoir-pour-mieux-servir"]Conceiving Power[/lien], 2021 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕[lien a="les-buts-monumentaux-de-la-compliance"]Compliance Monumental Goals[/lien], 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="naissance-dune-branche-du-droit-le-droit-de-la-c-2"]The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law[/lien], 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="compliance-et-conformite-les-distinguer-pour-les-a"]Compliance Law and conformity: distinguishing between them to better articulate them[/lien], 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕[lien a="lobligation-de-compliance-2"]Complianceo Obligation[/lien], 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="droit-de-la-compliance-et-contentieux-systemique-2"]Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation[/lien], 2025 - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique], Saisir les principes du Droit de la Compliance à travers l'actualité (Understanding the principles of compliance law through current current legal cases and events), Jean Moulin  - Lyon 3 University Law Faculty, 10 December 2025. - ► Methodological presentation of this 4-hour MasterClass : It is difficult to teach a branch of law that is still being developed, to find a way to open its doors, because if by explaining its principles ex abrupto, the risk exists of remaining at the door, even though the aim is to open it. This door is all the more blocked by the accumulation of multiple regulatory corpus, which are now perceived as being linked to Compliance Law: GDPR, Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, FCPA, etc.; These are highly technical and complicated, and tend to be studied in silos, with little connection between them and little articulation with the traditional branches of Law. Therefore, the principles that form the backbone of Compliance Law as an autonomous branch of Law are all the less apparent, even though they would make these "compliance blocks" more intelligible and manageable. However, setting out these principles, which shed light not only on the current positive law but also on how it will evolve, seems "theoretical". In order to open the door to this new branch of Law, which already occupies a significant place in practice and is set to expand, so that it can be handled by lawyers who understand its spirit and is not entirely dominated by those from other disciplines who will master its tools (risk mapping, assessment, internal investigation, etc.), most often through algorithms and platforms (compliance by design), it is relevant to start with a few cases, a few decisions, a few texts, and a few comments, to gauge what they reveal. Because the principles are already there. They are gradually emerging. The challenge is that they often emerge quickly, in a manner that is sufficiently consistent with other branches of Law, and that the legal aspect takes precedence. That is what is at stake today. Each hour is devoted to a different case, based on a document of a different legal genre. - 🌐read a post on LinkedIn (in French) - - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="le-droit-de-la-compliance"]Compliance Law[/lien], 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="compliance-monumental-goals-beating-heart-of-compl"]Monumental Goals, the beating heart of Compliance Law[/lien], 2023 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="ce-a-quoi-oblige-un-engagement-dans-les-systemes-d"]In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings[/lien], 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝[lien a="droit-de-la-compliance-et-contentieux-systemique"]Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation[/lien], 2025   - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique],  ""Ordonner la Compliance : pourquoi le faire et comment le faire ? (Organising Compliance: why do it and how to do it?)", interview Focus on... conducted for Dalloz Actu Étudiants, 13 November 2025 - ► read the interview : 💬 Read the interview (in French) - 🌐read the interview presentation on LinkedIn (in French) 🌐read the interview presentation through the MAFR Newsletter Law, Compliance, Regulation, (in English) - ► presentation  of the interview by Dalloz Actu-Étudiants  : Compliance can be defined as a new branch of law that mobilises major economic players and their stakeholders to ensure that the large systems in which we live do not collapse, but remain solid and sustainable. Sanctions, contracts, ethical principles, court decisions and corporate cultures all converge to achieve this. The ambition is great, some contest it, many want to escape it. It is still difficult to define compliance, which seems to be going in all directions. Who? What? Why? How? These are all questions addressed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of law and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the Régulations & Compliance series under her scientific direction. Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the "Regulations & Compliance" collection under her scientific direction, sheds light on with her imaginative power combined with her legal precision. - Q.Why do the fundamental objectives of compliance unify all legal compliance techniques? Summary of MAFR's response: because all these regulatory frameworks, which large companies are required to enforce effectively and which appear disparate, creating as many specific requirements as there are regulatory compliance blocks, find their unity when we consider the following reality: whatever the body of regulations in question (Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, IAA, etc.), the aim is always to identify and prevent systemic risks so that these systems do not collapse.   Q. How can we define the obligation of compliance? Summary of MAFR response: the company concerned is therefore obliged to put in place "compliance structures", such as mapping, plans, alert structures and programmes (obligation of result), but of course, and this is the key point, to achieve this goal, namely to ensure that the system in question (banking, financial, climate, digital, algorithmic, etc.) does not collapse. This is an obligation of means. This is the exact, simple definition that unifies all the regulations of the Compliance Obligation for which subject companies are responsible.   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance standards and their implementation?  Summary of MAFR's response: It must remain a matter of law. However, many argue that because it is only a matter of "compliance" and "ticking all the boxes", algorithms (which do not think or know anything) will do this, eliminating the need for lawyers and the law. This must be avoided. Furthermore, given the immense ambition of safeguarding systems, political and public authorities, businesses and stakeholders must join forces. They must not fight to bring each other down.   Q. What are the complexities of compliance law?  Summary of MAFR's response: I would not say "complexity", because although the regulations are complicated, compliance law is fairly simple and unified around its monumental goals of safeguarding systems, ensuring their future sustainability and protecting the people involved in them. However, it is a new branch of law that is still poorly understood and therefore sometimes poorly mastered. It therefore needs to be organised.   Q. What is your proposal for ordering it?  Summary of MAFR's response: Teaching more about compliance law will facilitate its organisation. The courts, to which all regulations converge through litigation, will participate in this organisation, which is necessary to ensure that regulations do not remain in silos and do not contradict each other when they have the same purpose, which constitutes their legal normativity. This new branch of law must also be articulated with all other branches of law. This is notably what the recently published book, L'obligation de compliance (The Obligation of Compliance), does. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference: [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique], "Adéquation et inadéquation de la sanction comme outil de régulation financière et sa transformation par la Compliance" (Adequacy and inadequacy of sanctions as a tool of Financial Regulation and its transformation through Compliance)", contribution to the round-table discussion on"Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la Régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System)", Annual conference of the Commission des sanctions (Enforcement Committee) of the Autorité des marchés financiers - AMF (French Financial Markets Authority), Paris,  14 October 2025. - ► see the general programme of this manifestation (in French) The event comprises two round tables. The theme of the first round table is: La preuve des abus de marché entre l’AMF et le juge pénal : vers une convergence ? (Proof of market abuse between the AMF and the criminal courts: towards convergence?) 🪑🪑🪑AutresOther participants in this 2nd round table, moderated by Sophie Schiller, member of the Enforcement Committe on the topic: Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la Régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System?) 🕴🏻Sébastien Raspiller, Secretary General of the AMF 🕴🏻Martine Samuelian, Partner, Jeantet Law Firm 🕴🏻Vincent Villette, Secretary General of the CNIL (French Personal Data Regulatory Body) - ► Summary of this intervention : In the round-table discussion on the role of sanctions, a number of contributions will be made, depending on the nature of the discussion itself. They will be brief in nature and will be aimed at an audience with a good knowledge of financial regulation. It is the occasion for me to insist on 2 things, the first naturely and probably for ever attached to the role of sanctions in all Regulatory Systems, the secund very new. The first is the indissociability between Criminal Law and Sanction, even if sanctions is defined as a regulatory tools. The secund is the conception and the use of sanctions through Compliance Law. Therefore, in the first idea, my first intervention, aimed more at establishing the subject and describing the Intangible, is on the very idea that sanctions have a role to play in financial regulation. By its very nature. But this does not make it any less difficult. It is not obvious, because if penalties are seen as a 'regulatory tool', then it is the regulatory perspective that predominates and 'colours' the tool that is the penalty. Regulation, of which the texts on the basis which sanctions are issued are only one tool and which is not the set of applicable rules, Regulation which is an apparatus of institutions, rules and decisions aimed at establishing the equilibrium of a sector and maintaining this equilibrium, which is by nature unstable, over time, which the sector could not do by its own efforts alone (Regulatory Law, which is Ex Ante Law, thus distinguishing itself from Competition Law, which is Ex Post Law). From the perspective of Financial Regulatory System, as in other sectoral regulatory systems, and in the general Regulatory Law, sanctions are a tool (and a tool like any other, simply more powerful than the others. This is the pragmatic perspective adopted by the State and the Regulatory body itself, which will use it in conjunction with other tools, such as an Information, Education and Incentive mechanism. Moreover, it shall use sanction as informative tool, as educational tool, as incentive tool. However, the principle of the autonomy of Criminal Law, and the European concept of "Criminal Matters" mean that the sanction can be seen in terms of the autonomous criteria of the seriousness of the act imputed and the sanction imposed on the legal person. In this respect, the penalty is inseparable from the way in which it is imposed (Criminal Law is constitutionally inseparable from Criminal Procedure). In this respect, the sanction is not a tool coloured by the overall objective served by the Financial Markets Regulatory Body: the sustainability of the financial system. The Enforcement Committee is not the AMF's "armed wing"; it is a "court", as the Oury ruling reminded us. Therefore, the question is and I would like to ask it directly to the Enforcement Committed: Can you be both?   As they say, could you be both carp and rabbit? Depending on whether you are viewed from one angle or another, you will be seen as the body that makes financial markets effective (a tool among the tools) or as the body that punishes misconduct (a court among the courts). It is possible, and in practice it is often true. But if we are honest, we will admit that regulation feeds on information and that the procedure before a criminal court is built on secrecy and the weapons of those who, innocent or guilty, are at risk because they are, or will be, prosecuted. We've never got out of this difficulty. We always try to strike a balance between the fact that it is in itself a repressive sanction for a person who will suffer and the fact that it is also a systemic tool: there is a 'balance' between the search for systemic benefit (which reduces the protection of individuals for the benefit of the system) and the concern for the people involved (which reduces the present and future protection of the system). The balance goes more or less in one direction. It is often public opinion, the place, the legislator and, even above all,  the civil appeal judge (vertical dialogue) and those in dialogue, between the regulator and the criminal judge (horizontal dialogue) which cause the scales of diverse technical solutions. It is also the way in which the Enforcement Committee, in defining itself as the armed wing of the AMF (carp) or as a repressive court (rabbit), chooses in its procedural behaviour the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System, more or less instrumentalised (carp) or jurisdictionalised (rabbit). - The second point, if there is to be one, concerns the development of the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System . On the basis of these fundamentals, an evolution in the role of sanctions in financial regulatory system (an evolution that can be observed in all sectoral regulatory systems) consists of internalising sanctions (in their conception by the texts, their elaboration by the Sanctions Committees, their application) in the economic operators sanctioned, in the economic sectors concerned, in the opinion concerned (the figure of Peelmanian circles of the audiences applying). This internalisation transforms Regulatory mission of the administrative body (which deals with market structures) into Rupervision (which deals directly with market operators) since the sanction penetrates the operator, the operator adopting commitments. This concept corresponds to the new branch of Law known as Compliance Law.  Compliance Law uses sanctions as an "incentive like any other", and (we must be careful on this point), because it is systemic in nature, the concern for the system being internalised in the operator, it is relatively insensitive to procedural rights. With the emphasis on information, it is the principle of adversarial debate (which provides information) rather than the rights of the defence that is valued. The cooperation of the person being prosecuted is highly valued, and non-cooperation becomes incomprehensible. The internalisation of sanctions by operators has led to two major changes. Firstly, these economic operators themselves must sanction, detect and prevent market abuse. The number of special obligations of vigilance is increasing. The obligation of vigilance of operators themselves is becoming a pillar of Regulation, transformed in Supervision.  The other development is the liberalisation of regulatory system in relation to territory, thank to Compliance Law. As operators are less dependent on borders than are regulators and authors of legal texts (but soft law is spreading, including repression), market abuses can be apprehended in several jurisdictions at the same time, notably through global compliance programmes. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the VideoNews  MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

  - ► Référence complète : [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique], "Traduire dans l'institution judiciaire l'articulation entre l'international et le systémique" in CREDIP, Faculté de Droit de l'Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3, Le contentieux systémique émergent, un contentieux international justifiant la création de juridictions spécialisées, cycle de conférences sur Le contentieux international et la spécialisation des juges, Lyon , 18 avril 2025, 10h-12h. - 🪑🪑🪑Participent aussi à cette manifestation : 🪑Jacques Boulard, Premier président de la Cour d'appel de Paris 🪑Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, Première présidente de chambre de la Cour d'appel de Paris (Pôle économique) 🪑Jérémy Heymann, professeur de droit à l'Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 🪑Sabine Abravanel-Jolly, Professeure de droit au sein de l'Equipe Louis Josserand 🪑Marylou Françoise, maîtresse de conférences à l'Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 - 🧮consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation - ► Résumé de l'intervention : cette intervention ayant eu lieu après les présentations du Premier Président Jacques Boulard et Madame la Première Présidente Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, elle s'articule sur ces deux interventions.   I. Contentieux systémique et Contentieux international. On peut ainsi se demander si la nature d'un "contentieux systémique" se prête à ce qu'est un "contentieux international" ? A première vue, non. L'on pourrait poser que, d'une part, si le "contentieux systémique émergent" était "nécessairement international", alors l'on ne comprendrait pas pourquoi la Chambre spéciale internationale de la Cour d'appel de Paris ne suffisait pas et d'autre part, l'on ne comprendrait pas comment deux jugements ont été rendus sur le [lien a="la-vigilance-nouveau-champ-de-contentieux-systemiq"]Devoir de Vigilance, dont on ne conteste pas qu'il appartient au Contentieux Systémique Emergent,[/lien] alors qu'ils ne portent pas sur une chaine internationale de valeur : jugement [lien a="tj-paris-5-decembre-2023-la-poste"]TJ Paris 5 décembre 2023 dit [/lien][lien a="tj-paris-5-decembre-2023-la-poste"]La Poste[/lien], cas systémique actuellement devant la chambre spécialisée de la Cour d'appel de Paris ; [lien a="jugement-de-la-chambre-regulation-economique-socia"]TJ Paris 13 février 2025, dit [/lien][lien a="jugement-de-la-chambre-regulation-economique-socia"]SNCF[/lien], cas systémique, n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'appel.   II. Deux chambres spécialisées en miroir Dès lors, l'on pourrait dire que le contentieux systémique est de fait international mais pas par nature. Parce que cela n'est pas une subdivision du contentieux international, cela explique certes que la chambre 5-12 soit autonome par rapport à la chambre 5-16 (chambre internationale), mais parce que la perspective est de fait souvent transnationale, ces 2 chambres ont vocation à fonctionner en miroir. Car le système est un fait global. Et c'est plus en terme de fait global qu'il convient de le traiter, ce qui est plus facile dans des systèmes qui ne sont pas construit sur cette summa divisio du fait et du droit, qui convient mal au contentieux systémique.   III. Par nature, un contentieux dans lequel un système est "impliqué". Cela nous amène donc vers la définition du "[lien a="le-contentieux-systemique"]Contentieux Systémique Emergent[/lien]". Elle est simple : c'est un [lien a="lhypothese-des-causes-systemiques"]Cause dans laquelle un système est impliqué, dans lequel les intérêts de celui-ci sont en jeu,[/lien] le premier de ses intérêts étant sa survie. C'est pourquoi[lien a="pourquoi-les-textes-et-la-pratiques-sur-le-rapport"] la durabilité est une notion-clé[/lien], que l'on retrouve [lien a="la-durabilite-coeur-dynamique-de-la-regulation-et-"]quelque soit le système impliqué[/lien]. C'est pourquoi[lien a="coordination-de-la-conference-les-pratiques-juridi"] l'avenir est présent [/lien]dans le contentieux systémique. C'est pourquoi l'office du juge est renouvelé car il s'agit d'un office Ex Ante, renouvellement à la fois procédural et substantiel qui conduit en pratique à un[lien a="droit-processuel-de-la-regulation-et-de-la-complia"] Droit processuel[/lien]. Le fait systémique mène donc de droit à une dialogue des juges qui se spécialisent sur des faits globaux et les obligent, sauf à méconnaître ceux-ci, à se prendre en considération. Cela donne un nouveau statut au [lien a="jugement-de-la-haute-cour-de-londres-du-24-juillet"]"droit comparé"[/lien].   IV. Un contentieux émergent par le fait de systèmes nouveaux, globaux, saisis par des opérateurs locaux qui en fixent la stratégie.  Les systèmes ont déjà donné lieu à des contentieux : c'est la [lien a="de-la-regulation-a-la-compliance-quel-role-pour-le"]juridictionnalisation du Droit de la Régulation[/lien]. Mais la Régulation a quitté ce prérequis des systèmes pour entrer à l'intérieur des opérateurs économiques dont le pouvoir de stratégie est situé localement. Le Droit de la Compliance internalise les besoins systémiques. [lien a="la-juridictionnalisation-de-la-compliance-2"]Le Droit de la Compliance dont on affirma, parce qu'Ex Ante, qu'il allait dispenser du Juge, s'est lui-même juridictionnalisé[/lien]. L'[lien a="la-vigilance-part-totale-de-lobligation-de-complia"]obligation de vigilance étant elle-même la pointe avancée de la Compliance[/lien], ne pouvait que donner une large place au Juge. Tandis que le système est l'enjeu du procès et de sa bonne solution, la partie au litige est l'opérateur cruciale : non seulement les entreprises régulées (comme les banques) mais encore les entreprises maîtresses des chaines de valeur (ce qui fait sortir le Droit de la Régulation des secteurs régulés). Or, les chaines de valeur sont un espace global contractuellement structuré transnational rattachées à un juge local qui est confronté à un [lien a="compliance-et-conflits-de-lois-in-m-a-frison-roche"]office renouvelé avec le DIP[/lien].    V. Une culture juridictionnelle propre à des zones distinctes. Le Droit de la Vigilance, de la Compliance et de la Régulation tel qu'on le voit manier par les juges dépasse nos distinctions entre droit public et droit privé, entre les systèmes juridique, mais les décisions que l'on lit expriment trois cultures, procédurales et substantielles, différentes : l'Asie, les Etats-Unis et l'Europe. Cette culture de place porteuse d'une [lien a="pour-une-europe-de-la-compliance"]identité européenne[/lien] de Vigilance, de Compliance et de Régulation repose notamment sur une culture juridictionnelle propre à cette zone-là. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique], hearing before the French working group on the modernisation of French Arbitration Law, about the issue Arbitrage et Droit de la Compliance : est-il besoin d'un texte ? ("Arbitration and Compliance Law: is a text required?"), Directorate of Civil Affairs' French Ministry of Justice, 13 February 2025. - ► Result of this presentation and the ensuing discussion, recorded in the working group's report published in March 2025 (published in French, translated her: "This report on the guiding principles would not be complete without mentioning the discussions in the working group on the introduction of a guiding principle requiring the arbitral tribunal to take into account "human, environmental and compliance issues, as well as respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the parties".This proposal gave rise to particularly heated discussions. Some saw it as a scarecrow likely to make French Arbitration Law less attractive and to weaken Arbitration awards, opening up cases of recourse on the pretext of bad faith, even though these values would already be taken into account in the review of domestic or international public policy.  Others, on the other hand, felt that such a text would have the advantage of enshrining an Arbitration Law connected to values that are not exclusively economically oriented, pointing out, moreover, that such a principle would not be redundant with the control of public policy, which intervenes ex post, whereas this text imposes Ex Ante responsability, and that this principle would allow a noteworthy introduction of Compliance Law in rbitration.  They added that the promotion of such values could make it possible to demonstrate a commitment to virtuous arbitration practice. In the light of these differences, after much hesitation, the decision was made not to include it in the draft Code, considering that the final choice was more a question of political dimension that the working group felt it could not decide on its own. ". (p. 36).   - ► English Summary of the presentation: My presentation deals with the relationship between Compliance Law and Arbitration, particularly International Arbitration. It is built around 12 successive points. The work I have carried out on these various points is associated with it. It precedes the answers I shall give to the questions put by the members of the working group and the ensuing discussion.   1. stagnation in the relationship between Arbitration and Compliance Law, due to continuing misunderstandings about Compliance 2. progress towards a better understanding of Compliance and the appropriateness of the arbitrator's role within Compliance Law 3. prospects for the growing relationship between Compliance Law and Arbitration, particularly with regard to the value chains built up by international companies 4. educational issues 5. time required to build a "culture of place" in this matter 6. "Doctrinal" difficulties 7. benefit from the production of a "doctrine of place" on this subject 8. going beyond the continental summa divisio of Public Law and Private Law 9. practical assimilation of Regulatory Contracts in sustainable sectors and chains 10. opening up the Arbitration World to this articulation with Compliance Law 11.  Can an official legal text contribute to this? 12.  example of the guiding principles of the French Code of Civil Procedure. -   🔓read the presentation developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐 subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang/Surplomb

► Full Reference: [rubrique p="Présentation"]M.-A. Frison-Roche[/rubrique],  « La compliance est avant tout une affaire humaine» (Compliance is first and foremost a human issue), interview conducted by Olivia Dufour for Actu-juridique, Lextenso, 23 January 2025.   - ► read the interview: 💬in French) - 🏛️🏛️🏛️🏛️this interview was organised following a number of official opening hearings of Parisian courts, in particular that of the Paris Judicial Court on 21 January 2025, at which the presidents of these courts explained the role now played by systemic litigation and compliance and/or vigilance law, in particular in the internal organisation of their courts. - ► presentation of this interview:  Q. (translated): At the start of the new session of the official opening hearings of Paris Court of First Instance on 21 January, President Stéphane Noël spoke at length about the creation of a 34th chamber dedicated to handling cases relating to companies' obligation of vigilance. What are the advantages of this new specialisation? MAFR Answer Summary: It corresponds to the jurisdiction given to the Paris Court of First Instance by the French 2020 so-called Confidence Act, which extends the French 2017 so-called Vigilance Act. It reflects the importance of Compliance Law, of which Vigilance is the leading edge.   Q. (translated): The court president points out that this new litigation raises questions about the role of the courts, which is to "concilier le respect des buts fondamentaux pour la protection de l’humanité avec la possibilité pour les entreprises d’apprécier la maitrise des risques et leur éventuelle responsabilité" ("reconcile respect for the monumental goals of protecting humanity with the ability of companies to assess the control of risks and their potential liability"). What do you think?   MAFR Answer Summary: the role of the judge has been renewed, as they take charge of the future of the systems and participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law. Companies are subject by law to a new compliance obligation and must demonstrate their diligence. They may be held liable under the general ordinary legal regime, as set out in the French 2017 Act on Vigilance duty, if the claimant demonstrates the existence of fault or negligence, damage and a causal link between the 2.   Q. (translated): All this comes under the heading of compliance, a concept you've been working on for 10 years and which is still not fully understood and is too often confused with conformity....   MAFR Answer Summary: The 2 aforementioned concepts ("conformity" and "compliance") were identified in the article I published in 2016 entitled Le droit de la compliance"Compliance law". This notion has taken a long time to mature because, on the one hand, it is a radically new branch of law that has an impact on the other branches. On the other hand, indeed,  there is confusion between 'compliance' and 'conformity'. Conformity is the obedience to applicable regulations; compliance is the active participation in the achievement of monumental goals to preserve or save systems in which humans are involved. Conformity is, and is only, a tool of Compliance Law.   Q. (translated):  The Nanterre Court has just created a chamber for Emerging Systemic and Regulatory Litigation. Does this confirm the interest of the courts in this fundamental development?   MAFR Answer Summary: This statement by the President of the Nanterre Court of Appeal at his hearing on 20 January 2025 illustrates the Regulation - Compliance - Vigilance continuum. He involves training for judges and dialogue between judges. Training and dialogue are being put in place.   Q. (translated):  Y a-t-il d’autres initiatives en ce sens ? MAFR Answer Summary:Le président du Tribunal de commerce Paris à son audience du 15 janvier 2025 a annoncé la création d'une chambre des contentieux complexe. Les contentieux systémiques émergents, que le Droit de la Compliance peut engendrer, ont vocation à y être présentés. Là  aussi, formation et dialogue se mettent en place.   Q. (translated):  Que manque-t-il encore ? MAFR Answer Summary: puisque le Droit de la compliance se contractualise de plus en plus, notamment dans les chaines de valeur concernées par les techniques de vigilance, l'arbitrage international est concerné. Des arbitres internationaux intégrant le droit de la compliance, et pas seulement attaché à telle et telle réglementation sectorielle, sont un enjeu d'attractivité de la Place de Paris. Cela va émerger, notamment par le dynamisme de la Cour internationale d'arbitrage, dont le siège est à Paris. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb