Publications Related to Justice and Procedure

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Conceiving Power, Working Paper, December 2021 - 📝 This Working Paper serves as the basis for an article to be published in the collective book drawn up in tribute to Professor Emmanuel Gaillard.    - ► Working Paper summary: In 1985, Emmanuel Gaillard's central work came out under the title Le pouvoir en droit privé  (The Power in Private Law)📎¹Gaillard, E., Le pouvoir en droit privé, préf. Cornu. G., coll. ..., Economica, 1985., but when it was defended in 1981, his thesis directed by Dean Cornu was entitled La notion de pouvoir en droit privé (The notion of Power in Private Law) 📎²Gaillard, E., La notion de pouvoir en droit privé, thèse .... ; . Let's give full force to the original title of the thesis.   The deletion of the term notion perhaps implies that by defining something the essential is done, that there would be something of a pleonasm in aiming at The notion of Power and The Power, as Law likes to economise on words.   But it was indeed a renewed, simpler and more powerful conception of the notion of Power, containing the entire regime necessarily imputed, that this work imposed, henceforth illuminating positive Law. Emmanuel Gaillard's definition, on the other hand, goes beyond Private Law. We would gladly have argued in favour of retaining the heading for the term Notion, proposing instead to dispense with the reference to Private Law alone …. Perhaps it was because the concept is so vast that in this seminal thesis its scope was restricted to Private Law, since the author already had to account for the sheer multiplicity of manifestations in this part of the legal system; Or perhaps it was because the concept of 'Power' is so familiar in Public Law that it would have needed less definition in Public Law (which, moreover, is so diversely proposed in this more political area, which is already careful on principle to distinguish between powers, which must always be plural in order to be separated), and that it was therefore reasonable to want to arrive at a single concept of Power in Private Law, where the notion of subjective rights is more familiar.  However, Emmanuel Gaillard's definition of Power as a prerogative placed, by legal rule or contract, in the hands of the person invested with them for the benefit, at least in part, of others, covers both Public and Private Law. This even contributes to the solidity of this thesis and explains why it flourishes today in legal systems where the distinction between Private Law and Public Law is weakening. The power of this definition lies in its simplicity. Simple and brave minds are often the most fruitful. As Dean Gérard Cornu points out in his preface, the author, in particular because he bases himself more on positive law, for example that relating to the powers of corporate officers, does not get bogged down in discussions between authors only to end up preferring one over the other. He arrives at a definition that is close to our everyday experience: the one we experience when we collect an envelope on behalf of someone else and the agent asks us in what capacity we claim to be doing this on his behalf. We then show him our 'power', the legal power to do so for the benefit of the person to whom the letter is addressed, and can thus exercise the power to withdraw the letter, even though it is personal. When legal and common sense come together, it is a good omen, not only in terms of form, because everyone can understand it and the Law must remain comprehensible, but also in terms of substance, because everyone must be able to control the exercise of a power that is exercised for and over others. For this letter addressed to someone else, the person who has been able to take it by virtue of the power conferred on him/her, could just as easily open it and read it, then destroy it or give it to the worst enemy of the person to whom it was addressed. In Power, there is always might to do, and the danger to others that Power contains therefore.  This highly legal definition of Power not only distances the holder from his/her own interests, but also channels the Power thus granted to the person who benefits from it. In this respect, Emmanuel Gaillard not only distinguished between Power and subjective right, but also identified the right amount of power required for this power to effectively fulfill this 'Mission', through the notion of abuse of power, when the holder uses for other beneficiaries this power that was conferred on him/her for this sole purpose. What is more, this concept makes it possible to distinguish Power from discretionary force, because the holder of Power thereby exercises factual , by acting for others, deciding for others, deciding on others. Because Power is inseparable from might, but might must remain the means of power and no more, the Law shall produce the antibodies that are not only the theory of abuse of power but also an Ex Ante responsibility that accounts must always be rendered, either to the other for whom everything is done or to a third party. For this third party is often there from the outset, the guardianship judge for example: because the Power was put in place because of the beneficiary's weakness, both in himself/herself and because of the situation, an impartial and disinterested third party is needed to ensure proper execution from the outset, without there even being a dispute. In this respect, how useful this thesis is for thinking about what Supervision is today!   This thesis, so clear, so simple and so strong, goes beyond Private or Civil Law. It is both much more restrictive than the more factual and political definition of Oower, which would be the ability to do something, and much broader than the usual definitions, since it embraces and legitimises de jure all situations where a person acts legally for the benefit of another.  Dean Cornu shows, moreover, in two sentences that such a notion of power also captures the office of the judge, who has power over others only to serve them 📎³"En droit processuel, l'office du juge aurait donné à l'auteur un renfort. Pour le juge, il n'est point de pouvoir sans devoir. Au-delà de la distinction de ce qu'il a obligation de faire ou faculté d'apprécier, il y a toujours, au creux de ce qu'il peut, le sceau de ce qu'il doit, un devoir gardien - comme un âme - de l'exercice du pouvoir." (p.5).. The definition corresponds to the mission of one who has power only to fulfill his office. It suits so well the conception we have today of Administration, especially if it takes the form of independent authorities. Moreover, Power thus contains its own limit in its very definition, since others are present in it: the holder has power only to serve others. From then on, it is only a power because it is a kind of Charge. Emmanuel Gaillard immediately uses the term: "Un individu se voit confier une charge qu'il exerce dans un intérêt au moins partiellement distinct du sien propre"  ("An individual is entrusted with an office which he exercises in an interest at least partially distinct from his own") 📎⁴n°3, p.9. . Dean Carbonnier, who reformed the legislation in this area 📎⁵🕴️J. Carbonnier, 📗Essai sur les lois, 1992 (on the guardianship).,, emphasised that the guardian has a public duty because the State entrusts him/her with a child. In the same way parental authority is a charge on the parents for the benefit of the children. More generally, Power is a burden that the Law places on a person to satisfy the interests of another. This definition offered by Emmanuel Gaillard in 1981, anchored in Private Law only insofar as it is the entire legal system, is premonitory of the Regulatory and Compliance Law as it unfolds today. It would be enough to continue the Gaillard's sentences, as if they had been half-written, to finish them 40 years later and find in them the mechanisms of Supervision of companies by public authorities which are now in place not to reduce their power but to ensure that they exercise it for the benefit of others 📎⁶S. in a general way, 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017.. The whole evolution of Company Law and Financial Law is here. Between the lines of this thesis, which develops the notion of duty 📎⁷Cornu, préface précitée : "Tous les pouvoirs sont, à double face, des pouvoirs-devoirs" (p.5)., we can also see what positive Law is developing today, in particular through the 'duty of Vigilance', this personal responsibility for the benefit of others (I). The definition of Power thus conceived contains within itself its regime and enables us to anticipate it better today: because the holder exercises Power only for others, at least partially, he is consubstantially accountable for it, responsibility being only one form of this accountability; because this service must be effective and others must benefit fully from it, because unlike the subjective right which allows the holder freely not to use his might, Power has never been the 'most absolute' availability to use his/her might: it is even the opposite. It is the expression of a Power assigned to a purpose, compelling the holder to use his/her Power to that end.  But it is equally necessary for the holder to have all the might to do so, otherwise the very notion of 'Power' is meaningless. This is the definition that should be given to the principle of Proportionality: the person on whom the Power rests must have not more power than is necessary, but all the power necessary to achieve the Monumental Goals for which the Power has been entrusted to him/her, so that others may derive full benefit from it (II).  In today's positive Law, the definition of Power as a Duty is found not only in Private Law but also in Public Law, not least because pure might, i.e. those that do not account for the use of their might, are in decline while concern for others is on the increase. The days of discretionary powers are over, and the increased independence of those who exercise Power over others requires them to be accountable. Beyond this Accountability, the personal Responsibility of those who have the Power to serve others is being established. But, no doubt because the Law is slow to evolve, the correlative idea that the holder of Power must have all the powers required to carry out his/her mission is less entrenched:  As Emmanuel Gaillard has shown, the Law has only gone part of the way in sanctioning excesses of power, when the holder uses his/her power for other goals, but it has not yet clearly established that the holder – sometimes forced – of a Power is legitimate in using all the means required to achieve the result for which this Power, i.e. a charge and a duty, has been conferred on him/her.   No doubt we need to read Emmanuel Gaillard's thesis again in all its potential, to imagine the reading we could do today of what he could have written as if on blank pages that would write themselves, a magical thesis where everything is already there, a thesis so short (250 pages) and so beautiful, so dense that it already contains the Law of the Future. The Law of the Future 📎⁸On Compliance Law as a Law of the Future, s. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2023. On the consequences for Liability Law, which is now looking to the Future, s. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧Ex Ante Responsibility, 2021.  where there must be much more responsibility for the benefit of others📎⁹Sur la notion de "Responsabilité Ex Ante", v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., La responsabilité Ex Ante", in Archives de Philosophie du Droit, La responsabilité, 2022. and powers since this notion includes others who are the beneficiaries. Droit de l'Avenir where Emmanuel Gaillard will be present, in particular thanks to this work of doctrine offered in 1981.  So that, in practical terms, those who are entrusted with looking after others – for example, today all companies obliged by Compliance Law to look after others so that they are not destroyed by hatred in the digital space, by corruption in the economic system or by climate change in a projected future – do not find themselves challenged by the same Law for the means of exercising this power for the benefit of others, for example when this involves 'judging'. Dean Cornu himself emphasised the identity of the two offices. -                         Lire les développement ci-dessous⤵ - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, Working Paper, October 2021 and April 2022. - ► This working paper has served as the basis for an introductory speech 🎤L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques (The Hypothesis of the cateory of Systemic Cases), in a more general conference which I coordinated and moderated, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, which is part of a general cycle covering Penser l'office du juge, specific conference attending the 9th May 2002 into the Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation.   This Working Paper was drawn up in October 2021 to build the conference on the assumption that among the diversity of "cases" brought to the courts by litigants, some constitute a specific category: "systemic cases", justifying treatment that is both specific (in that they are systemic, calling in particular for procedural solutions common to all and distinguishable from the treatment of non-systemic cases) and common treatment beyond the diversity of judges who deal with them (judicial and administrative judges, criminal and non-criminal judges, French and non-French judges, judges of the member-States legal orders and European Union judges, etc.).  This working paper does not aim to deal with the whole subject, i.e. both to determine this category of "systemic causes" and the consequences that must be drawn from it for the judge's office, since that is the very purpose of the conference, which is built around several presentations: it aims to deal with the first part of the subject, i.e. the very existence of this new processual category, which is "systemic causes", leaving for other work the practical consequences to be drawn from it in the processual treatment that it calls for. - 📝This Working Paper is also the basis of a forthcoming article - ► Summary of the Working Paper: xx - Read below the developments⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.,  Ne jamais se passer des juges et des avocats dans le Droit de la Compliance ("Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Dalloz, to be published. -   ► Le résumé ci-dessous décrit un article qui fait suite à une intervention dans le colloque Quels juges pour la Compliance ?  , coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et par le Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D). Ce colloque a été conçu par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel-Morager et Sophie Schiller,  codirectrices scientifiques, et s'est déroulé à Paris le 23 septembre 2021. Dans l'ouvrage, l'article sera publié dans le Titre IV. - ► Article Summary: Before examining the issue of the role of the Judges in Compliance Law, it is necessary to ask the preliminary question : is it useful to tolerate the Judge and/or the Lawyers presence in Compliance Law ?  This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer. But It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Differed Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong. However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only  examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before inventing – after this enormous systemic disaster – the "general procedural law". - 📕  read a general presentation of the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published. -    

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Ex Ante Responsibility, Working Paper, December 2021. - 📝This Working Paper has been the basis for an article written in French, "La responsabilité Ex Ante", published in the Archives de Philosophie du droit (APD), in the book 📗La Responsabilité (2022). - ►  Working Paper Summary: Quel est le temps auquel s'articule la responsabilité ? La question est si classique que toutes les réponses ont été dessinées : si l'on est responsable plus aisément par rapport au temps, car l'on peut alors plus aisément faire un lien entre la situation appréhendée, sa réalisation dans le passé la rendant plus facilement connaissable, et le poids de "responsabilité" que l'on impute sur une personne, l'on peut articuler la responsabilité avec le futur. Si l'on brise le poids de cette responsabilité avec un évènement ou une situation, par exemple. Le Principe Responsabilité de Jonas ou l'Ethique de la Responsabilité font ainsi voyager la Responsabilité dans le temps, par un rapport entre le Droit et l'Ethique.  D'ailleurs l'on pourrait soutenir que le Droit peut faire ce qu'il veut et imputer une responsabilité à quiconque pour le temps qu'il désigne, par exemple désigne comme porteur d'une responsabilité, c'est-à-dire d'un poids, celui qu'il veut. Le "responsable" serait alors le titulaire d'une sorte de "poids pur", qui le charge parce que le Droit l'a voulu pour le temps qu'il veut, par exemple un devoir d'agir pour que le futur soit dessiné comme le veut le Droit, alors même que le Responsable n'a rien à se reprocher dans le passé.  Mais les Cours constitutionnelle défendent un rapport minimal entre la Responsabilité et le poids que celle-ci fait porter une personne, fut-t-elle morale, gardant ainsi le lien consubstantiel entre le Droit et la Morale, la technique juridique de la Responsabilité ne pouvant équivaloir à celle d'un prélèvement obligatoire. Ainsi l'idée d'une Responsabilité Ex Ante est simple dans son principe (I). Elle est celle d'un poids juridiquement posé sur une personne soit par elle-même (engagement), soit par la Loi ou par le Juge sur une personne de faire quelque chose pour que n'advienne pas quelque chose qui adviendrait ou pour qu'advienne quelque chose qui n'adviendrait pas si elle ne le faisait pas. Mais les conditions juridiques pour admettre un tel poids alors même que le lien avec une situation passée serait brisé est plus difficile (II). On continue certes continuer à voir dans le futur le passé, ce qui facilite le voyage dans le temps, et fonda par exemple le contrôle Ex Ante du contrôle des concentrations. Mais l'on peut se briser même de cette facilité et regarder non plus le rapport entre le passé et le futur, mais le présent et le futur : ce que l'on sait déjà aujourd'hui du futur, ce qui met en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et la Science ; ce que l'on observe de l'emprise de la personne présente sur le moment présent, c'est-à-dire le Pouvoir, ce qui fait en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et l'Economie politique. Dans cette dimension-là, la contrainte de la Responsabilité Ex Ante est alors maniée par le Juge, dont l'office lui-même devient un office Ex Ante. Les pouvoirs obligés Ex Ante par une telle responsabilité maniée par le Juge étaient les personnes en situation de pouvoir, sont non seulement les entreprises, mais encore les Etats, qui perdent le privilège – partagé avec les contractants – de disposer juridiquement du futur, et notamment en leur sein le Législateur.  Une telle révolution, qui se déroule sous nos yeux, s'explique parce qu'il faut agir maintenant pour que le futur ne soit pas catastrophique. La science nous informe qu'il le sera entéléchiquement. Il est donc juridiquement requis de désigner des responsables, non pas parce qu'ils auraient fait quelque chose, la dimension Ex Post n'étant pas le sujet, mais pour qu'ils fassent quelque chose, la Responsabilité Ex Ante étant un élément central de cette nouvelle branche du Droit qu'est le Droit de la Compliance.   

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A, Reinforce the judge and the lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law, Working Paper, August 2021. - 🎤 this working document has been made to prepare some elements of the opening intervention in the symposium Quels juges pour la Compliance) ? (Which judges for Compliance?), co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and the Institut Droit Dauphine, held at the Paris Dauphine University on September 23, 2021, constituting the first part of the intervention. - 📝it has been also the basis for an article:  📕 published in its French version in the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the collection📚Régulations & Compliance  📘published in its English version in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the collection 📚Compliance & Regulation - ► Summary of the Working Paper: One can understand that the compliance mechanisms are presented with hostility because they seem designed to keep the judge away, whereas there is no Rule of Law without a judge. Solid arguments present compliance techniques as converging towards the uselessness of the judge (I). Certainly, we come across magistrates, and of all kinds, and powerful ones, but that would be a sign of imperfection: its ex-ante logic has been deployed in all its effectiveness, the judge would no longer be required… And the lawyer would disappear so with him… This perspective of a world without a judge, without a lawyer and ultimately without Law, where algorithms could organize through multiple processes in Ex Ante the obedience of everyone, the "conformity" of all our behaviors with all the regulatory mass that is applicable to us, supposes that this new branch of Law would be defined as the concentration of processes which gives full effectiveness to all the rules, regardless of their content. But supposing that this engineer's dream is even achievable, it is not possible in a democratic and free world to do without judges and lawyers. Therefore, it is imperative to recognize their contributions to Compliance Law, related and invaluable contributions (II). First of all, because a pure Ex Ante never existed and even in the time of the Chinese legists¹ L’empire chinois n’a semble-t-il jamais apprécié les juges, ne leur faisant place que sous la forme de serviteurs purs de l’Etat, qu’ils soient des enquêteurs, des punisseurs et de gardiens de l’ordre public. Sur cet aspect du Droit chinois, v. … ; sur cette période particulièrement sanglante des légistes, où le principe de « certitude » de la législation a été portée à ses nues, v. …, people were still needed to interpret the regulations because a legal order must always be interpreted Ex Post by who must in any case answer the questions posed by the subjects of law, as soon as the political system admits to attributing to them the right to make claims before the Judge. Secondly the Attorney, whose office, although articulated with the Judge's office, is distinct from the latter, both more restricted and broader since he must appear in all cases where the judicial figure puts himself in square, outside the courts. However, Compliance Law has multiplied this since not only, extending Regulatory Law, it entrusts numerous powers to the administrative authorities, but it also transforms companies into judges, in respect of which the attorneys must deal with. Even more so, Compliance Law only takes its sense from its Monumental Goals²🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), 📘​Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022.. It is in this that this branch of the Law preserves the freedom of human beings, in the digital space where the techniques of compliance protect them from the power of companies by the way that the Compliance Law forces these companies to use their power to protect people. However, firstly, it is the Judges who, in their diversity³The topic of this study is general. For a more analytical perspective, s.. 🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A., « The function of the Judge in Compliance Law », in 🕴️Frison-Roche, M.A. (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023. , impose as a reference the protection of human beings, either as a limit to the power of compliance tools⁴🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021.  or as their very purpose. Secondly, the Attorney, again distinguishing himself from the Judge, if necessary, reminds us that all the parties whose interests are involved must be taken into consideration. In an ever more flexible, soft and dialogical Law, everyone presenting himself as the "advocate" of such and such a monumental goal: the Attorney is legitimate to be the first to occupy this place. - 🔓read the Working Paper developments below⤵️

► Compliance Law is above all a Time Management. This is why it is located in Ex Ante, before disasters happen, with the goal that they do not happen, to intervene at least on time to break the domino effect. This is why the achievement of Monumental Goals has been internalized in companies, this achievement being until now States’ affair. This does not mean that Ex Post is irrelevant. Especially because when the Ex Post entities are the most legitimate. It is the case of Judges. What has just happened to Rudy Giuliani illustrates this perfectly. -   On June 24, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of New York published its decision concerning Rudy Giuliani (➡️⚖️Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, June 24, 2021, Giuliani) Rudy Giuliani, who was federal prosecutor, then mayor of New York, then counsel to President Donald Trump, then lawyer was sentenced to the provisional suspension of his professional license in the State of New York (➡️📝New York Times, Court Suspends Giuliani's Law License, citing Trump Election lies, June 24, 2021). The judgment evokes the insurrectionary events in the Capitol and relies on an ethics committee for the conduct that lawyers must have. First the convergence is remarkable in the motivation between the decisions made by Facebook with regard to Donald Trump, the professional structure to which Rudy Giuliani belongs and the decision of the state court (I). The articulation is rather done in time (II). First of all, the company which intervenes as quickly as possible, because it is necessary to act (but for acting, it is also necessary to "judge", even if the entity is not a tribunal …); then the profession (and here the person concerned belongs to a regulated profession but it is indeed in the name of "the general public interest" that the sanction will be pronounced), nothing that can escape the in fine validation or questioning of the Judge.   I. The articulation of the substantive principles implemented by the Company, the Jurisdiction and the Professional Regulator In a Rule of Law, fundamental principles are the same for subjects of Law (companies being subjects of Law like others), intermediary bodies (like professional orders), jurisdictions and States. In a Rule of Law, Truth is elementally kept by Law and Disinformation is sanctioned. Thus, even if the power of Freedom of Speech in the United States has a constitutional power unlike any other, since "disinformation" is not sanctioned as such, the legal path of defamation action makes it possible to obtain protection against practices of massive disinformation. Even if historians have worried about the paradoxical weakness of the United States because of its legal system (see 💻Snyder, T., The State of Our Democracy, 2021) Harvard Law professors have intervened to explain that no one could say everything, defamation action allowing a reaction. This is the path that was used in January 2021 against Rudy Giuliani (➡️📝New York Times, Rudy Giuliani sued by Dominion Voting Systems over False Election Claims, May 4, 2021) for having unleashed a viral campaign of disinformation about what was presented as an incorrect result during the presidential election. It is therefore "disinformation" which is sanctioned. It was also prevented by systemic digital companies such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, which disabled Donald Trump’s accounts, the other actor. But besides, Rudy Giuliani is a lawyer. As such, what he does engages the honor of his profession. It is therefore intended to be the subject of disciplinary procedures.  This is why the jurisdiction of the State of New York took advice from an "ethics committee". In particular with regard to the conclusions of the latter, the state jurisdiction declared that the false statements "tarnished the entire reputation of the legal profession". This justified his suspension in New York State. This suspension is temporary (disciplinary procedures will begin). But on the other hand, the Court considers that the deontologically objectionable conduct "directly" increased the tensions which led to the violence of the events in the Capitol. By taking such a justification, the Court operates the junction on the one hand with the other character that Rudy Giuliani advised, Donald Trump, but especially with the decision taken by the private companies, which suspended Donald Trump’s accounts. Thus, in the name of the same principles, Public Order and respect for Truth, the Court by connecting, through its motivation, Companies – which had acted before – and Disciplinary Body which will intervene afterwards, has shown the coherence of the American legal system.   II. The articulation over time between crucial companies, jurisdictions and professions The difficulty comes rather from the articulation in time. Indeed, in this Donald Trump’s case who, in particular legally advised by Rudy Giuliani, affirmed that the elections had been stolen, which contributed to a start of insurgency and riots in Capitol, the question is the reaction time and the modality of reaction. The first type of bodies which react were systemic digital companies: Google, Twitter, Facebook. The modality was the deletion of Donald Trump's accounts, with the justification for inciting destabilization and civil war. Controlling "hate speech", in Europe in name of Law, in the United States in name of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Therefore, the company is therefore instituted "Judge and prosecutor of itself" by Compliance Law, because it is in position to act at the right time, that is to say immediately (see ➡️📅 the colloquium, co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Lyon 3 University, The Firm instituted as Judge and Prosecutor of itself, Compliance Juridictionnalization, 2021). It is remarkable that, despite all the criticisms that can legitimately be made of it (see eg Heymann, J., La nature juridique de la "Cour suprême" de Facebook" (The legal nature of the "so-called" Supreme Court of Facebook), in The Firm instituted as Judge and Prosecutor of itself, already quoted above.) this jurisdictionalization works, as soon as the procedural principles are respected (see ➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., The judge-judged: articulating words and things in face of the impossible conflict of interests, in ➡️📕Compliance Juridictionnalization, 2022). But in fine, the decision is always to come back to the Courts and systems depend above all on the probity of people, who are most firmly anchored in "professions". What is remarkable in the present case is that we could "wait" for the time of justice, because the sanction of the adviser – and his neutralization by a ban to practice – is less urgent than the neutralization of Donald Trump on social networks. Their power as an "influencer” is not the same. It is however remarkable that if the court took care to rely on the opinion of an "ethics committee", it did not wait for the disciplinary sanction itself. This will come later. Justice itself, above all sensitive to time, therefore pronounced in advance: a "provisional" suspension. In the same way that it has often been said that closing an account in the digital space was a capital punishment, one can consider that a professional suspension was, even in "temporary" form, a capital punishment for a professional. We can see here that Professions, here the profession of attorney, are central to Compliance mechanisms. Indeed, the more States are weakened by their natural relationship with the “border”, the more the technical notion of “Profession”, which does not have this natural relationship, will have to be developed. However, supervised by the Judge, a Profession has ethics at its heart. The same that the Judge, in anticipation, took as a basis to sanction for the future the adviser of a president immediately dismissed by the systemic company.  So as long as crucial businesses, professional and jurisdictional structures adjust in substance, adjustment over time can work, by anticipation and feedback. -    

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Judge-Judge ; articulating words and things in the face of the challenging conflict of interest born by Compliance Law, Working Paper, June 22, 2022. -   🎤 This Working Paper had been made to prepare a conference (done in French). This conference took place in the Academic Colloquium, L'entreprise instituée Procureur et Juge d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance, in Lyon, the 23rd  June 2021. - 📝this Working Paper is the basis of an article to be published  📕 in its French version in the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series  Régulations & Compliance 📘 in its English version in the book  Compliance Juridictionnalisation, in the Series  Compliance & Regulation -   ► Working Paper Summary: Puisque le thème de cette réflexion générale sur L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance porte sur un ensemble d'autres réflexions soucieuses de l’ajustement des mots et des choses, la façon dont le rapport entre les uns et les autres évoluent, ce travail va porter sur la question de savoir si cette évolution est radicale ou pas, lorsqu'on parle de "juge". Car, "juger" c'est un mot que le Droit a disputé à d'autres discipline¹Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Le jugement, ... Kant, etc.s, mais qu'il s'est approprié pour non pas tant avoir davantage de pouvoirs, par exemple celui de surveiller et de punir, mais au contraire s'imposer des limites, puisqu'à celui qui juge il a mis aux pieds les chaines de la procédure, ce qui rend supportable pour l'autre un tel pouvoir exercé²La procédure est ainsi ce qui fonde le procès de Nuremberg, lui-même berceau de la Justice internationale, alors même que l'Ordre juridique international n'existe pas. . C'est pourquoi ceux qui veulent le pouvoir de juger voudraient souvent n'en avoir pas le titre, car avoir de jure  le titre de juge c'est être soumis au régime corrélé, c'est se soumettre à l'exactitude procédurale. Le Droit repère qui juge et oblige ce si-puissant à la procédure. Mais il a aussi le pouvoir d'instituer juge et tous les personnages du procès. Il le fait d'ordinaire avec clarté en distinguant les uns des choses. C'est si important que ce conseil a valeur constitutionnelle. Ainsi, non seulement celui qui juge doit être nommé ainsi mais l'appareillage procédurale qui va avec le personnage et qui constitue à la façon une façon de faire et des droits fondamentaux, ne sont pas "concédés" par bonté ou dans un second temps : c'est un bloc. Si l'on ne voulait pas avoir à supporter les droits processuels, il ne fallait vouloir être juge. Certes on pu en conclure que la procédure serait donc devenue "substantielle" ; par cette élévation, il s'agit plutôt de dire que la procédure ne serait plus une "matière servante": c'est une sorte de déclaration d'amour pour la procédure, tant qu'on affirme qu'à l'acte de juger, d'enquêter ou de poursuivre, sont "naturellement" attachées les droits pour celui qui risque d'en être l'objet. Le Droit de la Compliance, à la recherche d'alliés pour atteindre les Buts Monumentaux pour l'atteinte desquels il a été institué, va requérir, voire exiger d'entreprises privées qu'elle aillent elles-mêmes rechercher, c'est-à-dire enquêter, des faits susceptibles de lui être reprochés. Le Droit de la Compliance va aussi exiger qu'elles poursuivent les personnes ayant commis ces faits. Il va encore exiger qu'elles sanctionnent les faits que des personnes ont commis en son nom. On le comprend bien du point de vue de l'efficacité Ex Ante. La confusion est souvent très efficace. Par exemple il est plus efficace que celui qui poursuit soit aussi celui qui instruise et qui juge, puisqu'il connait bien le dossier. D'ailleurs il est plus efficace qu'il prenne aussi les règles, ainsi il connait mieux que quiconque "l'esprit" des textes. Cela fut souvent souligné en Droit de la Régulation.  Mais tout cela ne va pas de soi. Pour deux raisons, l'une extérieur et l'autre intérieure.  La première raison, extérieure, tient que l'on ne pourrait pas "nommer" juge qui ne l'est pas. Cela serait trop facile, car il suffirait alors de désigner quiconque, voire de le faire soi-même pour s'approprier le régime qui va avec, pouvoir notamment d'obtenir qu'autrui obéisse alors même qu'il n'est pas subordonné ou qu'il transmette des informations, alors même qu'il serait concurrent : il faudrait alors rappeler seul le juge pourrait se nommer juge ! et dans ce temps nouveau, voilà que des entreprises seraient juges, procureurs, enquêteurs ! Les temps seraient donc si graves et en si grand désordre qu'il faudrait en revenir à cette tautologie là… ³Confucius affirmait que la seule mais suffisante façon de rappeler l'ordre dans le Royaume est de nommer "mère" la mère et "fils" le fils. Mais sommes-nous dans une telle radicalité ? D'ailleurs, les juges ont-ils "l'apanage" du jugement et le Droit n'admet-il pas cela depuis longtemps ? Dès l'instant que la procédure est là en Ex Ante et le contrôle du juge en Ex Post ?   La seconde raison, interne à l'entreprise, tient à ce que l'entreprise enquête sur elle-même, se juge elle-même, se sanctionne elle-même. Or, la personne morale n'exprimant sa volonté qu'à travers soit ses organes, l'on souligne en pratique les difficultés pour un même être humain de formuler des griefs, en tant qu'il est le mandataire de la personne morale, à la personne physique qu'il est lui-même. Les deux intérêts des deux ne sont pas les mêmes, sont souvent opposés, et comment les secrets de l'un peuvent être tenus à l'égard de l'autre. C'est tout le mystère, voire l'artifice de la personnalité morale qui apparaît et l'on comprend mieux que le Droit de la Compliance ne veut plus utiliser cette notion étrange. Car toues les règles de procédure ne peuvent masquer que se poursuivre soi-même n'a pas plus de sens que de contracter avec soi-même. Ce conflit d'intérêts est impossible à résoudre car nommer un même individu x puis le nommer y, en déclarant ouverte la dispute entre eux n'a pas de sens.  Ce dualisme impossible à admettre dès l'instant qu'il s'agit de faire jouer ces fonctions à l'égard des mandataires sociaux peut retrouver vie en instituant des tiers de confiance qui vont porter les secrets et les oppositions.  Par exemple par la désignation de deux avocats distincts par l'être humain mandataire et l'être humain dirigeant, chaque avocat pouvant avoir des secrets l'un pour l'autre et s'opposer l'un à l'autre. Ces espaces de reconstitution des oppositions si "naturelles" en procédure entre celui qui juge et celui qui est jugé peuvent aussi avoir prendre la forme technologique des plateformes : là où il n'y a plus personne, là où le process a remplacé la procédure, il n'y a plus non plus de jugement humain. L'on mesure ainsi que la crainte des conflits d'intérêts est si forte que l'on se résigne à dire que seule la machine serait "impartiale", dérisoire conception de l'impartialité contre laquelle il convient de lutter. Cela permet alors d'aboutir à une dernière question : l'entreprise peut-elle prétendre exercer le pouvoir juridictionnel de poursuivre et de juger et d'enquêter sans même se prétendre ni procureur, ni juge d'instruction, ni tribunal ? L'avantage serait de pouvoir se soustraire au régime juridique que le Droit classique attache à ses mots-là, principalement les droits de la défense, les droits d'action et le principe de publicité de la justice.  Quand Facebook dit "réagir" à la décision du 5 mai 2021 adoptée par ce qui ne serait qu'un Oversight Board pour décider pourtant "en conséquence" une suspension de 2 ans du compte de Donald Trump, l'art des qualifications semble être utilisé afin d'éviter toute contrainte de régime.  Mais cet art de l'euphémisme est bien ancien. Ainsi les Etats, lorsqu'ils voulurent accroître la répression, présentèrent la transformation du système comme un adoucissement de celui-ci à travers la "dépénalisation" du Droit économique, transféré des tribunaux correctionnels aux AAI. L'efficacité en fût grandement accrue, puisque les garanties de la procédure pénales ont cessé de s'appliquer. Mais 20 ans plus tard, les mots retrouvèrent leur chemin vers les choses : sous le Droit pénal, dormait la "matière pénale", qui requière la même "impartialité". Un juge un jour l'affirma et tout fut changé. Attendons donc ce qu'en diront les Cours, puisqu'elles sont les maîtres des qualifications, comme le dit l'article 12 du Code de procédure civil, qu'écrivit Motulsky. 

► It is in its "Risk and Compliance" section that the Wall Street Journal, by its article of June 18, 2021 (➡️📝Europe's Chief Prosecutor Has 300 Cases on Her Plate Already), presents the first steps of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, since June 1, 2021. This inclusion presupposes that it is through a Compliance Law perspective that this new body must be understood, in order to understand and anticipate its action. ►In this perspective : ➡️📧Frison-Roche, M.-A., European Public Prosecutor's Office comes on stage: the company having itself become a private prosecutor, are we going towards an alliance of all prosecutors?, June 2, 2021 ➡️ 💬Frison-Roche, « Le parquet européen est un apport considérable au Droit de la Compliance » (“The European Public Prosecutor's Office is a remarkable contribution to Compliance Law"), June 14, 2021   I. AN ACTION THAT WILL FOCUS ON FIGHTING THE MEANS USED TO DAMAGE THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION The article of the Wall Street Journal takes the form of an interview with the European Prosecutor. Her responses also confirm the consubstantial link between European Public Prosecutor's Office and Compliance Law. It is remarkable that she immediately says that she hopes the treatment of many cases, especially on healthcare and infrastructure sectors: "Our expectation is to have more cases, especially in the healthcare system, in public procurement, infrastructure, and also in agriculture ". However, the 2017 European Regulation which established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office said that its "mandate" is to prosecute offenses affecting the "financial interests of the European Union", without being hampered by the cumbersome procedures for cooperation between States while these offenses are most often cross-border. But one could think that, knowingly taking the means (corruption, money laundering) for the goal, the European Public Prosecutor's Office would immediately pursue not only the defense of the financial interests of the Union (admittedly financial interests damaged by corruption or money laundering) but these facts themselves: thus the European Public Prosecutor's Office works with the European Supervisory Authorities, in particular banking and financial authorities, which fight in Ex Ante against these offenses and prevent them.   II. AN ACTION THAT FOCUSES ON SECTORS NOT LEGALLY REGULATED IN EX ANTE BY SECTORAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Moreover, it will be noted that the European Prosecutor is targeting three economic sectors which are not "regulated sectors" in the legal sense of the qualification, that is to say not monitored by a sectoral Regulatory and/or Supervision Authority: Health, Infrastructure and Agriculture. Thus, the power of Regulatory Law, which relies in its Ex Ante, and its weakness, which derives from the pre-required existence of a sectoral Authority, is compensated: the action of the Public Prosecutor's Office is not limited to legally regulated sectors. While Competition Authorities are mandated (➡️📅La concurrence dans tous ses états, June 25 and 26, 2021) to protect the competitive functioning of the markets, a Public Prosecutor's Office can deal with any infringement without having to determine a market. For instance, Infrastructures don't constitute pertinent markets but can constitute fields for criminal activities, such as corruption or money laundering, justifying Compliance Law mechanisms.  What the new European Prosecutor is aiming for, namely Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture, have undoubtedly been damaged both by the sole primacy of the Competition perspective and by a Criminal Law constrained by the difficult inter-State cooperation, even though they are not subject to a supranational Ex Ante Regulation. The European Public Prosecutor's Office aims to directly improve this, through Entreprises acting in Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture.  -   ► subscribe to the French Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

► Law is slow, but firm. By its judgment of June 15, 2021, Facebook , the European Union Court of Justice widely interprets the powers of National Authorities, since they serve the people protection in the digital space (➡️📝(CJEU, June 15, 2021, Facebook).    Law is slow. The reproach is so often made. But the bottom line is that, in the noise of changing regulations, it establishes clear and firm principles, letting everyone know what to stand for. The more the world is changing, the more Law is required. When Law degenerates into regulations, then it is up to the Judge to make Law. "Supreme Courts" appear, de jure as in the United States, de facto as in the European Union by the Court of Justice of the European Union which lays down the principles, before everyone else, as it did for the "right to be forgotten" in 2014 (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2014), and then with the impossibility of transferring data to third countries without the consent of the people concerned (➡️📝CJEU, Schrems, October 6, 2015). Facebook litigation is kind of a novel. The company knows that it is above all to the Courts that it speaks. In Europe, it is doing it behind the walls of the Irish legal space, from which it would like to be able not to leave before better dominating the global digital space, while national regulatory authorities want to take it to protect citizens. There is therefore a technical question of "jurisdictional competence". The texts have provided for this, but Law is clumsy because it was designed for a world still anchored in the ground: the GDPR of 2016 therefore organizes cooperation between national regulatory authorities through a "one-stop-shop", forcing the authorities to relinquish jurisdiction so that the case is only handled by the "lead" National Authority. This avoids splintering and contradiction. But before the adoption of the GDPR, the Belgian data protection regulator had opened a procedure against Facebook concerning cookies. The "one-stop-shop" mechanism, introduced in 2016, is therefore only mentioned before the Brussels Court of Appeal, which is asked to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Irish Regulatory Authority, since the company has in Europe its head office in this country. The Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. By its judgment of June 15, 2021 (➡️📝CJUE, Facebook, June 15, 2021), it follows the conclusions of its Advocate General and maintains the jurisdiction of the Belgian National Regulator because, even after the GDPR, the case still undergoes national treatment. In this decision, the most important is its reasoning and the principle adopted. The Court notes that the "one-stop-shop" rule is not absolute and that the national regulatory authority has the power to maintain its jurisdiction, in particular if cooperation between national authorities is difficult. Even more, will it not one day have to adjust Law more radically? We need to consider the fact that the digital space is not bound by borders and that the ambition of "cross-border cooperation" is ill-suited. It is of course on this observation of inefficiency, consubstantial with the digital space, that the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) was designed and set up, which is not a cooperation, nor a "one-stop shop", but a body of the Union, acting locally for the Union, directly linked to Compliance concerns (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A. "The European Public Prosecutor's Office is a considerable contribution to Compliance Law", 2021 and ., European Public Prosecutor's Office comes on stage: the company having itself become a private prosecutor, are we going towards an alliance of all prosecutors ?, 2021). So that's what we should be inspired by.

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A..,Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, pp. 319-342   -   Article Summary: In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve. Because every effort must be done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools". But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law. We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space. -   Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based    Read the General Presentation of the book in which this article has been published   -

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, serie "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Bruylant, 2021. This book in English is the first title of this collection integrally dedicated to Compliance Law, in that it is the extension of Regulation Law.  Read the titles of this series in English co-published by Bruylant. This collection in English is articulated with a collection co-published between the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and Dalloz. Thus, in parallel, a book in French, Les Outils de la Compliance is published.  Read the titles of the series in French co-published with Dalloz.  This book is published after a  cycle of colloquiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Partners Universities. - General Presentation of the collective book The political dimension of Compliance Law lies in the goals it aims to achieve. To achieve them, the concern for these goals is internalized in "crucial operators", which may be obliged to concretize "monumental goals" set by public authorities. These public bodies control the Ex Ante reorganization that this implies for these companies and sanction Ex Post the possible inadequacy of the companies, which have become transparent to this end. The effectiveness and efficiency of this internalization, without which the statement of these goals is worth nothing, is based on the Compliance tools that are deployed. These appear to be very diverse but their substantial unity (topic which will be the subject of a forthcoming book) makes it possible to study the tools put in place from a unique perspective, by not isolating them in a particular branch of Law, Criminal law or International Law for example, but by measuring what is common to them, notably Anticipation, Trust, Commitment, Responsibility, Incentive, and so on. If the Compliance tools vary, it is rather not only according to the sectors, finance and banking appearing then as the advanced point of the general Compliance Law, for example in environmental matters, but also according to the countries and the cultures. It is in fact about them that legal cultures seem to oppose. The book aims to understand these "tools" by going beyond the description of each instrument, for which we already have many monographs, for analyzing them through the issues of Risks, required Expertises, Training. Sovereignty claims, Incentives, mechanical aptitude of Technologies. It is through these themes that are analyzed by the authors, experts in the field, what we always want to understand better: Compliance Programs, Whistle blowing, Mapping, Sanctions, Extraterritoriality, etc.   -     Read the summary of the book.    Read the foreword, summarizing all the contributions.     Présentation of the book contributions:   Amico, Th., Compliance or the passage from ex post to ex ante: A Copernican revolution for the criminal lawyer? Banck, A., The maturity of the Compliance tool’s user, first criterion of the choice of the salient tool Burlingame, Coppens R., Power, N, Lee, D.H., Anti-Corruption Compliance: Global Dimension of Enforcement and Risk Management Calandri, L., Incentive(s) and Self-Regulation(s): which place for Compliance Law in the Audiovisual Sector?  Causse, H., Compliance Training: Through and Beyond Traditional Legal Training Frison-Roche, M.-A., Describing, designing and correlating Compliance Tools to have a better use of it Frison-Roche, M.-A., Building by Law the Unicity of Compliance Tools from the Definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals" Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an obligation and the paradox of the "Compliance risks" ​ Frison-Roche, M.-A., Incentives and Compliance, a couple to propel Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolving the contradiction between sanctions and incentives under the fire of Compliance Law Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance tools Frison-Roche, M.-A., Training: content and container of Compliance Law​ Galland, M., The Regulator's Inspection of the Effectiveness of the Compliance Tools Implemented by the Company Granier, C., The Normative Originality of Compliance by Design Guillaume, N., Compliance risk mapping: first insights of challenges, limits and good practices Guttierez-Crespin, A., Audit of Compliance Systems​ Koenigsberg, S. and Barrière, F., The Development of Attorney's Compliance Expertise Larouer, M., The Manifestation of Incentives Mechanisms in French Compliance Law Merabet, S., Morality by Design Pailler, L., Technological Tools, Compliance by Design and GDPR: the Protection of Personal Data from Design Racine, J.-B., Geographical dominance in the choice and the use of Compliance Tools. Introductory remarks Rapp, L., Incentive Theory and Governance of Space Activities Roda, J.-C., Compliance by design in antitrust: between innovation and illusion Salah, M., Conception and Application of Compliance in Africa Tardieu, H., Data Sovereignty and Compliance Thouret, T., Training and Compliance, Two Correlated Information Transmission Tools  

► The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), a major weapon for the Compliance Law.   The European Union's prosecutor comes out of its cradle : the "European Public Prosecutor's Office" starts its activities. Long to set up, this European judicial body is linked to delegated prosecutors in the Member States. It is not a simple emanation of national bodies networked; of autonomous competence, it is the organ in the name of which the action is carried out. In addition to this institutional revolution, there is a substantial revolution: this European Public Prosecutor's Office can prosecute any attack to the "financial interests of the European Union". These "attacks on financial interests" are conceived broadly, including in particular acts of corruption or embezzlement. First of all, Didier Reynders emphasizes that this puts the rule of Law at the center. It is no longer Europe supporting actions to be coordinated between States, the national prosecution having technical difficulties to cooperate effectively with each other, but the European Public Prosecutor's Office which will allow unified and effective European action between delegated prosecutors. Secondly, it continues the string of effectiveness between Compliance, located in Ex Ante, Compliance Law consisting in "preventing" and "detecting" such behavior, and the Ex Post, because a judge is sometimes necessary so that the disregard of these Ex Ante obligations is sometimes sanctioned (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance and International Public Order: the French conception preserved by the Paris Cour of Appeal, 2021) but also a prosecution: the prosecutor is a major figure in Compliance Law. Indeed, being able to prosecute, the prosecutor can also not prosecute and change its decision to close the file in returns for commitments (Ex Ante) from the company: the "public interest judicial agreements" – CJIP. In fact, through the opportunity to prosecute, will such powerful flexibility be found at European level? Thirdly, the prospect of prosecution by the European Public Prosecutor's Office will incent in Ex Ante companies to prevent, or to prosecute themselves (➡️🎤Frison-Roche, M.-A. et Roda, J.-C. (dir.), The firm instituted prosecutor and judge of itself by Compliance Law, Lyon, June 23, 2021) the perpetrators of fraud in the interests of the Union European. At a time when the Union is engaging in direct loans to lend still more, this role of the company, sometimes qualified as "private prosecutor", linked to a prosecutor, now European, is necessary. Are we moving towards the alliance of all prosecutors?

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July  2020. This Working paper is the basis for an article published in the collective book  Compliance Tools . - There was a time when Regulatory techniques  were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them¹Contre cela, la critique radicale, savante et fondée d'Alain Supiot, dans l'ensemble de son oeuvre et plus particulièrement dans La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015. . In the perspective of a Regulation and Compliance thus conceived, that is to say effective, it would not be necessary to insert prerogatives for people, since these could only be sources of inefficiency, of cost. and protest, where the order would come from figures set in advance and controlled processes. Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ….²Sur la définition de l'entreprise comme un groupe de personnes qui se réunissent pour entreprise, v. le travail de référence d'Alain Supiot, par exemple son article d'introduction "L'entreprise...", dans l'ouvrage qu'il a dirigé L'entreprise dans la mondialisation ...., 2015 ... . But the modern reluctance to define the enterprise (and the company) as a group of people and the preference given to a definition of the company (and the enterprise) as an "asset", a "good" of which investors would be the owners, maybe explains the sidelining of rights not only in Regulatory Law but also in Compliance Law even though it is being deployed in the space of the enterprise³Si l'entreprise pouvait renaître comme idée de cristallisation d'une idée commune entre des personnes, naturellement titulaires de droits subjectifs, exerçant ensemble leur liberté d'entreprendre pour réaliser un projet commun, ce qui correspond à la définition classique du contrat d'entreprise donnée à l'article 1832 du Code civil, cela renforcerait considérablement la présence des droits subjectifs dans le Droit de la Compliance et conforterait la nature humaniste de celui-ci. En outre, dans une telle définition la loi de la majorité, qui n'est qu'une loi de fonctionnement d'une catégorie de sociétés que sont les sociétés de capitaux, deviendrait moins puissante, au profit des "droits propres" de tout associé (au-delà du cercle des sociétés de personnes), sans qu'il soit besoin d'aller chercher au-delà du cercle des associés ou titulaires de titres émis par la société ou l'entreprise (dit shareholders) et d'aller donner le "droit à la parole" à des personnes qui, parce qu'elles sont "concernées" (les "parties prenantes", les skateholders) ont désormais de plus en plus le "droit à la parole". . In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required⁴La Compliance by Design reflète ces tensions. Elles sont particulièrement bien décrites par Cécile Granier. V. ..... His fallibility and the little confidence which one can place in him leads even to exclude the people and to conceive Compliance system between machines, not only to alert of the failures, but also to manufacture the "regulations" and to connect those. here, in a "regulatory fabric" without a jump stitch, entirely enveloping human beings⁵Contre cette conception de la légalité, qui prévoit tout et à laquelle il faudrait prouver par avance et que l'on se "conforme" entièrement, ce qui est contraire aux principes mêmes du libéralisme dont le principe est la liberté d'agir et non pas l'obéissance, Carbonnier affirme que les règles sont faites ne pas s'appliquer et qu'elles ne sont que le "mince vernis" des choses, qu'il convenait de se méfier de la "passion du Droit". V. not. son dernier ouvrage Droit et passion du droit sous la Vième République, 1995. Carbonnier est considéré comme le plus grand juriste français du XXième siècle. Il rédigea les lois qui réformèrent en profondeur le Code civil et publia des ouvrages sur "l'art législatif". . It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle⁶Au contraire, l'Etat de Droit n'est pas un coût extérieur au système de Compliance efficace, que celui-ci doit internaliser. Il est le fondement même du Droit de la Compliance. Voir dans ce sens la démonstration faite par le président de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne, Koen Laearnt, ..., in Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019. . If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail⁷Sur la démonstration comme quoi la Constitution, en ce qu'elle contient de l'incalculable, est broyée dans cette façon de faire, v. Alain Supiot, Intervention 2019. …  The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools". Indeed, because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve, because every effort must be made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools"  (I). But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II). Rights are the Compliance Law future.