About

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale" ("Assessment of whistleblowing and of the obligation of vigilance with regard to international competitiveness"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, pp. 413-436. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► English summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Taking up the legal tools of Compliance and confronting them with the concern that Law must have for the Competitiveness of companies, it is necessary that these legal instruments not harm it because Compliance Law, because of its immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political wills with great pretensions (save the planet) and the entities which are able to achieve these goals (the crucial economic operators : the political drawing on the compagnies" power, it would be contradictory for the legal instruments put in place by Law to harm the ability of companies to face global economic competition, or worse to favor international competitors acting under legal systems which do not integrate Compliance obligations.   From this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques of whistleblowing and vigilance obligation: both consist in capturing Information, which gives them a strong uniqueness and fits them into the global competition for Information. Taking the whistleblowing, its first beneficiary is the company itself since the firm discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. Therefore, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by their access to the legal statute, for instance the one conceived by the French 2016 law known as "Sapin 2", it is questionable that all the incentives are not put in place so that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager. It is not the European solution, even after the European Directive of 2019, national legal systems continuing to require the absence of financial compensation, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of their remuneration depriving the company of Information and improvement. First to the manager, with external transmission taking place if the latter does nothing, the internal manager is thus encouraged to act and put an end to the dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company. But the French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person to whom the information is transmitted because by obliging to transmit first to the manager, the external transmission intervening if the internal management does nothing, the incentive is thus made to the internal manager to act and put an end to the dysfunction, this legal solution increasing the competitiveness of the company. Even more, and even if it seems counter-intuitive, the obligation of vigilance increases the competitiveness of the obliged companies. Indeed, Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against violations of human rights and the environment has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, notably the power to collect Information on third-party companies, including (and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this respect, companies, as far as they are personally responsible, hold supervisory power over others, a power which allows to globalize Compliance Law and which, in the process, increases the Companies' own power. Therefore, the obligation of vigilance is in many respects a boon for the companies which are subject to it. The resumption of the mechanism by the next European Directive, itself indifferent to the territory, will only strengthen this global power of vigilant companies over possibly foreign companies which become its passive subjects. - 🌐 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, " Assessment of whistleblowing and the obligation of vigilance regarding international competitiveness", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, 2023, p. - ► Article Summary: Taking up the legal tools of Compliance and confronting them with the concern that Law must have for the Competitiveness of companies, it is necessary that these legal instruments not harm it because Compliance Law, because of its immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political wills with great pretensions (save the planet) and the entities which are able to achieve these goals (the crucial economic operators : the political drawing on the compagnies" power, it would be contradictory for the legal instruments put in place by Law to harm the ability of companies to face global economic competition, or worse to favor international competitors acting under legal systems which do not integrate Compliance obligations.   From this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques of whistleblowing and vigilance obligation: both consist in capturing Information, which gives them a strong uniqueness and fits them into the global competition for Information. Taking the whistleblowing, its first beneficiary is the company itself since the firm discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. Therefore, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by their access to the legal statute, for instance the one conceived by the French 2016 law known as "Sapin 2", it is questionable that all the incentives are not put in place so that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager. It is not the European solution, even after the European Directive of 2019, national legal systems continuing to require the absence of financial compensation, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of their remuneration depriving the company of Information and improvement. First to the manager, with external transmission taking place if the latter does nothing, the internal manager is thus encouraged to act and put an end to the dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company. But the French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person to whom the information is transmitted because by obliging to transmit first to the manager, the external transmission intervening if the internal management does nothing, the incentive is thus made to the internal manager to act and put an end to the dysfunction, this legal solution increasing the competitiveness of the company. Even more, and even if it seems counter-intuitive, the obligation of vigilance increases the competitiveness of the obliged companies. Indeed, Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against violations of human rights and the environment has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, notably the power to collect Information on third-party companies, including (and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this respect, companies, as far as they are personally responsible, hold supervisory power over others, a power which allows to globalize Compliance Law and which, in the process, increases the Companies' own power. Therefore, the obligation of vigilance is in many respects a boon for the companies which are subject to it. The resumption of the mechanism by the next European Directive, itself indifferent to the territory, will only strengthen this global power of vigilant companies over possibly foreign companies which become its passive subjects. - 🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, basis for this article  - 📘​ read the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published - ► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law,  📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law, 📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis,  -    

  ► Référence complète: Frison-Roche, M.A., Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la  compétitivité internationale (" ("Assessment of Whistleblowing and Vigilance Duty with regard to international competitiveness"),  in Benzoni, L., Deffains, B. et Frison-Roche, M.-A.(dir.) , Effectivité de la Compliance et Compétitivité internationale("Compliance Effectivity and International Competitiveness"), seminar co-organised by the  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Centre de recherche sur l'Économie et le Droit (CRED)  of the Panthéon-Assas University, November 4, 2021.  -   ►This intervention is thematic ; it is articulated with those more general carried out in introduction by Bruno Deffains particularly focused on the necessarily global scope of Compliance and in conclusion by Laurent Benzoni on Compliance as a potential new pillar of industrial policy, the whole of the colloquium having been conceived by the three of us. - 📅 read the semirar program    📅 this scientific event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle, organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners, on the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. -   🚧  read the bilingual Working Paper, basis of this conference -   ►see the slides used during the conference -   ► Conference Summary: First of all and independently of the technical topic itself which, as the slides show, is focused on these two techniques based on Information which are the Whistleblowing and the Vigilance duty, it is essentiel to pose that the techniques themselves are conceived totally  differently depending on whether Compliance Law is conceived as a mechanical process and totally binding to fully comply with all applicable regulations and to demonstrate it in advance, under the threat of terrible fines, this definition being the both completely frightening and meaningless since what these applicable regulations contains is irrelevant, in which case the prospect of competitiveness boils down to notions of costs and also procedural considerations of foreseeability and legal certainty; or if Compliance Law is conceived as a new and substantial branch of Law Ex Ante developed to detect and prevent the systemic crises being before us, of which the climate crisis is unfortunately the epigone and which requires above all Action, an action of such magnitude which requires the alliance of all forces, that of States, companies, courts and people, in a renewal of concepts, particularly legal ones, and in the indifference of territories, which puts Compliance immediately at its right level: the world, because the scientifically emerging crisis is global, the so-called "extraterritoriality" theme now being misnamed. From this new general conception, the Vigilance obligation, about which so much was said when it was imposed in France in 2017, is the advanced point, soon taken up in Europe and whose scope must be naturally global, because that Compliance Law is consubstantially global. Taking up more technically the legal techniques of Compliance and confronting them with the Competitiveness of firms, it is necessary that these Compliance Tools do not harm this Competitiveness because Compliance Law , supporting immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political  wills (with great pretensions, i.e. save the planet) and the entities which are able to concretize them (the crucial economic operators): the Compliance tools designed by legal systems must preserve the companies which put them in place and never favor their competitors. On the basis of this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques,  namely the whistleblowing and the Vigilance duty,  which both capture Information, which, as such, gives them a uniqueness and places them in the global Competition for Information. Taking the whistleblowing first, it appears that its first beneficiary is the company itself since it discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. This is why, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by the access of somebody to the legal statute conceived in France by the law known as "Sapin 2", it is criticized that all the incentives are not used for that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager and that the same law continues to require the absence of financial counterpart, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of his remuneration depriving the company of a means information and improvement. The American solution is better and tt is regrettable that the law transposing the European Directive maintains this ineffective conception. But French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person whom the information must be transmitted to is the manager, then externally if the latter does nothing. The solution is better that the American solution because the incentive is thus made to push the internal manager to act and put an remedy to the internal dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company. Even more, even if it seems counter-intuitive, the French Vigilance Duty greatly increases the competitiveness of the companies which are subject to it. Indeed, the 2017 Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against  human rights and environment violations has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, in particular the power to capture Information on third-party companies, including ( and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this, companies, insofar as they are personally responsible, hold a supervisory power over others, a power which allows Compliance Law to globalize and which, in the process, increases their own power. This is why the obligation of vigilance is in many respects a boon for the companies which are subject to it. The resumption of the mechanism by the next European Directive, itself indifferent to the territory, will only strengthen this global power on other firms, even foreign ones. - ► This  conférence et le document de travail servent de base à un article dans un ouvrage : 📝This conference and the Working Paper constitute the basis for an article:  📕  in its French version in the book  Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance  📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goals, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation -  

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche,  Support from Compliance Law for day-to-day management of Competition Law, Working Paper, Octobre 2021. - ► This working paper has been drawn up as a basis for a contribution to the Amicorum Liber for Professor Laurence Idot, published in 2022 - ► Working Paper Summary: Competition Law has become so huge and just "regulations" that one would give up trying to understand it as a whole, preferring to become a specialist in one of its parts. This would be to lose sight of the simple and strong reason which unites the whole and gives it its breath: Freedom. Freedom experienced by the person in his daily economic action, Freedom kept by Competition Law, always returning to its principle: Free Competition. This is why the European Union places a so great emphasis on Competition. To build it and keep it effective, "Competition Policy" is articulated with Competition Law, but if authorities and judges do not blame companies for their power, they do not rely on it. To do this, they must then be supported by Compliance Law, which strongly encourages companies to act for the effectiveness and the promotion of Competition principles. Competition Law thus slips from the Ex Post to the Ex Ante, with the commitments of companies leading them to stop being passive and punished in order to become convinced players and educators of the others. Something pleasant for a great professor of Competition Law, to whom tribute is paid here. - 🔓read the Working Paper below⤵ -  🌐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, " Definition of Proportionality and Definition of  Compliance Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p. - ► Article Summary: The use of Proportionality t always limit powers is only justified when it is about sanctions, but sanctions are only one tool among others in Compliance Law, intended moreover to have little place in this Ex Ante branch of Law. And returning to the very nature of Compliance Law, which relies on operators, private or public, because they are powerful, then using proportionality to limite powers is detrimental to Compliance Law.  However, nothing requires that. Compliance Law is not an exception that should be limited. On the contrary, it is a branch of Law which carries the greatest principles, aimed at protecting human beings and whose Normativity lies in its "Monumental Goals": detecting and preventing future major systemic crisis (financial, health and climate ones). However, literally the principle of Proportionality is: "no more powers than necessary, as many powers as necessary". The second part of the sentence is independent of the first: this must be used. Politics having fixed these Monumental Goals, the entity, in particular the company, must have, even tacitly, "all the necessary powers" to achieve them. For example, the power of vigilance, the power of audit, the power over third parties. Because they are necessary to fulfill the obligations that these "crucial operators" must perform as they are "in a position" to do so. So instead of limiting the powers, the Principe of Proportionality comes to support the powers, to legitimize them and to increase them, so that we have a chance that our future is not catastrophic, perhaps better. In this respect, Compliance Law, in its rich Definition, will itself have enriched the Principle of Proportionality. -   🚧read the Working Paper, with technical developments, references, and hypertext links. - 📘go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published - ► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law,  📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis,  📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance -

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Definition of Principle of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law ("Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance"),  in Frison-Roche, M.-A. et Rapp, L. (dir.), Compliance and Proportionality. From the control of Proportionality to the proportionality of the Control ("Compliance et proportionnalité. Du contrôle de proportionnalité à la proportionnalité du contrôle") Compliance et Proportionnalité. Du contrôle de proportionnalité à la proportionnalité du contrôle, juges pour la Compliance, Colloque coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et la Chaire SIRIUS (IDETCOM),  14 octobre 2021.  -   📅 read the conference program  📅 this colloquium is part of the cycle of colloquia 2021 organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners on the Compliance Monumental Goals topic.  -   🚧  read the Working Paper on the basis of which the conference was done and from which the reactions took place.  -   ►see the slides supporting the conference (in French)   ► Conference Summary: The use of Proportionality t always limit powers is only justified when it is about sanctions, but sanctions are only one tool among others in Compliance Law, intended moreover to have little place in this Ex Ante branch of Law. And returning to the very nature of Compliance Law, which relies on operators, private or public, because they are powerful, then using proportionality to limite powers is detrimental to Compliance Law.  However, nothing requires that. Compliance Law is not an exception that should be limited. On the contrary, it is a branch of Law which carries the greatest principles, aimed at protecting human beings and whose Normativity lies in its "Monumental Goals": detecting and preventing future major systemic crisis (financial, health and climate ones). However, literally  the principle of Proportionality is: "no more powers than necessary, as many powers as necessary". The second part of the sentence is independent of the first: this must be used. Politics having fixed these Monumental Goals, the entity, in particular the company, must have, even tacitly, "all the necessary powers" to achieve them. For example the power of vigilance, the power of audit, the power over third parties. Because they are necessary to fulfill the obligations that these "crucial operators" have to perform as they are "in a position" to do so. So instead of limiting the powers, the Principe of Proportionality comes to support  the powers, to legitimize them and to increase them, so that we have a chance that our future is not catastrophic, perhaps better. In this respect, Compliance Law, in its rich Definition, will itself have enriched the Principle of Proportionality. -   ► the conference and the Working Paper are the basis for an article in the book⤵ ►  in its French version 📕 Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in the Series  Régulations & Compliance ► in its English version 📘Compliance Monumental Goals , dans  la collection    Compliance & Regulation   -  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Duty of Vigilance, Whistleblowing and International Competitiveness, Working Paper, September 2021. -   🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference , in the colloquium Effectiveness of Compliance and International Competitiveness, co-organised  by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Center for Law and Economics of the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II),   November 4, 2021 - 📝this Working Paper is also the basis for an article. This article is to be published ⤵ in its French version in the book 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in the series 📚Régulations & Compliance  in its English version in the book 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in the series la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation - ► Working Paper Summary: The "Compliance Tools" are very diverse. If it has been chosen to study more particularly among these the obligation of vigilance and the whistleblower, these rather than others and to study them together, it is because they present in the perspective of the specific topic chosen, namely "international competitiveness", and for companies, and for economic zones considered, and for legal system inseparable from them, a uniqueness: these are mechanisms which release Information.  By order of the law, the company will not only stop ignoring what it covered with the handkerchief that Tartuffe held out to it or that a conception of Company Law legitimately allowed it to ignore. This article does not examine if this revolution made by Compliance Law expresses in the legal system is on the one hand legitimate and on the other hand effective: the article measures what is happening at the regard to "international competitiveness". Compliance Law is therefore be examined here through its instruments, and not in relation to its normativity. In fact, its instruments are intended to provide Information and to make this information available, in its presentation, in its intelligibility and in the hands of those who are able to use Information in perspective of the Compliance Monumental Goals, achieving them.  Regarding this central notion of Information, international competitiveness will be more particularly concerned because Compliance Law will oblige the company itself to seek out, then expose to everyone's eyes, in particular its competitors, its weaknesses, its projects, its alliances, its flaws. This does not pose a problem if its competitors themselves are often subject to this new branch of Law, which goes far beyond transparency, which is already a new mechanism because a company is not a transparent organization and Competition Law that governs ordinary businesses never required this. But if they are not subject to this incredibly special branch of Law that is Compliance Law, then there is a distortion of competitiveness by the very fact of the Law. It is possible to pretend that the markets like virtue, that they give it credit because they are themselves based on the idea of "promise", which is ultimately based on a moral concept, but this provision of Information to others, while others remain opaque, is a major problem of competitiveness, which the legal requirement of "loyal commercial practices" only very partially considers. Therefore, it is necessary to first examine what is the economic and financial power of the information captured by the company on itself thank to Compliance Law making available to all but firstly to the compagny itself through the whistblowing mechanism, organised by the laws, differently in the US and Europe (I). Compliance Law also obliges companies to be accountable not only for what they do but also for what others do for them. Through the obligation of Vigilance, objective Ex Ante obligation and duty, the company obtains a power of Information on others which could well resolve what is often presented as the dispute aporetic of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law, thus making accountable companies hitherto protected by their "preserved" legal system and thereby affected by the effectiveness of Compliance Law (II). - read below the developments

► 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., Morel-Maroger, J. et Schiller, S. (dir.), Quels juges pour la Compliance ("Which Judges for Compliance), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the CR2D of Dauphine University PSL, Raymond Aron Amphy, 23rd September  2021.  - 📅 Read the Colloquium programme 📅 This colloquium  is a part in the colloquia cycle organized in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and it partners on the  Compliance Juridictionalisation. - ✏️A bilingual Working Paper  on the topic  "The  role of the Judge in Compliance Law has been prepared to serve a basis for this conference : read this Working Paper  But for the reason detailed below, I preferred to use the time allotted to the introduction of the colloquium to develop rather what should had be an opening element for making it the entire topic of my intervention. : "Never do without judges and lawyers in Compliance Law". Because before analyzing the role of judges, they still need to be in the Compliance system; this seems to us to be taken for granted, but it is not.   ► Conference Summary: Due in particular to the large number of students and the fact that a long time ago when I arrived at Dauphine University I had created a Master in Economic Law with Martine Lombard in which I had included a course of "Economic Procedural Law" that I was teaching, since it was the moment to make this Colloquium "general introductory report", I therefore preferred to go further and focus the subject on something other than "The role of the judge in Compliance Law" , namely the very question of "the presence of judges and lawyers 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. It is therefore to this prerequisite that I devoted my speaking time, deferring to publication all the analyzes that I had prepared on "The role of the judge in Compliance Law", to which everyone can refer by consulting the preparatory work. 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 Deffered 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 after this enormous systemic disaster inventing the "general procedural law". - The Working Paper which had not be exploited during the conference will be the bais for the article in the book : 📕 in its French version La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance  📘  in its English version  Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation -   📅 Ce colloque s'insère dans le cycle de colloques 2021 organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et ses partenaires autour de la Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.   -  

► 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: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes pour une synthèse sur le vif pour le colloque "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : radioscopie d'une notion" (Notes for an on the fly synthesis for the Colloquium "The Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy for a Notion"), September 16, 2021.  -   ► Read the general programme of the Colloquium Compliance Law Monumental Goals ► Read the  presentation of the synthesis Report, notably its Summary.  - ► Methodology: The topic is not treated in a strictly personal point of view, as it will be in the book on The Compliance Monumental Goals, in an article devoted to "Defining Compliance Monumental Goals  and their branch of Law", more personal article. It will be even more clearly the expression of a personal vision of the definition of what is "Compliance" and what is "Compliance Law", with in particular the distinctions that should be done, in particular with "conformity" because these are these "Monumental Goals", a notion proposed in 2016  which makes it possible to distinguish the procedural notion of "conformity" (just obey) and the substantive notion of "Compliance Law". This article will include the multiple academic and technical references that should be done to do this.  But in the time allotted in a day's collloquium and because the purpose of a synthesis is to highlight on the spot what was common in the contributions heard, the document is based only on the different speechs made and is not enriched with technical references, nor does it refer to personal works. -   🔻read below the notes exhaustely taken

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in André C., Frison-Roche, M.-A., Malaurie, M. and Petit, B., Les Buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Laboratoire Dante of Paris-Saclay University, -     📅  September 16, 2021. 🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris - ► Conclusions' Summary: Based on the multiple contributions of the day, the first part of this synthesis focuses on the practical interest of having Monumental Goals attached to compliance techniques.Conceptually defining these Monumental Goals as normative legal rules of Compliance Law has the first practical advantage of making clear this scattered and almost incomprehensible material, allowing us to better understand it.  The second practical advantage is to bring together the various branches of law in that they all contain compliance mechanisms, the points of contact thus discerned leading to a unification of technical legal rules.  The third practical advantage is to provide the various sources of law concerned with a means of applying and interpreting the law. The fourth practical advantage is to give meaning to all these technical provisions. In the second part of this synthesis, it appeared that these practical considerations therefore justify undertaking the "conceptual adventure". This one can take three pillars, in this "cathedral" that Dominique de la Garanderie designed, this "monument" corresponding well to the adjective Monumental which is better suited to these Goals than does the adjective "Fundamental", because it is a question of building, of building for a future which is not fatal. The first conceptual pillar consists in conceptualizing the Monumental Goals so that the Compliance Law finding a substantial meaning thus gives in a normative way a meaning to all the technical provisions which serve it in an instrumental way. The second conceptual pillar consists of giving everyone their place, that of public authority, that of the company and that of the population, each concerned and each not having to take the place of the other in the determination of the monumental goals, the company being in particular free in the design of the means while the political authority being in charge of drawing the Goals, the company being able to copy them on its own account. This conception does not depend on legal systems but on goals and legitimacy, in particular on the definition chosen for what is a company. The third conceptual pillar derives precisely from the humanist conception that one can claim to have of the Compliance Monumental Goal, risk management being only a means to achieve it. Humanism effectively carried by Compliance, taken on their own account by the companies alone capable of making them concrete, is what makes it possible to distinguish texts that are nevertheless technically similar, depending on whether they apply in  Rule of Law systems or in systems which are note governed by the Rule of Law Principle. This is why the technical future of Compliance Law lies in this conceptual adventure that it is necessary to lead. -   📝 read the program of this colloquium  🎥 see Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French, with English subtitles) ✏️ read the notes translated in English on which this conclusion is based  - 📅 This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Monumental Goals.   📘 This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Monumental Goals, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant. 📕 An equivalent book in French, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-published by the JoRC and Dalloz. 

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur – rapport de synthèse – ( ("Competition Law: political choices for its future state – Conclusion") , in Claudel, E. (ed.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états ("Competition in all its states"), special issue, Gaz. Pal. , 15 Sept. 2021. This publication is in French, but the Working Paper which is the basis of this article is bilingual.  -   📅 this article follows the colloquium of the French Association Droit & Commerce in Deauville (France), the 25th  et 26th June 2021. -   ✏️ It is based on  the bilingual Working Paper built on the notes taken during the colloquium for establishing the conclusion which has been provided. -   Article English Summary: All of these contributions on the issue of the "Competition in all its states" highlighted the choices available for what could be this branch of Law tomorrow: choice of a political nature between various possible definitions of Competition Law.  In method, the main thing is that this definition be clear. For this, this definition must be based on a principle and that the goal pursued by competition law is simple, so that in a second step, competition law can be easily articulated on the one hand with other branches of law. (by the care of the judge, in particular), on the other hand with "policies", such as "competition policy", then other policies (by the care of political authorities, especially European). In essence, two conceptions of principle are opposed: either Competition Law will want to appropriate the goals of other branches, such as those of Regulatory and Compliance Law, or Competition Law will have the modesty to remain anchored in its definition as Market Law. This is the crossroads where we are.   -

► 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.   

► co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), this colloquium) is the core manifestation of the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. It will take place on 16th of September 2021, at the Maison du Barreau, in Paris. This first work is in French but  will be the basis of the book in English : Compliance Monumental Goals,    This book will be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series, co-published by the JoRC and Bruylant. ► Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.   These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.   ► with :  🎤 Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris – Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University) 🎤 Regis Bismuth, professeur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris) 🎤 Marie-Emma Boursier, doyen  de l'Université Paris – Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris – Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante) 🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris) 🎤 Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University) 🎤 Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤Dominique de La Garanderie, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)  🎤 Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris – Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa) 🎤 Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority) 🎤 Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Benoît Petit, maître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)  🎤 Jean-François Vaquieri, Secrétaire Général d'Enedis (Secretary General of Enedis) - Read a detailed presentation below:  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le droit de la Compliance : un outil stratégique pour une Europe souveraine (Compliance law: a strategic tool for a sovereign Europe), interview with Jean-Philippe Denis, recorded on July 3, 2021 and broadcast on September 17, 2021 -   🎥 Watch the interview, as broadcast on Xerfi Canal channels.    🎥Watch the interview enhanced with French subtitles - ►Summary: Compliance Law powerfully and clearly helps to build a sovereign Europe.  Compliance Law is not the annex of Competition Law; it is another branch of Law, which aims instead to rely on the de facto power of companies, when they are in a position to achieve the "Monumental Goals" that the Political Authorities have decided to achieve, which requires an alliance between them and those companies in a position to achieve these "Monumental Goals". Companies can do this because they are in a position to do so, in that they are well located to act, have the information, the technology and the adequate financial means.) Compliance is a construction tool, and not, as it is still sometimes presented, a means to limit the ability of those who are concretely able to build, i.e. the companies. The architect remains and must remain the Politics. But the company remains the master of the means to achieve these goals, and free to duplicate them in its own care, via CSR, "raison d'être" and ethics.