About

► Full reference: E. Silva-Romero, "Droit de la Compliance : Arbitrage International et géopolitique" ("Compliance Law: International Arbitration and Geopolitics"), interview conducted by M.-A. Frison-Roche as part of a series of interviews on Compliance Law, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion (Open windows on management), broadcast by J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, recorded December 12, 2023, recorded April 27, 2024 - 🌐consult the presentation of Eduardo Silva-Romero's interview on LinkedIn - 🎥view the full interview on Xerfi Canal -   ► Starting point: In 2023, Eduardo Silva-Romero wrote a contribution:📝What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration?, in the book 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation 🧱read the presentation of this contribution ➡️click HERE - ► Summary of interview: Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. Question: What is the place of Compliance in international investment arbitration and, first of all, what is its specificity?   Edouardo Silva-Romero. Answer: International investment arbitration is based on a treaty, generally signed between two States, which agree to protect the investments that companies make in the host State. The resulting disputes may give rise to this specific type of arbitration.   Compliance has a special place here, because if the investment is tainted by corruption or fails to respect human rights, it will not be protected by the arbitrators, as the host state is no longer bound. - MaFR. Q.: So, through Compliance, states can assert their sovereignty?   E.S-R. A.: Yes, through the social dimension of Compliance, States can assert their social conception and impose it in investment arbitration. - MaFR. Q.: Is the attractiveness of the Paris marketplace enhanced?   E.S-R. A.: The International Court of Arbitration is headquartered in Paris, and it's clear that this presence, combined with Compliance's humanistic approach to investment arbitration, is an essential element of attractiveness. Because of the technicalities involved, it is essential for international arbitrators to master compliance law in order to participate in this new element of attractiveness, as it takes the form of rules of public order, and this is also how the Paris Court of Appeal exercises its control over awards. -

► Full Reference: La vigilance, nouveau champ de contentieux systémique (Vigilance, new field of Systemic Ligation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 26 April 2024, 11am.-12.30am., Cour d'appel de Paris, Massé courtroom - 🧮see the full programme of the cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation) - 🌐see on LinkedIn the report of this event - 🧱read below the report of this event⤵️ - ► Presentation of the conference: The duty of vigilance imposed by the 2017 French law is being contractualised, either by ad hoc contracts or by stipulations that reproduce the legal provisions, adjust them or go beyond them. This adoption by the Contract and Tort Law is valuable but not without risk. The systemic scope of the underlying law on the one hand and of economic structures on the other, the firm or the value chain, will permeate litigation. The example of labour relations is instructive in this respect. - 🧮Programme of this event:  Second conference-debate LA VIGILANCE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE (VIGILANCE, NEW FIELD OF SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)   Paris Court of Appeal, Massé courtroom General presentation of the topic and moderation by 🕴️François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation) 🕰️11am.-11.20am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les rapports contractuels (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Contractual Relationships), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University 🕰️11.20am.-11.40am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les relations de travail (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Employment Relationships), by 🕴️Cyril Cosme, Director of the French Office of the International Labour Organization (ILO) 🕰️11.40am.-12.30am. Debate - 🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com 🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/  ⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal). - 🧱read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️ -

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’usage des puissances privées par le droit de la compliance pour servir les droits de l’homme" (Use of private companies by Compliance Law to serve Human Rights) , in J. Andriantsimbazovina (dir.), Puissances privées et droits de l'Homme. Essai d'analyse juridique, Mare & Martin,  coll. "Horizons européens", 2024, pp. 279-295 - 🚧read the  Bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with more technical developments, references and hypertext links - ► English Summary of this article: Following the legal tradition, Law creates a link between power with a legitimate source, the State, public power being its prerogative, while private companies exercise their power only in the shadow of this public power exercised ex ante.  The triviality of Economic Law, of which Competition Law is at the heart, consisting of the activity of companies that use their power on markets, relegates the action of the State to the rank of an exception, admissible if the State, which claims to exercise this contrary power, justifies it.  The distribution of roles is thus reversed, in that the places are exchanged, but the model of opposition is shared. This model of opposition exhausts the forces of the organisations, which are relegated to being the exception. However, if we want to achieve great ambitions, for example to give concrete reality to human rights beyond the legal system within which the public authorities exercise their normative powers, we must rely on a new branch of Law, remarkable for its pragmatism and the scope of the ambitions, including humanist ambitions, that it embodies: Compliance Law. Compliance Law is thus the branch of Law which makes the concern for others, concretised by human rights, borne by the entities in a position to satisfy it, that is to say the systemic entities, of which the large companies are the direct subjects of law (I). The result is a new division between Public Authorities, legitimate to formulate the Monumental Goal of protecting human beings, and private organisations, which adjust to this according to the type of human rights and the means put in place to preserve them. Corporations are sought after because they are powerful, in that they are in a position to make human rights a reality, in their indifference to territory, in the centralisation of Information, technologies and economic, human, and financial means. This alliance is essential to ensure that the system does not lead to a transfer of political choices from Public Authorities to private companies; this alliance leads to systemic efficiency. The result is a new definition of sovereignty as we see it taking shape in the digital space, which is not a particular sector since it is the world that has been digitalised, the climate issue justifying the same new distribution of roles (II).  - 📝read the article (in French) - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Audition by the French National Assembly's Law Commission on the confidentiality of legal advice  (the "Legal Privilege à la française"), 8 April 2024. - I had expressed my opinion on the need for French legal system to better ensure the confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by internal lawyers in companies, in an article published in 2023 in the French academic journal Recueil Dalloz: "La compliance, socle de la confidentialité nécessaire des avis juridiques élaborés en entreprise (Compliance Law, the cornerstone of the necessary confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by companies". Compliance, the cornerstone of the necessary confidentiality of legal opinions drawn up by companies).  Following on from this article, and as a specialist in Regulatory and Compliance Law, I was invited by the French National Assembly's Law Commission to give my opinion on the proposed law n°2022 on the confidentiality of consultations by in-house lawyers ( Proposition de loi n°2022 relative à la confidentialité des consultations des juristes d'entreprises), often named in French Legal privilege à la française. -     ► Summary of this presentation: I have shown that we must start not from the person (external lawyer / in-house lawyer, for instance) and not even centrally from the information in question (branch of Law by branch of Law), but from the Goals pursued, i.e. from Compliance Law. In this respect, we must not be misled. We could do so by confusing mechanical "conformity" with this new branch of Law: Compliance Law. Conformity is merely a tool of Compliance Law. Out of concern for the correct use of the French language, as "Compliance" appears to many to be an American term, the proposed law uses the term "conformité" but refers to Compliance Law. Conformity" is merely the mechanical obligation to obey the applicable rules, which is the fate of any subject of law, subject to the mandatory rules, a passive position common to everyone in a State governed by the Rule of Law. Compliance Law is quite different, with conformity being just one of its tools. On the one hand, Compliance Law imposes an active obligation, and on the other, it targets only certain legal subjects: companies.  For them, it is a matter of ensuring that certain goals set by the legislator are actually achieved, which becomes effectively and efficiently possible thanks to the power of companies (financial power, organizational power, management power, information power, location power, information power). These "Monumental Goals" are either negative (preventing systems from collapsing) or positive (ensuring that systems improve). For companies to play this role – a role that is not required of other "ordinary" people, as they are not "in a position" to take on such a burden, particularly in terms of finance and organization – those in charge of organizing themselves and taking action, i.e. companies, must "detect and prevent" system failures (as required by laws such as US FCPA, French so-called Sapin 2 and Vigilance laws, European CSRD and CS3D, etc.). To "detect and prevent", which is an order from the Legislator, companies need to know the weaknesses of their organization and of the people they answer to, in order to remedy them: "remediation" is a "remedy" to ensure the "sustainability" of "systems". This set of key concepts lies at the heart of Compliance Law, the branch of law That focuses on the future. It is the legal opinions, for example, and in particular the report resulting from internal investigations, that enable those who decide and control this organization (the managers) to fulfill the role entrusted to them by the State. If these opinions are not confidential, the result is not the remediation and preservation of global systems (competitive, climatic, digital, energy, banking, financial systems, etc.): the effective managerial solution in Ex-Ante then consists not in seeking information but, conversely, in not seeking this information, since obtaining it will lead to the weakening of the company through the sanction that the information produces, for lack of confidentiality. The interests of the system, the State and the company are disjointed, because Compliance Law implies their alliance, which is what the confidentiality of legal opinions produces. This is why Compliance Law must, by its very nature, ensure the confidentiality of legal advice. -   When asked about the actual text of the proposal, I felt that the explanatory memorandum was particularly relevant, since the link between Compliance Law (admittedly called "conformité" in the proposed bill by a rather too mechanical respect for the French legal language, from which the French legislator has so far been unable to dispense….) is clear, that this confidentiality is attached to the document, that the company can waive it, and that it is clearly distinct from professional secrecy, all three of which should be approved. For my part, I've suggested a change to the procedure, which must be open to the confidentiality process. Indeed, public authorities, such as Competition and Regulatory Authorities, are rather hostile to this confidentiality. Having contributed a great deal to the development of Regulatory Law, and continuing to do so, I believe that Competition and Regulatory Authorities have a logic that needs to be understood. It is as follows: Regulatory Authorities are Ex-Ante (this was less true for the Competition Authorities, but it too is increasingly so) and are in a situation of information asymmetry. Their first concern is to combat this asymmetry. If we translate this into legal terms, it means that in order to carry out their mission of general interest, they must seek out all available information. However, legal opinions, and in particular the internal investigation report, are what I have described as "evidence treasure". In their logic, the Competition and Regulatory Authorities want to seize it. There is therefore a conflict between two general interest logics: the general interest of the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law actively served by companies, at the behest of the Legislation, which requires the confidentiality of legal opinions, and the general interest of the action of Regulators who fight against information asymmetry and seek to seize the evidential treasures of legal opinions. For the reasons given above, I believe that the Monumental Goals of Compliance must prevail. All the more so as the rights of the defence converge to this end. Ultimately, however, it is up to the Judge, in the event of open conflict, to balance these two claims, which are based on the service of the general interest.  However, reading the proposition, it seems to me that the rather complicated procedure entrusts this to a multiplicity of judges… But since it is indeed Compliance Law which is the best basis for "legal privilege à la française", Compliance Law, which is the extension of Regulatory Law and whose advanced point is the Vigilance duty, it would be more appropriate and logical to entrust this litigation to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Judicial Court. This court has already the exclusive competence for litigation about Vigilance. This would have another fortunate effect: on appeal, the dispute would be brought before the Paris Court of Appeal, which has exclusive jurisdiction (barring exceptions) over disputes concerning decisions on French Competition and Regulatory Authorities. The judges of the "Pôle 5" (12 chambers specializing in economic law) of the very specific court are seasoned and would be well-suited to strike the necessary balance between the two general interests involved. I think a procedural amendment to the proposed text along these lines would be welcome. -   ► See in my work those that may be of interest with regard to this hearing (all with English summary, many with bilingual working paper) ⤵️   🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation par le Droit de la Compliance, in 📗Conseil d'État et Cour de cassation, De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ?, 2024.   🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance et conformité : les distinguer pour mieux les articuler, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.),📕L'obligation de compliance, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense, 2024. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense, Les Buts Monumentaux de la compliance,  2022. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Contrat de compliance, clauses de compliance, 2022. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le Droit de la compliance, 2016. - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance" ("Synthesis: The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law"), Synthesis in Conseil d'État (French Council of State) and Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? Regards croisés du Conseil d'État et de la Cour de cassation – Colloque du 2 juin 2023, La Documentation française, "Droits et Débats" Serie, 2024, pp. 173-182 - 🎥this article follows the closing speech of the biannual symposium organised by the Council of State and the Court of cassation, which in 2023 was entitled De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? (From Regulation to Compliance, what role for the judge ?) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► Presentation of this concluding article: It is remarkable to note the unity of conception and practice between professionals who tend to work in administrative jurisdictions and professionals who tend to work in judicial jurisdictions: they all note, in similar terms, an essential movement: what Regulatory Law is, how it has been transformed into Compliance Law, and how in one and even more so in the other the Judge is at the centre of it. Judges, as well as Regulators and European officials, explain this and use different examples to illustrate the far-reaching changes it brings to the Law and to the companies responsible for increasing the systemic effectiveness of the rules through the practice and dissemination of a Culture of Compliance. The role of the judge participating in this Ex Ante transformation is renewed, whether he/she is a judge of Public Law or a judge of Private Law, in a greater unity of the legal system. - ► English Summary of this article: The tug-of-war between 'Compliance' and 'conformity', which is exhausting us, obscures what is essential, i.e. the great novelty of a branch of law that assumes a humanist vision expressing the ambition to shape the future so that it is not catastrophic (preventing systems from collapsing), or even better (protecting human beings in these systems). The article begins by describing the emergence of Compliance Law, as an extension of Regulatory Law and going beyond it. This new branch of law takes account of our new world, brings its benefits and seeks to counter these systemic dangers so that human beings could be their beneficiaries and are not crushed by them. This branch of Ex Ante Law is therefore political, often supported by public Authorities, such as Regulatory Authorities, but today it goes beyond sectors, as shown by its cutting edge, the Obligation of Vigilance. The "Monumental Goals" in which Compliance Law is normatively anchored imply a teleological interpretation, leading to an "empowerment" of the crucial operators, not only States but also companies, responsible for the effectiveness of the many new Compliance Tools. The article goes on to show that Judges are increasingly central to Compliance Law. Lawsuits are designed to make companies more accountable. In this transformation, the role of the judge is also to remain the guardian of the Rule of Law, both in the protection of the rights of the defence and in the protection of secrets. Efficiency is not what defines Compliance, which should not be reduced to a pure and simple method of efficiency, which would lead to being an instrument of dictatorship. This is why the principle of Proportionality is essential in the judge's review of the requirements arising from this so powerful branch of Law.  The courts are thus faced with a new type of dispute, of a systemic nature, in their own area, which must not be distorted: the Area of Justice. - 📝read article (in French) - 🌐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, "Les voies d'innovations juridiques face aux nouveaux "défis climatiques" ("Innovative legal solutions to the new "climate challenges""), in C. Arnaud, O. de Bandt et B. Deffains (dir.), Nouveaux défis – Regards croisés : Droit, Économie et Finance. Quel Droit face au Changement Climatique ? (("New challenges – Crossed perspectives : Law, Economics and Finance. What Law in the Face of Climate Change?"), Banque de France (French Central Bank) and CRED/Paris Panthéon-Assas University, Paris, Centre de Conférence de la Banque de France, April 2, 2024 - 🧮See the full programme of this event - 🔲see the slides, basis of this conference (in French) - ► Summary of this conference: In response to the question of how the Law can produce 'innovations' to meet the 'climate challenges', the process is based on the three traditional sources of Law, which are, firstly, laws and regulations, secondly, the commitments of individuals, mainly contracts, and thirdly, court rulings. At first sight, the Law in its traditional conception and practice is weak in the face of climate change. This weakness is inherent in the nature of climate change, which is at once future, global and systemic, in the face of these three sources of Law, which do not address all three dimensions at once. The scale of the legal innovation required to ensure that one or more articulated sources can grasp the future, the global and the systemic is therefore clear. And yet this is what is happening. As far as laws and regulations are concerned, they do not seem very appropriate because they are, by their very nature, a territorial limit, and international treaties are very difficult to negotiate. The interweaving of European regulations, for example the CSRD and the CS3D, which mirror each other, may be more effective. As far as 'commitments' are concerned, a concept which in Law is not very precise outside of contracts and liability cases📎¹🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝What a commitment is, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2024., contracts are above all a means for companies to fulfill their legal obligations, and a contract always implies a judge. At first sight, however, the judge is the least well placed to respond to 'climate challenges', particularly in France where he is said or wished to be powerless, where he rules on the past and where, especially the civil judge, he settles a one-off dispute between two singular parties. But a major change has occurred with the emergence of a new branch of law: the Compliance Law, a teleological branch of Law whose legal normativity is lodged in the Monumental Goals📎²🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2023. that it pursues, namely the preservation of systems, for example the climate system. In France, the so-called "Sapin 2" law in 2016, followed by the so-called "Vigilance" law in 2017, illustrate this. And the Judge is at the centre of it all. In this global, systemic, extraterritorial perspective, the object of which is the future – Compliance Law is, moreover, rejected by many legal experts – the legislative innovation is major. Indeed, the law of 23 March 2017, known as "Vigilance" designated large companies, because they are "powerful", because they are "in a position to act" to "detect and prevent" breaches of the environment and human rights. The 2017 law copied the "compliance tools"📎³🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021. put in place by the Sapin 2 anti-corruption law: risk mapping, plans, alerts, audits, internal investigations, and so on.  Only large companies are subject to the Compliance Law, notably the Vigilance Law, since they are the only ones in a position to act, in this case "parent companies or principals", and borders are no longer limits since the obligation, creating personal liability for the company📎⁴🏛️Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council), March 23, 2017, decision No. 2017-750 DC, Loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre., extends throughout the "value chain". The notion and fact of "systemic dispute" is emerging before the courts. In France, the Paris Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction. European legislation is proving more difficult to draw up, because although it is compulsory to provide information on these "extra-financial" subjects (CSRD), the directive on the duty of vigilance, which has just been adopted, does not go any further than the French law of 2017. On the second point, that of commitments, we are only at the beginning. Judges do not transform ethical statements into "unilateral legal commitments", and vigilance does not transform company law into co-management. But contracts do form a global network through which companies adjust their various legal obligations. This is why arbitrators, the only "global judges", will soon be involved in this systemic litigation📎⁵🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2024, of which a chapter is dedicated to "International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation"., and more general case law is to come on "compliance contracts and clauses"📎⁶🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧Compliance contract, compliance clauses, 2022 ; 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Contrat and Contract, 2024.. But the most innovative aspect undoubtedly comes from the courts. Perhaps and notably in France because it is from where we least expect it, the civil courts, that the imagination comes, but also the guarding of the great principles of the Rule of Law, because for the moment the case law is reasonable. This innovation has not come about proprio motu: the judges are not taking action, it is the NGOs that are conducting a kind of litigation policy, systematically giving formal notice to the major energy companies, but also to the major banks and insurers on climate issues, alleging non-compliance with their vigilance plans. The interim relief judge at the Paris Court of First Instance must then provide answers in systemic disputes, of which the so-called "Total Uganda"📎⁷🏛️Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court), summary rulings, February 28, 2023, No. RG 22/53943 and 22/53942, Total Ouganda. case is an example. The courts are demonstrating a great deal of innovation. The Court of First Instance's interim relief judge has appointed amici curiae📎⁸🕴️N. Cayrol, 📝L'amicus curiae, mesure d'instruction ordinaire, 2022., the Paris Court of Appeal has set up a specialised chamber📎⁹On the creation on the new 5-12 Chamber, Contentieux émergent – Devoir de vigilance et responsabilité écologique see 🕴️J. Boulard, 💬Contentieux systémique : "Il est important, pour les magistrats, de rester au plus près des réalités" (Systemic litigation: "It is important for judges to remain as close as possible to reality"), March 28, 2024., and training conferences have been set up on this "Emerging Systemic Litigation"📎¹⁰🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 💬"Nous voyons émerger aujourd’hui le contentieux systémique" ("We are now seeing the emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), March 28, 2024 ; 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, Coordination and animation of cycle of conference-debates 🧮Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation). . In conclusion, Law is in the process of being rebuilt through a new branch of Law, Compliance Law, whose the very purpose, as an extension of and going beyond Regulatory Law📎¹¹🏛️Conseil d'État (French Council of State) and 🏛️Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), 📗De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? (From Regulation to Compliance: what role for the Judge?), 2024; 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law in the European project, 2023 ; 🚧Compliance Law loses the ties of Regulation Law but retains its principles : consequences for companies, 2018 ; 🚧From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017., is to preserve systems, in particular the climate system, in a profoundly renewed role for judges📎¹²🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance et ;🕴️Fr. Ancel, 📝Quel rôle pour le juge aujourd’hui dans la compliance ? Quel office processuel du juge dans la compliance ?, in 🏛️Conseil d'État et 🏛️Cour de cassation, 📗De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ?, 2024 ; 🕴️Fr. Ancel, 📝Le principe processuel de compliance, un nouveau principe directeur du procès ?, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2023 ; 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le Juge requis pour une Obligation de Compliance effective, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕L'Obligation de Compliance, 2024.. - 🌐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, "L’émergence du Contentieux Systémique" ("Emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), in Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Masse - 🧮see the full programme of this event - 🧮see the programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent - 🌐consult on LinkedIn the report of this speech (in French) - 🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech (in French) - 🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made - 🔲see the slides used to support this intervention (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this speech - ► English Summary of the conference: We are seeing the emergence of what should be referred to as a category of its own: the "Systemic Litigation". This concept, proposed in 2021📎¹🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The hypothesis of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021., refers to the hypothesis in which a system is 'involved' in a particular 'case' submitted to the judge. The presence of a system should not be confused with a systemic analysis of a phenomenon. The term 'cause' must be understood in the procedural sense, as used in article 5 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Specifically, the prohibition contained in article 5 of the French Civil Code does not apply because a system thus involved calls for factual responses and solutions and not necessarily general and abstract solutions: the solution of a systemic nature and scope, that the presence of a system in a cause calls for, may be a factual solution, even if it radiates out from the system as a whole. But precisely because the presence of a system in the case often gives rise to a question that is itself systemic, the judge, if he wishes to comply with article 4 of the French Civil Code, must respond not only a minima by not evading the question, for example of systemic risks, but also fully by providing systemic solutions, for example remedies to preserve in the future the solidity and durability of the systems involved in the case.    These systems may be of different kinds: banking, financial, transport, health, energy, digital, algorithmic or climatic. Their presence in cases brought to the attention of judges, the variety and difficulties of which will be seen in later contributions, leads to basic questions relating to the emergence of Systemic Litigation: firstly, how can Systemic Litigation be defined? Secondly, what makes this category of litigation emerge? The answers to these two questions have essential practical consequences.  The new solutions must be based on a classic distinction, used in particular in criminal and administrative proceedings, which are more objective, but also in civil proceedings, notably by Hébraud, namely the distinction between the "party to the dispute/litigation" and the "party to the proceedings". Depending on whether it is accepted that the system should be considered as a "party to the litigation", which would allow it, through an entity that is legitimate in expressing it, to allege claims and formulate demands against an adversary, or as a "party to the proceedings", a much broader category, which would allow the judge to hear the interests of the systems involved without individuals being able, on behalf of a system, to formulate claims against or for the benefit of a party to the litigation.     This makes it possible to innovate while preserving the measure of which the judge is the guardian.   - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Masse room - ► Presentation of the conference-debate: The "Systemic Litigation" is emerging. Through and beyond the dispute, a system is involved: the banking, financial, digital, health and climate systems. How can such litigation be recognised? How do you make room for a system in a court of law? What can be done when several systems are in conflict? Who represents these systems and their interests? How can the temporality of systems and litigation be reconciled? In practical terms, the magistrate has a new role. Whether they are prosecutors or judges, they deal with systemic litigation in criminal, civil, commercial and other areas.   - 🎤see the detailed presentation of the first speech of 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche : L'émergence du Contentieux Systémique (The Emergence of Systemic Litigation) - 🧮Programme of this event:  Inaugural Conference IMPORTANCE ET SPÉCIFICITÉ DU CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT (IMPORTANCE AND SPECIFICITY OF THE EMERGING SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)   Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), Masse room 🕰️11h-11h20. 🎤L’émergence du contentieux systémique (The Emergence of the Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director if the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)   🕰️11h20-11h40. 🎤L’office du magistrat du parquet dans le contentieux systémique (The role of the Public Prosecutor in Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️François Vaissette, Avocat général près la Cour d’appel de Paris (Advocate General at the Paris Court of Appeal)   🕰️11h40-12h30. Debate - 🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com 🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/  ⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal). - 🧮Read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️ -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Nous voyons émerger aujourd’hui le contentieux systémique"" (""We are now seeing the emergence of the Systemic Litigation""), interview with Olivia Dufour, counterpoint to the interview with the Premier Président de la Cour d'appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) Jacques Boulard, "Contentieux systémique : "Il est important, pour les magistrats, de rester au plus près des réalités"" ("Systemic litigation: "It is important for judges to remain as close as possible to reality""), Actu-Juridique, March 28, 2024 - 💬read the interview (in French) - This interview is a counterpoint to the interview conducted with Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d'appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal), on the Court of Appeal's threefold initiative in establishing the Conseil de Justice Économique – CJE (Economic Justice Council), the additional chamber (5-12) to hear vigilance litigation in particular  and the setting up of the series of conference-debates on the Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation): read the interview (in French). This interview highlights Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's position at the Conseil de Justice Économique and her role as scientific director of the series of conference-debates.  As a counterpoint, the journal conducts a specific interview with Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on the specific issue of the Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation) cycle. - ► Presentation of the interview by the journal : "Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur de droit de la régulation et de la compliance et responsable scientifique du cycle « Contentieux systémique émergent » nous explique la notion de contentieux systémique et l’importance de la démarche engagée par le Premier président." (Free translation : "Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law and Scientific Director of the "Contentieux systémique émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation") cycle, explains the concept of Systemic Litigation and the importance of the approach adopted by the First President.") - For the record, the 2024 conference-debates of the "Contentieux systémique émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation") cycle: Conférence inaugurale – Vendredi 29 mars 2024, de 11h à 12h30, IMPORTANCE ET SPÉCIFICITÉ DU CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT   Deuxième conférence – Vendredi 26 avril 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LA VIGILANCE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE   Troisième conférence – Lundi 27 mai 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LES TECHNIQUES DE SUPERVISION DES CONTENUS NUMÉRIQUES DISPONIBLES SUR LES PLATEFORMES   Quatrième conférence – Lundi 24 juin 2024, de 11h à 12h30, L’INTELLIGENCE ARTIFICIELLE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE   Cinquième conférence – Lundi 9 septembre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LA PORTÉE DES NORMES DE DROIT DUR, DE DROIT SOUPLE ET DES NORMES TECHNIQUES DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT   Sixième conférence – Lundi 14 octobre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, LES TECHNIQUES PROBATOIRES ADÉQUATES DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT   Septième conférence – Lundi 18 novembre 2024, de 11h à 12h30, DISCUSSION OUVERTE   Conférence de clôture de l’année 2024 – Lundi 16 décembre 2024, de 16h à 18h, L’EXPÉRIENCE DES JURIDICTIONS DANS LE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE ÉMERGENT - ► For the record, presentation of the interview of the Premier Président (First President) by the journal (in French): "Vendredi 29 mars aura lieu la première conférence-débat du cycle de formation « Contentieux systémique émergent » à la Cour d’appel de Paris. Cette initiative s’inscrit dans le cadre d’une politique qui a menée à la création d’un Conseil de justice économique ainsi qu’à la mise en place d’une nouvelle chambre dédiée au devoir de vigilance et à la responsabilité écologique. Le Premier président de la Cour d’appel de Paris, Jacques Boulard, nous explique les objectifs et les enjeux de ces innovations.". - - 🌐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, "Compliance et conformité : les distinguer pour les articuler" ("Compliance and conformity: distinguish them in order to articulate them"), D. 2024, chron., pp. 497-499 - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► English Summary of the article: "Compliance" and "conformité" ("conformity") are sometimes presented as synonyms, with "conformité" simply being the translation of "compliance". On the contrary, they are two opposing concepts. "Conformity" refers to the obligation to obey all applicable regulations, regardless of their content. A godsend for the regulator… Compliance Law is quite different! Political and public authorities set systemic 'Monumental Goals' to ensure that systems do not collapse tomorrow, or even improve, and then entrust large companies with the task of activating the means to achieve these goals. Conformity then resumes its place in Compliance Law: being one of its tools. - 📚read the other articles published in this chronique of Compliance Law published in the Recueil Dalloz   - 🌐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, "You Porn : La CJUE face au défi de la protection des mineurs" ("You Porn: The CJEU faces the challenge of protecting minors"), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, March 11, 2024 - 💬read the interview (in French) - ► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French): "Depuis bientôt deux ans, l’Arcom tente de contraindre les sites pornographiques à mettre en place des procédés techniques sérieux de contrôle d’âge des internautes qui accèdent à leurs sites, afin que la protection des mineurs organisée par le droit pénal soit effective. Il y a à la fois une procédure civile en cours, basée notamment sur le décret qui met en œuvre ce dispositif, et un recours administratif, contestant la légalité du décret sur lequel s’appuie le régulateur pour mettre en demeure les sites d’adopter ces dispositifs techniques. Dans ce dernier contentieux, le Conseil d’État a, par sa décision du 6 mars 2024, adressé plusieurs questions préjudicielles à la CJUE pour déterminer quelle était la marge de manœuvre des États membres à l’encontre des sites qui ne respectent pas leur législation. Nous avons demandé au professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, spécialiste de droit de la compliance, de nous éclairer sur les enjeux de ce contentieux hors normes.". - ► Questions asked (in French):  Pouvez-vous nous rappeler brièvement la genèse de ce cas manifestement complexe ? C’est la première fois qu’apparaît dans une décision de justice la notion de « cause systémique » dont vous êtes l’auteure. De quoi s’agit-il exactement ? Sur ces entrefaites, une décision de la CJUE est venue bouleverser la donne… Revenons au recours devant le Conseil d’État contre le décret, il semble que le Conseil d’État avait donc le choix entre deux solutions : suivre la CJUE et donc renoncer à protéger les enfants de la pornographie en France ou bien s’émanciper de cette jurisprudence européenne au risque de se le voir reprocher. Qu’a-t-il décidé finalement ? - 🌐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, "L’enjeu de la confidentialité des avis juridiques internes au regard des « Buts Monumentaux » de la Compliance" ("The issue of confidentiality of in-house legal opinions with regard to the "Monumental Goals" of Compliance"), in L’instauration d’un Legal Privilege à la française. Le temps de l’action au service de la souveraineté et de la compétitivité de nos entreprises, Association française des juristes d'entreprise (AFJE), Association nationale des juristes de banque (ANJB) et Cercle Montesquieu, March 7, 2024, Maison de la Chimie, 28 rue Saint Dominique Paris - 📝On the same topic, read the article of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche "La compliance, socle de la confidentialité nécessaire des avis juridiques élaborés en entreprise" ("Compliance, the cornerstone of the confidentiality required for in-house legal opinions") - 🌐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, Compliance Obligation: build a compliance structure producing credible effects in the perspective of the Monumental Goals targeted by the Legislator, Working Paper, March 2024. - 📝 This Working Paper is the basis of the article "Compliance Obligation: build a compliance structure producing credible effects in the perspective of the Monumental Goals targeted by the Legislator", in📘 Compliance 'Obligation de Compliance,   - ► Summary of this Working Paper: This article explains what companies' Compliance Obligation" is. Delving into the mass of compliance obligations, it uses the method of classification of those that are subject to an obligation of result and those that are subject to an obligation of means. It justifies the choice of this essential criterion, which changes the objects and the burden of proof of companies that are subject to an obligation of result when it comes to setting up "compliance structures" and are subject to an obligation of means when it comes to the effects produced by these compliance structures. Indeed, this article goes on to analyse each body of regulations ("Sapins 2", "Vigilance", CSRD, CS3D, DSA, NIS2, DMA, DORA, AML-FT, ….) and the technical compliance obligations they impose, dividing them into obligations of result or obligations of means, depending on the text. This table of positive law thus drawn up, with reference to all the articles of the texts, shows that in positive law the Compliance Obligation has above all an evidential dimension, which is developed in the third part of the article: the company must show that it has put in place the compliance structures (obligations of result) required by the texts and it is up to third parties who criticise it for the unsatisfactory effects that these structures would have produced, according to them, to show that there is a fault or negligence on the part of the company (obligation of means). Indeed, rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a nascent branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different legal regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they have to apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only sanctioned in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means. Although it would be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations put by legislation, starting from this observation in the evidentiary system of compliance of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether it is a question of this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would then appear that this plurality will not constitute a definitive obstacle to the constitution of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable "mass of regulations". Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (effaciety) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the Goal is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else, all of which come under the heading of efficiency. The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, commensurate with these Goals. In addition, because these structures (alert mechanisms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.)  have real meaning if they are to produce effects and behaviours that lead to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account. Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the entreprise's position, ultimately Goals at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial company, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Connaitre les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC (lignes de force de l'ouvrage)" ("Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure (Main Aspects of the Book)."), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (ed.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", to be published. - 📝read the article (in French) - 📝 read also the presentation of the other contribution of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in this book: "Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense" - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published - 🌐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 & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book:  We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other.  As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d'intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. -   TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D'ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l'ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L'ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l'enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l'enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor's Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company's defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert   CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION)   Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l'avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l'ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l'effectivité des droits de la défense dans l'enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l'AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor   CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l'entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l'enquête interne (The company's responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin   CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L'AVOCAT DANS L'ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l'avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer's own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L'enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l'avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer's deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l'avocat dans l'enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer's professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever     TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot   CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L'OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L'évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l'introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson   CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L'AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s'arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l'avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer's dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims' interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti - 🌐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 & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book:  We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other.  As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - 🧮this book follows a conference organised by the Conseil national des barreaux – CNB (French National Council of Lawyers), which took place on 20 and 21 April 2023: Avocats et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée. - This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection. ► Read the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L’Obligation de Compliance, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Compliance et Contrat, forthcoming 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), 📕Compliance et vigilance bancaire, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Le système juridique de l’adressage de l’Internet. Une structure multi-acteurs, gage de durabilité (The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Internet, espace d’interrégulation, 2016 📚Read the presentations of the other titles of the collection. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. -   TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D’ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l’ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L’ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l’enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor’s Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company’s defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert   CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION)   Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l’avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l’ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l’effectivité des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l’AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor   CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l’entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l’enquête interne (The company’s responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin   CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l’avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer’s own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L’enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l’avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer’s deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l’avocat dans l’enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer’s professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever     TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot   CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L’OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L’évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l’introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson   CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s’arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l’avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer’s dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims’ interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti - 🌐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 "Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense ("Moving through Time to align Compliance with the rights of the defence")", in M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance",  2024, pp. 33-58. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📕read the general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published (in French) - 📝read also the presentation of the other article published par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in this book : "Connaitre les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC" (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in Internal Investigation, Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure) - ► English Summary of this article: the subject of Compliance & rights of the defence is difficult to pin down because it often gives rise to totally opposing presentations, which express the initial confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence, which seems irreducible. This initial confrontation must be acknowledged, and this is even more necessary to prevent it from becoming definitive(I) But in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the rights of the defence are central, and the hierarchy of norms dictates that they remain the privilege of all those who risk being punished in the future. Admittedly, if we look at the course of events in a linear way, the Compliance mechanisms come in Ex Ante, whereas the rights of the defence would only be activated when the repressive procedures would later come to bear on the moral or natural person. The question would therefore not even arise, or not in a central way. But this reasoning creates a false compatibility between Compliance and the rights of the defence (II. Indeed, it is the perspective of punishment in the future that forms the basis for the attribution of rights of the defence in the present. This consideration of the future not only allows but obliges the Law to "move in time", to always think in advance about what might happen tomorrow: this is how we must think about the Compliance methods of Internal Investigation, the DPA (or in the French legal system the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public and the French Guilty plea procedure (CRPC) (III). As soon as these Compliance Tools are being used in practice, at the time they are being used, we must already think about how their results will be used, results which they have often been used for, because the Internal Investigation is a formidable piece of Evidence for obtaining a conviction and/or a DPA, etc. : therefore, the rights of the defence must shift over time, from the future to the present of the Information collect. Two ambiguities that affect Compliance Law itself, ambiguities which the rights of the defence help to clarify, now appear more clearly.  The first concerns the place occupied by the consent of the person who could have been protected by the rights of defence but //who exercises his/her will to renounce them (IV). Consent, in relation to the will of which it is the expression, is also linked with the future and allows Compliance once again to take precedence over the prerogatives of the individual who chooses not to benefit from it. The omnipresence of 'consent' in Compliance is enlightening here… The second ambiguity concerns the place of secrecy (V). Secrecy seems to be the prerogative of the rights of the defence. But it can also be an effective Compliance Tool when Confidentiality enables the company to detect and prevent breaches. It may even constitute the very Monumental Goal of Compliance Law. This happens when the Goal of Compliance Law, in which legal normativity is placed, becomes the protection of the individual, as is the case for personal information. That guides the European Judge, in line with the humanism that underpins European Compliance Law, in finding the right balance, this protection and effectiveness, depending on whether the information must be given or must be not. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law