Conferences and Talks

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Considérer la géographie pour réussir le Devoir de Vigilance" ("Taking Geography into account for a successful Vigilance Duty"), concluding speech in Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? Regards croisés en droit international, droit comparé et droit OHADA (Vigilance Duty : what African perspectives? Cross-analysis of International Law, Comparative Law and OHADA Law), Institut de Recherche en Droit des Affaires et du Patrimoine (IRDAP), Bordeaux, 15 November 2024. - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation (in French) - ► English summary of this concluding speech: This concluding speech was made "on the bench", i.e. directly after listening to all the day's speakers. It is not, therefore, based on an a priori conception of the subject, but on the impression that emerged from the whole, as one speaker followed another. The general impression is that these compliance instruments, of which the vigilance tool is the spurred head, are only appropriate if they fulfill the purpose for which they were devised and imposed, which presupposes that they are appropriate to the concrete situations to which they apply: to the country, to the legislation that shapes and expresses this country, to its economy, to its population. There is certainly room for improvement. But Vigilance legal instruments, like Compliance Law, are new mechanisms that are in the process of taking shape: we must seek to improve them and find solutions: 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Duty of Vigilance: the way forward, 2024   This is not easy, especially if we get lost in the jigsaw puzzle of texts and decisions in which the vigilance technique fits, particularly at French, European and international level: 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Vigilance, a piece of the European puzzle, 2023   Listening to all the many and varied speakers, it is clear that progress needs to be made to ensure that the Vigilance instrument takes greater account of the concrete situations reflected in the various legal systems of African countries, and in particular the unified OHADA legal system. It can be done, as long as everyone is willing to bear it in mind. 🧱🕴🏻J.-B. Racine, 📝Geographical dominance in the choice and the use of compliance tools. Introductory remarks, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021   The speakers demonstrated that the good feelings of Paris or Brussels can pave the way for African hell, for example when about the children labour. The same is true of the fight against corruption, as Mohamed Salah showed. 🧱🕴🏻M.M. Salah ,📝Conception and Application of Compliance in Africa, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021 - Meanwhile, listening to each other, it appears that often, despite using the same words, the speakers were not talking about the same thing, particularly not in terms of what the very term "Vigilance" refers to, the difference between the French and English being a challenge because "due diligences" are not the same than Vigilance duty . This is a sign that what we call a duty, or an obligation, or a spontaneous commitment, or a legal order criminally sanctioned, which are not at all the same thing, shows the immaturity of this notion of "Vigilance". What's more, we sometimes talk about the climate, or human rights, or the need to fight corruption or money laundering. These latter concerns are undoubtedly covered by texts classified under Compliance Law, some of which assert that Vigilance is the cutting edge, while others claim that Compliance is alien to or merely a component of Vigilance, because Vigilance embraces ethics, while Compliance is merely obedience to the norm ('conformity'). It is clear that the absence of an agreement on definitions is a handicap in practice, as we do not know which legal regime will apply. This uncertainty is problematic in practice because the regulations don't  lay down definitions which alone make it possible to deduce the outline of the obligations of each party, particularly not those of the companies, which ask for instructions for use. Companies receive contradictory interpretations for the same situation, depending on who you are dealing with (a regulator or an NGO for example) or depending on the text (a text specific to the industrial activity, a text specific to the country, or a text from the country of the ordering company on the duty of vigilance, or a text from ordinary contract law or a text that will come from a soft law that remains rather mysterious).   This uncertainty feeds the passion that surrounds the issue of vigilance, with everyone speaking out, the specialists who want to talk about it being suspected of being a technocrat or captured, and those who don't speak out being the local population for whom others speak out. As a result, two phenomena are set to persist, which we had hardly anticipated but which are set to increase: the contractualisation of all vigilance mechanisms and the jurisdictionalisation of all vigilance organisation. - The first phenomenon is the contracting of Vigilance. This contractualisation is the means by which companies have been carrying out their legal compliance obligations for years, using a contractual art that is becoming increasingly sophisticated. We have very little information on these contracts, which are nonetheless what allow companies to obey the regulations and also to add to them, a combination of obedience and contractual freedom, the effects of which in practice have not yet been fully measured. 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Will, Heart and Calculation, the Three Traits Encercling the Compliance Obligation, 2024 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2025   But they do raise essential questions. Firstly, they will bring back the jurisdiction of general courts , for example the commercial courts (tribunaux de commerce) in France, and the courts of the countries where the industrial operations take place: moreover, they are the natural route to international arbitration. They are a new type of contract, since they structure "value chains" (a managerial concept). 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Compliance Contract, Compliance Clauses, 2022   There are two key issues concerning these contracts: they directly concern African countries, their economic activity and their populations, as described throughout all the speeches. The first is to know who governs the structural apparatus constituted by these 'regulatory contracts' through which chains of activity are built as durable structures. Who is strong and who is weak, between companies and states? The second is to find out how much of the reality of the country and of local economic activity is taken into account by the subsidiary, and how much consideration is given to the local people involved: are the people who are actually involved really "taken into consideration" when we speak for them? Who is best placed to speak on their behalf, to defend them, to get to know them? If we want to contextualise, refine and get to know the situation as closely as possible, in other words if we want to have definitions so that we know what we are talking about, but at the same time start from geographical and human realities, then it is the Judge who appears because the court starts from the facts. - This is the second phenomenon that has emerged and is set to increase: the jurisdictionalisation of Vigilance. 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023 This is understandable, since the judge is able to take cognisance of the facts, the situation in Uganda or Tanzania, and what is often referred to as the "extraterritoriality" of the Compliance mechanisms being thus compensated for. However, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Court of First Instance (decided in France by a 2021 law) may become more difficult, as it is even further away from Africa than the ordering company is. But it is precisely the contract judges who can be called upon to rule on the basis of Contract Law. This central role of the judge raises a number of procedural difficulties that have either not yet been resolved, moreover are not still being perceive 🧱🕴🏻mafr (dir.), 🧮Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance Genreral Procedural Law), 2024   At the interface between procedure and substance, evidentiary issues require the development of a new evidentiary system. When the relevant facts are in Africa but the company accountable for them is in France under legislation adopted in Europe, this must be taken into account. 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 📝The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023   What's more, since the Monumental Goal is to prevent, manage and detect risks, it is the future that is the main object of proof. A difficult subject by its very nature of the future, which calls for caution. Caution is to be expected from Judges, who may prefer the solution of an agreement: the contract and the commitment come back, for example through mediation, among the methods of conflict resolution. But as close as possible to where it happens, OHADA's courts can then be called upon to hear States and populations.   What is more, in contractualisation (at which point the two major phenomena, contractualisation and jurisdictionalisation, enter into a dialectic), the clauses work together to activate the natural judge of the international contract, including vigilance clauses: the international arbitrator. 🧱🕴🏻L. Aynès, 📝How international arbitration can reinforce the Compliance Obligation, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2025   OHADA has institutional arbitration mechanisms. Now is the time to guide them so that they open up Africa to Vigilance and open up Vigilance to Africa. In concrete terms. - 🌐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 Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les droits de la défense sont au bénéfice de tout le monde, y compris de l’entreprise elle-même" (The rights of defence benefit everyone, including the company itself), interview by Chloé Lassel, in Guide Compliance Fraudes Investigations, edition 2024, ed. Décideurs, Oct. 2024, pp. - 💬read the interview (in French) 🌐its  présentation on LinkedIn (in French) - ► Presentation of this interview by Décideurs juridiques : "Directrice du Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et fondatrice de l’École européenne de droit de la régulation et de la compliance, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche revient sur la révolution du droit de la compliance, son articulation avec les enquêtes internes et les droits de la défense, la place que vont y prendre les contrats et l’arbitrage international." ("Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and founder of the European School of Regulatory and Compliance Law, looks back at the revolution in Compliance Law, its relationship with internal investigations and the rights of the defence, and the role that contracts and international arbitration will play in it. - ► Questions asked, Answers given:  Décideurs. Question : La compliance est au cœur des préoccupations des entreprises depuis plusieurs années. Pouvez-vous expliquer ce que c’est exactement ? (Compliance has been a key concern for companies for several years. Can you explain what it is exactly?) Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. English summary Answer: 'Compliance' should not be confused with 'Compliance', which I defined in 2016. Compliance Law is an extension of Regulatory Law, by freeing the latter from the existence of a sector as a prerequisite and a regulatory authority as an indicator. Internalised in the company, it manifests itself, for example, in Vigilance mechanisms, which are its cutting edge. Through Compliance, the political authority asks companies to help it achieve "Monumental Goals", as I have suggested, standards in which this new branch of Law is anchored (anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, sustainability, etc.).   D. Q. : Les entreprises doivent désormais être enquêtrices et juges de ce qu’il leur arrive. Voire transmettre aux autorités, lorsqu’il le faut, des informations pouvant les incriminer. Comment concilier ces obligations avec les droits de la défense ? (Companies must now be investigators and judges of what happens to them. When necessary, they can even pass on incriminating information to the authorities. How do you reconcile these obligations with the rights of the defence?) MaFR. English summary A.: In 2023, I proposed this expression of companies as "prosecutors and judges of themselves", and the place that this should give to the rights of the defence, and in 2024 I will work out the right balance between internal investigations and the rights of the defence. For the moment, this balance has not been achieved.   D. Q. : Dans l’un de vos ouvrages, François Ancel, conseiller à la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation, écrit que la compliance renouvelle l’office du juge. Comment concilier cette idée avec l’office habituel du juge qui est celui de se prononcer sur des faits avérés et non pas futurs ? (In one of your books, François Ancel, judge in the First Civil Chamber of the French Court of Cassation, writes that Compliance is renewing the role of the judge. How do you reconcile this idea with the judge's usual role, which is to rule on proven facts rather than future ones?) MaFR. English summary A.: Indeed, In this book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance (Compliance Jurisdictionalisation), he stresses that the role of the civil and commercial courts is being profoundly renewed, in particular because they must deal with what I described in 2021 as "Systemic Litigation" and must rule on the future. From then on, the ordinary courts will take centre stage.   D. Q. : Le recours aux clauses de compliance est-il une solution pour être à la hauteur des ambitions de la compliance et de ses exigences ? (Is the use of compliance clauses a solution for living up to the ambitions and requirements of compliance?) MaFR. English summary A.: Indeed, in 2022, I developed the concepts of 'Compliance Contract' and 'Compliance clauses', by which companies implement their legal compliance obligations. This gives rise to Regulatory Contracts, particularly in business chains. This gives a great deal of leeway and power, but also Responsibility, to the companies that invent them.   D. Q. : Le recours aux arbitrages doit-il être privilégié ? (D. Q. Should recourse to arbitration be preferred?) MaFR. English summary A.: It has to be. Because there is a contract. Even though Compliance is closely bound up with the legal obligations and public order, and possibly international public order. Even if this is not yet apparent, Compliance and International Arbitration are natural allies. - 🌐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 Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Entreprises assujetties au Droit de la Compliance : la charge de prouver la crédibilité de la trajectoire des actions entreprises à partir des structures mises en place" ("Companies subject to Compliance Law: the burden of proving the credibility of the course of action taken on the basis of the structures put in place"), in Les techniques probatoires adéquates dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Appropriate Evidentiary Techniques in 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, October 14, 2024, 11am.-12.30pm., Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ► English Summary of the conference : As developed below, the presentation shows that Systemic Litigation highlights what is incumbent on systemic companies: first and foremost, a permanent Evidential Obligation that they must satisfy with regard to stakeholders, in particular investors, partners, consumers and public opinion, whether or not there is a lawsuit. But it is essential to determine the purpose of this proof, the burden of which is permanent. It is a question of showing the efforts made on an ongoing basis by the crucial company to ensure that the system in which it operates does not collapse ("Negative Monumental Goal"), or even that it improves ("Positive Monumental Goal"). As these are inherently future factual goals, which is akin to impossible proof, it is a question of demonstrating "Credibility", i.e. showing that the structures put in place by the company and the behaviour already obtained by it, both internally and externally, generate a "trajectory" which can reasonably be expected to produce the effects expected by the Legislator which places obligations on companies. This is relevant whatever the systems involved, be they banking, financial, energy, climate, digital, etc., and whatever the monumental systemic goal targeted, be it the fight against corruption, money laundering, harmful climate change, the establishment of effective equality between human beings, respect for others, etc. It is in this new conception that the traditional notions of the object of proof, the burden of proof, presumption, means of proof, exemption from proof, and above all the judge's evidentiary role, must be adjusted to the Systemic Litigation that is emerging. - 🌐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, E. Silva Romero, G. Filhol, V. Autret, B. Sillaman et K. Hennessee, Compliance & arbitrage : les prémices d’une symbiose, propos recueillis par O. Delaunay, LJA Magazine, septembre-octobre 2024, pp. 12-20 - 💬read the collective interview (in French) - 🌐read the presentation of this interview on LinkedIn - ► Topics covered during this collective interview:  The development of Compliance in an international environment The Arbitrator and the concept of Compliance Linking Arbitration and Compliance systems - ► Summary of my interventions: Compliance Law appears to be developing in the context of international trade and Arbitration. For my part, I placed particular emphasis on the fact that the first reports were the result of "negative reports" between Compliance and Arbitration, through Criminal Law and the obligation of arbitrators to ensure that they don't give effectivity to pacts of corruption. But the future lies in a more 'positive' and fruitful relationship between this new branch of law, Compliance Law, and the solid prospect offered by Arbitration, in that the arbitrator, this natural judge of international trade, will be able to support the contractualisation of Compliance obligations, particularly about due diligences in structural chains of activities and duty of vigilance. Thus competent, the international arbitrator must respond to what the Monumental Goals in which Compliance Law is rooted expect of him/her: to provide solutions and remedies to issues that often concern an entire chain of activity or an entire sector in a more systemic perspective than in a traditional conception. This applies not only to investment arbitration, but also, for instance, to infrastructure arbitration. The concern for sustainability and the systemic perspective must be integrated into the reasoning and produce appropriate case law, a sort of new doctrine in the arbitration order, that will make more attractive the arbitration place that will most solidly link the skills of specialists in Compliance Law and Arbitration Law. - 🌐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 Newsletter Surplomb, by MAFR

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l'"incidence" et s’organiser" ("Duty of vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised"), in L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The Impact of the Duty of Vigilance on Commercial Litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, September 25, 2024, 17.15pm to 20pm - 🌐read the report of this speech on LinkedIn (in French) - 🧮see the full programme of this event (in French) - 🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event - 🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event (in French) - ► English Summary of the conference: After listening to the enlightening speeches of François Ancel and Jean-Christophe Roda, I had the great opportunity to emphasise, as they did, that the duty of vigilance, in the respect of French laws of 2017 and 2021, with a view to the transposition of the CS3D, does not imply, so brutally as has been said, a lack of knowledge by judges other than those of the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) of this new Law, which is the extension of Compliance Law, as François Ancel reminded us. Because Commercial Court judges deal with Contract Law on a daily basis, and because companies build their value chains through contracts that should be described as "regulatory contracts", the duty of vigilance has an "impact" on these disputes. These disputes may be of a "systemic" nature. This can only result not in jurisdictional trenches, but in "shared jurisdiction", along the lines drawn by François Ancel. This sharing must be built through a dialogue between judges, a necessary method on which Patrick Sayer concluded this elaborate conference on an essential and forward-looking subject. - 🌐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, "Comment s’adapter au Contentieux Émergent de la Compliance" ("How to adapt to Emerging Compliance Litigation"), in , Association nationale des juristes de banque (ANJB), September 19, 2024, Paris, - This conference is being held with another speaker, Maître Jean-Pierre Picca. It is followed by a discussion with the audience. - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation - ► English Summary of this conference: Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, teleological in nature, whose legal normativity is rooted in its goals.These are systemic goals of preserving systems by detecting the risks that weaken them and preventing the failures that can destroy them. It is therefore an Ex Ante branch of Law, the implementation of which will weigh on the "entities" in a position to detect risks and prevent failures so that these systemic goals are achieved.  As such, they are "Monumental Goals" in that they are political goals aimed at complete systems. It is therefore essential to distinguish between "conformity Law", which simply consists of "complying" with the applicable regulations, and Compliance Law, which consists of contributing to the achievement of these "Monumental Goals", either by force (legal obligation) or by choice (raison d'être, company with mission, contractual obligation, CSR). In this respect, Compliance Law is both much more limited in its aims and much more ambitious, since it is about building the future rather than mechanically complying with regulations. The banking sector, which can be considered an exception to the principle of Competition, which is based on extreme mobility and the absence of rents, the destruction of the weakest, risk-taking, the lack of solidity of the operator posing no problem, appears to be the paragon of the principle of Compliance, which is based on the sustainability of systems ensured by the solidity of the operators themselves, their solidarity, the exchange of information, and integrated supervisors. For example, the duty of vigilance and the information about others, and the Regulation through Supervision were born in this sector, which has internalised this sectoral concern in the banks, itself the bearer of a general concern, particularly in the European conception of continental banking. the European Banking Union  increasing this concern. As a result, banks will internalise concerns about the future that go beyond safeguarding the banking sector, such as preventing systemic climate risk or educating the population or safeguarding people in vulnerable situations. - The litigation that shall ensue is itself highly specific. The topic of this conference is to provide the keys to understanding how banks must play their part. Emerging Compliance Litigation is systemic in nature. It is a reflection of the Ex Ante organisation whereby entities are asked to make a contribution to the achievement of Monumental Goals. In a dispute between two opposing parties, an individual or an NGO or a trade union or a municipality or a State and a bank, a conflict arises between what might be called the party claiming to represent the present and future interests of a system, for example the climate system or the social relations system, and the bank which has a legally imposed "compliance obligation" to help protect this system. The author who described this perfectly was Chaïm Perelman, particularly in his 1978 book, Logique juridique, which describes audience circles. We need to understand the systemic construction of the judicial instance. The bank must not let to be confined itself solely to its role as litigant, while the other party, for example an NGO, in its role as guardian of "civil society" or the "climate system" or the "effective equality between human beings", going beyond this first circle between the litigants and brings the system itself into the proceedings.  This is where the adaptation has to take place.  - This adaptation is procedural, evidentiary and substantive. The procedural adaptation must take place even before any litigation, since there is a continuum between Ex Ante and Ex Post, with the Judicial System itself being just one accountability method (rendering of accounts) among others. This accountability takes place in relation to a ‘mission’ that is entrusted to the banks in relation to the goals: prevention, detection and the fight against corruption, money laundering, climate change, etc., by building alliances, making good use of information (knowing how to take it, knowing how not to pass it on, knowing how to pass it on). The procedure, i.e. the way in which something is done, must reflect a substantial element, in that it engenders a ‘sense of responsibility’: the purpose of Compliance Law is to ‘make powers accountable’ and to build on positions of power. The proper procedure is to make ‘good use of one's power’ for the benefit of others. Techniques for ‘taking others into consideration’ are an essential element. Consideration by the person who agrees to exercise power (the power to finance, the power to gather information, the power to organise together, the power to contract). Evidentiary’ adaptation: indifference of evidentiary obligations and rights to the procedural position of the parties. The firm has a ‘Compliance Obligation’ even if it is the defendant in the proceedings. The object of proof is given to it by the Monumental Goals that the Law or its own will require it to help achieve. Its burden is to show that it is helping to achieve these goals, by acting for the future (for example, by knowing its customers, or by taking into account the interests of its stakeholders, etc.). - ► Structure of the speech:  I. The current situation: suffering the harmful consequences of reducing Compliance Law to the mechanics of "conformity". II. The opportunity for banks to adapt by understanding Compliance Law and going beyond the mechanics of conformity: the European puzzle, its apparent complexity, its architectural clarity (CSRD/CS3D/DSA). III. The opportunity for banks not to allow themselves to be trapped in proceedings that are merely sanctions, transferred from Ex Post to Ex Ante: the emergence of Systemic Compliance Litigations before the Ordinary Law Courts (French Law of 2017 on Vigilance; Paris Court of appeal decisions of 18 June 2024). IV. What is expected of banks in Systemic Compliance and Vigilance Litigations before the Ordinary Courts, reflecting the dialogue and action required by Compliance Law (article to be published).  V. The opportunity for banks to adapt to the new evidentiary dimension of emerging Compliance and Vigilance Litigation (article to be published). VI. The opportunity for banks to adapt to the new Ex Ante dimension of Systemic Compliance and Vigilance Litigation, Litigation which deals with the future (article to be published). - ► A few bibliographical references:    🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance and conformity: distinguish them in order to articulate them, 2024 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Duty of Vigilance: the way forward, 2024 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Systemic Litigation, 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, participation to the round table "Le droit à l'enfant : réalité ou faux concept ?" ("The right to a child: reality or false concept?"), in Regards croisés sur les nouvelles filiations, Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), September 12, 2024 - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ► Summary of the conference:  -   🌐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, "Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique" ("Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation"), in Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligation and 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, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ► English summary of the conference: Systemic Litigation refers to a specific category whose proposed category in 2021 refers to "cases" brought before the courts, sometimes specialised, sometimes under ordinary law courts: these are cases in which not only are the parties involved in their dispute but also a system is itself involved, with the procedure and the judge having to allow the interests of the system to be taken into consideration. However, what is also the subject of new terminology, namely the "Sustainability Report", reflects the same legal revolution: the company must be able to assess not only its economic and financial performance, which is the subject of accounting, but also its development in terms of what it does externally in terms of ESG and what the outside world does about it. In this perspective, the whole Information System is being transformed, and in different ways depending on the standards adopted, in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, either it is sufficient to obtain Information, no more, so that third parties can adjust their behaviour, mainly investments, or, as in Europe, Law includes a more substantial perspective, so that the company itself adjusts its own behaviour, its Governance, its position in the world, in a renewed relationship with its stakeholders. In Europe, saying and doing are intertwined, CSRD being twinned with CS3D. Moreover, we can therefore consider that non-financial information, through the sustainability report, its assurance of credibility and the regulation of the audit carried out on it, is itself a system. The sustainability report, inside the sustainability system, is then interwoven with other systems, which are themselves the subject of Emerging Systemic Litigation: firstly Vigilance, which has been studied as a field of systemic litigation, and then artificial intelligence field, which has been studied in the same way. The Sustainability Report, insofar as it intersects with the sustainability obligation implied by the duty of Vigilance, may be attracted to the Systemic Litigation to which Vigilance gives rise. In the same way, algorithms can be a tool for data accumulating and matching ESG criteria, which could have the same attraction effect. If this happens, this dimension will have to be present and understood, for example through amici curiae mechanism, in conjunction with the Regulators and the professions concerned. In addition, as in any emerging mechanism, and as we have seen for example in relation to rating agencies, Tort Law may interfere if the liability of either the company or the person who carried out the audit were to be appreciated, the systemic perspective then having to be integrated into the handling of the case, even before the non-specialised judge.   - 🌐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 deux rencontres entre l'intelligence artificielle et le Contentieux Systémique" ("The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation"), in L’intelligence artificielle, nouveau champ de Contentieux Systémique (Artificial intelligence, new field of 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, June 24, 2024, 11am-12.30pm, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom. - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ► English Summary of the conference: In the general presentation on the theme itself, I underlined "The two meetings between Artificial Intelligence and Systemic Litigation". The focus of this conference is not the state of what is usually called Artificial Intelligence, but rather how to correlate AI and "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL). This involves recalling what "Systemic Litigation" is (1), then looking at the contribution of Artificial Intelligence to dealing with this type of litigation (2), before considering that the algorithmic system itself can be a subject of Systemic Litigation (3).   1. What is the Systemic Litigation that we see Emerging? On the very notion of "Emerging Systemic Litigation" (ESL), proposed in 2021, read : M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021 Emerging Systemic Litigation concerns situations that are brought before the Judge and in which a System is involved. This may involve the banking system, the financial system, the energy system, the digital system, the climate system or the algorithmic system. In this type of litigation, the interests and future of the system itself are at stake, "in the case". The judge must therefore "take them into consideration"📎¹🕴️Fr. Ancel, 📝Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial?, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024.. In this respect, "Emerging Systemic Litigation" must be distinguished from "Mass Litigation". "Mass litigation" refers to a large number of similar disputes. The fact that they are often of "low importance" is not necessarily decisive, as these disputes are important for the people involved and the use of A.I. must not overpower the specificity of each one. The fact remains, however, that the criterion for Systemic Litigation is the presence of a system. It may happen that a mass litigation calls into question the very interest of a system (for example, value date litigation), but more often than not the Systemic Litigation we see emerging is, unlike mass litigation, a very specific case in which one party, for example, formulates a very specific claim (e.g., asking for considerable work to be stopped) against a multinational company, and will thus "call into question" an entire value chain and the obligations incumbent on the powerful company to safeguard the climate system, which is therefore present in the proceedings (which does not, however, entitle it to make claims, but which must be taken into consideration).   2. The contribution of Algorithmic Power in the conduct of a Systemic Litigation In this respect, AI can be a useful, if not indispensable, tool for mastering such Systemic Litigation, the emergence of which corresponds to a novelty, and the knowledge of which is brought before the Ordinary Law Judge. Indeed, this type of litigation is particularly complex and time-consuming, with evidentiary issues at the heart of the case, and with expert appraisal following on from expert appraisal. Expert appraisals are difficult to carry out. AI can therefore be a means for the judge to control the expert dimension of Systemic Litigation, in order to curb the increased risk of experts capturing the judge's decision-making power. The choice of AI techniques presents the same difficulties as those that have always applied to experts. It is likely that certification mechanisms, analogous to registration on expert lists, will be put in place, if we move away from construction by the courts themselves (or by the government, which may pose a problem for the independence of the judiciary), or if we want control over tools provided by the parties themselves, with regard to the principle of equality of arms due to the cost of these tools.   3. When it is the Algorithmic System itself that is the subject of a Systemic Litigation: its place is then rather in defense Moreover, the algorithmic system itself gives rise to Systemic Litigation, in that individuals may bring a case before the courts claiming to have suffered damage as a result of the algorithmic system's operation, or seeking enforcement of a contract drawn up by the system. It is in the realm of the Ordinary Contract and Tort Law that the system may find itself involved in the jurisdictional proceedings. It is noteworthy that, compared with the hypotheses hitherto favored in previous conference-debates, notably those of April 26, 2024 on Emerging Systemic Litigation linked to the Duty of Vigilance📎²🧮La vigilance, nouveau champ de contentieux systémique (Vigilance, new field of 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, June 24, 2024., the systems involved have been taken into consideration more behind the claims articulated by the plaintiffs, since they allege that a system has been attacked. It would then be "civil society" acting against the company. In the case of the algorithmic system, the initial litigation is made up of allegations that accuse the system of infringing rights (e.g. copyright, right to privacy, etc.). However, the instance changes if the system is no longer presented as the potential "victim" but rather as the potential "culprit". In particular, it is much less clear what type of intervener in the proceedings, who is not necessarily a party to the dispute, should speak to explain the system's interest, particularly with regard to the sustainability and future of the AI system. This is an area for further consideration by heads of courts. -

► Full reference:  M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Entreprises et compliance : une justice et des juges plus offensifs" ("Companies and compliance: more aggressive courts and judges"), interview conducted by Jean-Philippe Denis 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, released on June 14, 2024. - 🌐consult the December 2023 presentation of the interview on LinkedIn - 🎥watch the interview video on LinkedIn, with English subtitles - 🧱consult the general presentation of this series of interviews on Compliance Law - ► Starting point: Since 2016, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche has been building Compliance Law, notably through a collection co-published in French with Editions Dalloz and co-published in English with Editions Bruylant:  🧱read the presentation in English of the series in French, Régulations & Compliance ➡️click HERE  🧱read the presentation of the series in English, Compliance & Regulation ➡️click HERE - ► Summary of interview:   Jean-Philippe Denis. Question :  Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  Answer. :  - J.-Ph D. Q. : Thus MaFR. A. : Yes,  - J.-Ph. D. Q. : Thus MaFR. A. : Yes,  -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Participation in the panel "Une Gouvernance responsable : vers un mieux vivre ensemble ?" ("Responsible governance: towards a better way of living together"), in Grenelle du Droit 5. L'avenir de la filière juridique, Association française des juristes d'entreprise ("The future of the legal profession"), AFJE), Cercle Montesquieu and Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Campus Port-Royal Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1 rue de la Glacière, 75013 Paris, June 12, 2024 - 🧮See the full programme of this event (in French) - 🎥watch the interview made just after this round-table discussion (in French) - 🪑🪑🪑🪑🪑 will also be taking part in this round-table discussion: 🕴️Yves Garagnon, Chairman of Dilitrust, 🕴️Pierrick Le Goff, lawyer, partner at De Gaulle Fleurance, 🕴️Sabine Lochmann, Chairman of Ascend, 🕴️Vincent Vigneau, President of the Commercial, Economic and Financial Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French Judicial Supreme Court) - ► English presentation of my intervention in this event's opening plenary  round-table: In this plenary round table which opens the event, devoted to the theme of 'responsible corporate governance', for my interventions based on my work I will have the opportunity to address more particularly these different perspectives: How the new Compliance Law, which gives concrete expression to the responsibility of enterprises in a new relationship with States and with civil society, constitutes a 'legal revolution 💡for the record, mafr,📝Compliance Law, 2016 ; (ed.) 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022   how the judgment handed down by the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) on 28 February 2023 (Total Ouganda case) is remarkable and already constitutes a turning point in case law 💡for the record, mafr, 🎤audition as amica curiae, hearing of 26 October 2022 before the first instance Paris Court; (ed)📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024   how the relationship between States and enterprises is being renewed by this profound legal movement expressed by Compliance Law 💡for the record, mafr et M. Boissavy (ed.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense – Enquêtes internes, CJIP, CRPC, mafr (dir.), 📘 Compliance Obligation, 2025   how internal lawyers have a decisive and central role to play in this movement, particularly in the mechanism of vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence, the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, 💡for the record, mafr, 📝Contract of Compliance, Compliance stipulations, 2023 ; (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2025   what is meant by the "Ex Ante responsibility" of enterprises, which does not necessarily entail their Ex Post liability, a distinction which lawyers are the guardians of 💡for the record, mafr, 📝La responsabilité Ex Ante, pilier du Droit de la Compliance ("Ex-Ante Responsability, Compliance Law Pillar"), 2021   how European Compliance Law is profoundly humanist, an identity that distinguishes European Compliance from American Compliance and, above all, from Chinese Compliance. 💡for the record, mafr (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance ("For the Europe of the Compliance"), 2017 - read the  article about this round table written by Delphine Bauer in Actu-Juridique (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, "Le Contentieux Systémique Emergent du fait du système numérique ("emerging systemic litigation arising from the digital system"), in Les contrôles techniques des risques présents sur les plateformes et les contentieux engendrés (Technical controls on the risks present on platforms and the disputes that arise), 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, May 27,2024, 9h-10h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin room - 🧮see the full programme of this event - 🧮see the full programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation) - 🔲see the slides (in French), basis of this conference - 🌐read on  LinkedIn the summary of this conference les slides - 🎤read  the presentation of the second conference in this manifestation: "Un contentieux systémique in vivo : le cas dit des sites pornographiques" ("a Systemic Litigation in vivo: the case of pornographic prestations platforms") - 🧱read the general presentation of this scientific coordination of this manifestation and its various speechs - 🌐read on LinkedIn the summary of this manifestation in the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Summary of this conference: This speech is a prelude to the three more specific speeches and aims to show how the digital system, by its very nature, produces and will produce "Systemic Litigation".  Systemic Litigation" is defined by "cases" (a procedural notion) brought before judges, who may be judges of first instance, or possibly emergency judges, in which the interests, or even the future, of a system are involved beyond the dispute between the parties.  This Systemic Case may be brought before a specialised judge, including the juridictional body of a Regulatory or Supervisory Authority, but also before a judge of ordinary Law, on the basis of a special text but possibly on the basis of a text of ordinary Law. This can lead to a fragmentation of litigation, even though the unity of the system remains, or even is at stake, in the present and in the future. The "digital system" is an example of the "natural" production of Systemic Litigation which arise as a result of the Digital System alone, in particular because of the systemic risks inherent in this system, and the fact that their prevention and management are internalised in the operators who have built and manage the system (Compliance Law). The issue is therefore one of Interregulation. Platforms in particular give rise to Systemic Litigation because of the specific nature of certain risks, for example disinformation, terrorism, destruction of rights (copyright being just one example), the risk of minors having access to content that is destructive for them, and so on. Digital Systemic Litigation has only just begun. It is essential that judges are prepared for this and that they face up to it together through dialogue.             - 🌐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, "Synthèse" ("Synthesis"), in Concurrence : les enjeux de la Compliance​, May 24, 2024, Paris, Collège européen de Paris, Paris Panthéon-Assas University, 28 rue Saint-Guillaume - 🧮see the full programme of this event (in French):  🌐read the  la newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation on 26 Mai 2024 about this colloquium and this synthesis (in English) - ► Summary of this concluding conference:The conference was based on the 'framework document' on conformity programmes published by the French Competition Authority, the Autorité de la concurrence, on 24 May 2022 and focused on one of the tools used, namely risk mapping. The care taken to bring together academics whose job it is to give an account of reality by classifying and naming it, which makes it easier to handle, and people who every day in enterprises find solutions to anticipate difficulties so that they can be resolved, or even prevented from arising, has borne fruit. - From all the presentations and discussions, 4 perspectives emerge, each showing what has been achieved, what may still emerge in interaction with all the other mechanisms in Compliance Law that incorporate risk mapping (for instance ,the French 2016 so-called "Sapin 2" law, the French 2017 so-called "Vigilance" law, the CS3D European directive, etc.) and the other mechanisms that are correlated with risk mapping (audit, internal investigations, evidence likely to be raised before a judge by the enterprise and/or by a stakeholder and what remains uncertain in this 2022 framework document.   - The first perspective is the basis of these recommendations, encouragement, methods, advice, etc. The second perspective is the means developed to establish and implement these compliance programmes. The third perspective is the scope of this framework document, which also depends to a large extent on the scope of the compliance programmes adopted by the firms themselves. The fourth perspective is that of the subjects of law who are obliged, or who benefit from the adoption of such  compliance programmes in Competition Law.   - During this conclusion, based solely on what each speaker had to say, I continued my reflections in each of these 4 directions. This reminded me of some of my work made in English on this subject:  M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, ,2022   M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧 Support from Compliance Law for day-to-day management of Competition Law, 2021   M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧 Competition Law and Compliance Law, 2018   - 🌐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 management : la médiation plutôt que la sanction ?" ("Compliance and management: mediation rather than punishment?"), interview conducted by Jean-Philippe Denis 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, released on May 22, 2024 - 🌐consult the December 2023 presentation of the interview on LinkedIn - 🌐read the MAFR. Law, Compliance, Regulation of April 2024 based on this interview  - 🧱consult the general presentation of this series of interviews on Compliance Law - 🎥view the full interview on Xerfi Canal - ► Starting point: Since 2016, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche has been building Compliance Law, notably through a collection co-published in French with Editions Dalloz and co-published in English with Editions Bruylant:  🧱lire la présentation de la collection en langue française, Régulations & Compliance ➡️click HERE  🧱read the presentation of the series in English, Compliance & Regulation ➡️click HERE - ► Summary of interview: Jean-Philippe Denis. Question: To put it bluntly, isn't Compliance Law expressed by the BNP Paribas fine? Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  Answer: It is still through this fine that Compliance is often perceived. How regrettable… - Jean-Philippe Denis. Q.: At least, that's how the Politician realised there was a subject…. Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  A. : This is true, and not just for politicians and firms since this case has had an impact on European public opinion. This matter has therefore become known for the violence of the sanctions, and the intervention of heads of State to reduce their consequences. But we're talking about sanctions. Meanwhile, others talk about compliance through soft law, soft co-regulation, charters and soft commitments, the contours of which are sometimes uncertain. Today, adjustments are made regarding the Monumental Goals of preserving the systems on which this Compliance Law is based, and tools are used on this basis, tools with which lawyers are very familiar: contracts. Through contracts, enterprises structure their compliance obligations. - Jean-Philippe Denis. Q.: You point out that Compliance Law is becoming more civilised and that more people are resorting to mediation. Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  A.: Yes, Compliance Law is becoming more civilised, and civil law is becoming increasingly important, particularly through Contract Law, with stipulations being inserted to prevent human rights or environmental infringements. As Compliance Law operates on an ex-ante basis, the enterprise will organise dialogue with stakeholders, in particular when vigilance plans are drawn up, Vigilance mechanism being the spear head of Compliance Law. If the situation becomes litigious and the matter is referred to the courts, the civil courts, whose role is growing, will themselves organise mediation. Mediation, which is now part is an instrument for bringing the parties together and finding solutions. -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "GPA : "Il faut cesser de passer la femme par pertes et profits"" ("Surrogacy: "We have to stop writing off women""), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, April 30, 2024 - 💬read the interview (in French) - ► Presentation of the interview by the journal: "Le 23 avril 2024, les députés européens ont adopté une loi élargissant le champ d’application des mesures actuelles pour combattre et prévenir la traite des êtres humains et mieux soutenir ses victimes, par 563 voix pour, 7 contre et 17 abstentions. La maternité de substitution, ou GPA, entre désormais dans le champ de la traite des êtres humains. Mais depuis quelques jours, la polémique fait rage. Le nouveau texte réprime-t-il uniquement la GPA contrainte organisée par une association criminelle, ou toute forme de GPA ? Nous avons demandé au professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, auteur d’un ouvrage intitulé « GPA : dire Oui ou dire Non » publié chez Dalloz en 2018, de nous éclairer sur les enjeux attachés à cette question et sur la position de l’Europe.". (Free translation: "On April 23, 2024, Members of the European Parliament adopted a law extending the scope of existing measures to combat and prevent human trafficking and provide better support for its victims, by 563 votes to 7 with 17 abstentions. Surrogacy (gestation pour autrui – GPA in French), now falls within the scope of human trafficking. But in recent days, controversy has been raging. Does the new text punish only forced surrogate motherhood organised by a criminal association, or all forms of surrogacy? We asked Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, author of a book entitled "GPA: dire Oui ou dire Non" ("Surrogacy: say Yes or say No") published by Dalloz in 2018, to shed some light on the issues surrounding this question and on Europe's position".) - 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕GPA : dire Oui ou dire Non (Surrogacy: say Yes or say No), 2018 - ► Questions asked, answers given: Actu Juridique. Question : La GPA est une pratique ancienne même si elle est longtemps restée marginale, qu’est-ce qui a changé et nécessite aujourd’hui l’attention des pouvoirs publics et du législateur ?   Surrogacy is a long-standing practice, even if it was marginal for a long time. What has changed that now requires the attention of public authorities and legislators?   Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. Answer. : Two things have changed this practice. The first is the possibility of introducing a man's gametes and a woman's oocyte into a woman's body, thus reducing her to being a "carrier" and providing this service, which is very much in demand. The second is the transformation of the desire for a child, an eternal desire shared by many, into a "right to a child". This right to a child would need to be put into practice by any means, for the benefit of any holder who is unable or unwilling to suffer the inconvenience of pregnancy. This is how the practice developed. The legislator intervened, following case law, by declaring, as the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation) had done, that this practice was contrary to the dignity of the human being, punishable under both the Code civil (French Civil Code) and the Code pénal (French Criminal Code).     A.J. Q. : Autrement dit, les innovations techniques couplées à l’émergence d’un sentiment de droit à l’enfant ont fait exploser la demande de maternité de substitution… In other words, technical innovations coupled with the emergence of a sense of entitlement to a right to a child have led to an explosion in demand for surrogacy… MaFR. A. : Yes, but this demand has to be matched by an offer. There are few fertile women prepared to bear children for others. The desire to have children is not matched by a desire to bear them for others without compensation. And the few women who are willing to do so are in countries far removed from the people who want them. The practice has only developed because of the very prosperous agencies on which everything depends. Without this intermediation, towards Ukraine for example, the practice could not have spread.   A.J. Q. : L’Europe avait-elle déjà pris position sur la GPA et si oui, par quels textes et dans quel sens ? Has Europe already taken a position on surrogacy and, if so, in what texts and in what direction?   MaFR. A. : In Europe, it was the case law of the ECHR which in 2014 (Mennesson judgments) broke with French jurisprudence to impose that the filiation of a child born as a result of a surrogacy carried out abroad in a country where surrogacy is lawful can be established with regard to the father whose gametes had been used. All that remained was for the child to be adopted by the father's spouse. This did not change domestic legislation, but the way civil status works means that the prohibition can be rendered ineffective. But this meant saying Yes and No at the same time… The challenge was therefore to amend the texts, either to exclude surrogacy more strongly, or to admit it more openly.     A.J. Q. : Dans ce contexte, quelle nouveauté apporte le texte adopté par le Parlement européen le 23 avril dernier ? Against this backdrop, what is new about the text adopted by the European Parliament on 23 April? MaFR. A. : It depends on how you interpret it. When the text of the directive was being discussed, no one disputed that its adoption would result in the effective prohibition of surrogacy throughout the European Union and the strengthening of the basis of this prohibition in that surrogacy constitutes trafficking in human beings, the woman who carries the child and who legally remains the mother since she gives birth to the child, and that child. But once voted, the text gives rise to another interpretation, supported by some. It is argued that trafficking in human beings is not the "legal category" into which surrogacy falls, but the "condition" under which surrogacy is punishable; So, if surrogacy is practised without "trade" (trafficking is a trade), if there is no money involved, if there is only altruism and concern for the other person, then not only is surrogacy not punished, but what is more, this so-called "altruistic" surrogacy becomes legitimate by the very fact of this directive! The scope is therefore quite simply the opposite… This could give rise to litigation.   A.J. Q. : Dans l’ouvrage que vous avez consacré à la GPA en 2018 chez Lefebvre-Dalloz préfacé par Éliette Abécassis, vous montrez qu’on peut dire Oui ou Non à la GPA, mais qu’il faut répondre et surtout vous mettez en lumière les implications de ces choix. Pourquoi faut-il forcément répondre à cette question ? In your book on GPA published by Lefebvre-Dalloz in 2018, with a preface by Éliette Abécassis, you show that we can say Yes or No to surrogacy, but that we must answer, and above all you highlight the implications of these choices. Why do we have to answer this question? MaFR. A. : The question of whether or not to allow surrogacy must be answered (say Yes or say No), because it is a question of society. Not to answer it, to say neither yes nor no, to say yes and no at the same time, is not to choose the society in which we want to live.   A.J. Q. : Imaginons que l’on choisisse le Oui. Qu’implique-t-il sur les valeurs de la société et l’état du droit ? What does this mean for the values of society and the Rule of Law? MaFR. A. : If we accept that surrogacy is legal, then it is the will of the people involved that gives birth to the child. The agreement between the person or persons planning to have a child and the woman who agrees to carry the child, with the agent acting as intermediary. It is the society of the contract, because the State is nothing, it is only the scribe who copies the stipulations onto the civil status register. Parentage ceases to be the institution guarded by the State through which the individual is anchored in the social group. Parentage becomes a private matter. This contract-based society is in fact a market society.    A.J. Q. : Et si l’on dit Non à la GPA, on le fait sur quel fondement et pourquoi ? And if we say No to GPA, on what grounds and why? MaFR. A. : If we maintain the prohibition of surrogacy and seek to make it effective, in particular by taking action against agencies, we are referring to a society where the State, through public order, watches over human beings and where the law controls power and protects women. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► 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. -