All news

► 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 

► Full Reference: M. Boissavy, "Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains" ("Compliance and the rights of the defence: always in favour of respect for human rights"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, pp. 27-32. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published - ► English Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author begins by describing Compliance, whereby the company's freedom is curtailed so that its power serves the goals set by the public authorities and prevents risks from occurring. These "Monumental Goals" are set by the public authorities either to prevent the occurrence of systemic risks, or to achieve beneficial objectives for society, human beings and the environment. In order to do this, companies will have to investigate themselves and denounce themselves, with this self-denunciation reducing the criminal penalties incurred as a result of infringements they have uncovered themselves. These surveillance tools facilitate the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) mechanism. They work "for the better" if the aforementioned Monumental Goals are achieved. They work "for the worse", if this is at the cost of sacrificing the rights of the defence. The second part of the paper recalls the importance of the rights of the defence, their roots in history, and even in Natural Law, their position at the very top of the hierarchy of norms and, according to the author, the integration of the adversarial principle within them, as well as the fact that they apply even outside trials, as has been imposed by case-law in matters of dismissal.  This is why, thirdly, the paper argues that the rights of the defence must always be applied in all compliance mechanisms, even if this does not involve a trial or a sanction in the strict sense of the term, particularly in internal investigations, procedures without a trial which are above all evidentiary mechanisms for the next stage, which is usually judicial. In addition, the author questions the effectiveness of the consents expressed during the CJIP and comparution sur comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French French guilty plea procedure). - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -