All news

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche,  Support from Compliance Law for day-to-day management of Competition Law, Working Paper, Octobre 2021. - ► This working paper has been drawn up as a basis for a contribution to the Amicorum Liber for Professor Laurence Idot, published in 2022 - ► Working Paper Summary: Competition Law has become so huge and just "regulations" that one would give up trying to understand it as a whole, preferring to become a specialist in one of its parts. This would be to lose sight of the simple and strong reason which unites the whole and gives it its breath: Freedom. Freedom experienced by the person in his daily economic action, Freedom kept by Competition Law, always returning to its principle: Free Competition. This is why the European Union places a so great emphasis on Competition. To build it and keep it effective, "Competition Policy" is articulated with Competition Law, but if authorities and judges do not blame companies for their power, they do not rely on it. To do this, they must then be supported by Compliance Law, which strongly encourages companies to act for the effectiveness and the promotion of Competition principles. Competition Law thus slips from the Ex Post to the Ex Ante, with the commitments of companies leading them to stop being passive and punished in order to become convinced players and educators of the others. Something pleasant for a great professor of Competition Law, to whom tribute is paid here. - 🔓read the Working Paper below⤵ -  🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn  🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

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

► Full Reference: Bär-Bouyssière, B., Practical obstacles to the effective place of Proportionality in Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary:  The article is based on the undisputed assertion that Proportionality is inherent in Compliance, in particular when this takes the form of a sanction, but the author compares this assertion with its practical implementation. The author notes that in all the compliance mechanisms, in particular in Competition Compliance, companies have difficulties in practice in satisfying with their obligations in Ex Ante because the standards are very heavy, expensive and difficult to understand, as they have difficulty. in Ex Post to obtain that the authorities do not make a disproportionate use of them, and to obtain that the courts effectively protect them from that. These practical difficulties are due above all to the diversity of the standards concerned, those who create them as well as those who interpret them having to do so without excess, about what it is very difficult to obtain control. In addition, the weight of the implementation of compliance standards is not correlated with the concrete and financial ability of diverses companies to do so and the design of standards does not always integrate this correlation. Faced with this, companies then tend to do more than is necessary, in order not to incur sanctions in the doubt, and moreover because the people in charge of the effectiveness of their compliance standards have in the mind not to engage their own responsibility, which encourages them to over-apply compliance obligations, when there should be a fair and strict relationship of necessity, that is to say this desired proportionality, this additional cost being a useless excess for all. Finally, a practical difficulty is due to the violence, in itself necessary, of the sanctions, in the face of which the companies seek in Ex Post to show the disproportionate nature, but do not have very sure means of proof. This is why it is often on the ground of rhetoric and of the conviction that enterprises are placed in practice, more than on that of the mathematical calculation of proportionality. -     📝 see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published   -  

►This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Lucien Rapp. This manifestation is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the IDETCOM of Toulouse-I-Capitole University.   📅 This colloquium is part of the cycle of colloquia organized in 2021 around the general topic about Compliance Monumental Goals       - ► Interventions during this colloquium will be the base for a specific chapter in :  📕 Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance,    forthcoming in the series Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) with Dalloz. 📘Compliance Monumental Goals,    forthcoming in the series Compliance & Regulation, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. -   The colloquium will take place, a priori, on site in Toulouse, on October 14, 2021.  It will be broadcasted in live online. 🎥 Videos will be extracted.  ► Presentation of the topic :  Compliance Law tends towards "Monumental Goals". This puts the concern, the calculation and the control of proportionality at the center. Proportionality is one of the most common references for compliance practices and strategies, but paradoxically, one of the least well defined. Perhaps even one of the most elusive. For the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, the principle of proportionality allows the quantitative easing policies of the European Central Bank (ECB) to be monitored. This principle is linked to nothing less than the principle of democracy and is the basis of the control of ultra vires. In French law, proportionality refers to the provisions of Article 8 of the Déclaration des droits (Bill of Rights) of 1789, according to which the law should only establish penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary. In many areas of civil or business life, the compliance of behavior and the consequences of non-compliance are assessed on the basis of a graded assessment by the censor (competitor, regulator or judge). Proportionality calls for action, which opens up a margin of appreciation to take into account the facts or circumstances. It also allows for the exercise of control over abuse of rights or excess of power. It goes beyond the office of the judge or the censor to forge one of its tools: the control of proportionality, which is obviously not the proportionality of the control. How to integrate proportionality into compliance practices and strategies? Does it introduce a certain tolerance in the assessment of situations and is it thus a factor of rediscovered freedom in the development of risk matrices? Conversely, is it not synonymous with increased vigilance on the part of compliance officers, by leaving open the possibility of a reinforced control of their acts or decisions, by the evaluation of their advisability and not of their conformity alone?   ► Working method:  🚧  The colloquium is built around 4 topics, which would be prepared in 4 working papers.  🚧  The writing of each working paper will have been entrusted by experts.  Secondly, these working papers will be available to be criticized by two practionners of Compliance technics.  For each topic, there will be these three sequences:  Presentation of the topic by the author of the working paper ; Discussion by the two discussants, who will have read the working paper previously ; Discussion with the public onsite and online.   The four topics chosen are:  1️⃣ Proportionality and Conformity 2️⃣ Proportionality and Evaluation 3️⃣ Proportionality and Normativity 4️⃣  Proportionality and Sanction    ►  registrations and information  : attendance to the manifestation is free, onsite or online every registration for an attendance onsite will be supported by Toulouse-I-Capitole University information will be available on a website opened by Toulouse-I-Capitole University    - ►Will speak, notably :  🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of Regulation and Compliance Law, director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance 🎤 Alexandra Mendoza-Carminade, professor at Toulouse-I-Capitole University 🎤Lucien Rapp, professor at Toulouse-I-Capitole University 🎤 Marc Segonds, professor at Toulouse-I-Capitole University -   See the program below:

This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Arnaud van Waeyenberge. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre Perelman of Brussels University. This event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.     The different interventions will be then transformed into contributions in the books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  and Compliance Juridictionnalization  which will be published in the Regulation & Compliance serie, jointly published by the JoRC and Dalloz for the book in French and by JoRC and Bruylant for the book in English.  This colloquium will take place in Brussels in October 2021.   Presentation of the theme:    Notably  will speak: Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor at Sciences Po – Paris Arnaud van Waeyenberge, professor at HEC Paris and researcher at Centre Perelman   Read a detailed presentation of the colloquium below:   

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

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

Référence complète : Ordonnance de la vice-présidente de la Cour, République tchèque/Pologne,  C-121/21 R..

Full  Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Ne jamais se passer des juges et des avocats dans le Droit de la Compliance ("Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law" ,  in Frison-Roche, M.-A., Morel-Maroger, J. et Schiller, S. (dir.), Quels juges pour la Compliance ("Which Judges for Compliance), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the CR2D of Dauphine University PSL, Raymond Aron Amphy, 23rd September  2021.  - 📅 Read the Colloquium programme 📅 This colloquium  is a part in the colloquia cycle organized in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and it partners on the  Compliance Juridictionalisation. - ✏️A bilingual Working Paper  on the topic  "The  role of the Judge in Compliance Law has been prepared to serve a basis for this conference : read this Working Paper  But for the reason detailed below, I preferred to use the time allotted to the introduction of the colloquium to develop rather what should had be an opening element for making it the entire topic of my intervention. : "Never do without judges and lawyers in Compliance Law". Because before analyzing the role of judges, they still need to be in the Compliance system; this seems to us to be taken for granted, but it is not.   ► Conference Summary: Due in particular to the large number of students and the fact that a long time ago when I arrived at Dauphine University I had created a Master in Economic Law with Martine Lombard in which I had included a course of "Economic Procedural Law" that I was teaching, since it was the moment to make this Colloquium "general introductory report", I therefore preferred to go further and focus the subject on something other than "The role of the judge in Compliance Law" , namely the very question of "the presence of judges and lawyers in Compliance Law". This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer. It is therefore to this prerequisite that I devoted my speaking time, deferring to publication all the analyzes that I had prepared on "The role of the judge in Compliance Law", to which everyone can refer by consulting the preparatory work. It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Deffered Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong. However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only  examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before after this enormous systemic disaster inventing the "general procedural law". - The Working Paper which had not be exploited during the conference will be the bais for the article in the book : 📕 in its French version La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance  📘  in its English version  Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation -   📅 Ce colloque s'insère dans le cycle de colloques 2021 organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et ses partenaires autour de la Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.   -  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.,  Le rôle du juge dans le Droit de la Compliance ("The role of the Judge in Compliance Law"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Dalloz, to be published. -   ► The summary below describe an article corresponding to a Working Papier prepared for an intervention in the colloquium Quels juges pour la Compliance ?  , coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et par le Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D). Ce colloque a été conçu par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel-Morager et Sophie Schiller,  codirectrices scientifiques, et s'est déroulé à Paris le 23 septembre 2021. Dans l'ouvrage, l'article sera publié dans le Titre IV. - ► Article Summary:  - 📕  read a general presentation of the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published. -    

►This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel Maroger and Sophie Schiller. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre de recherche en Droit (CR2D) of Paris Dauphine-PSL University.  This event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.       ►The interventions will be then transformed into a chapter in the books: contributions in the 📕 La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  , to be published the Regulation & Compliance series ries, jointly published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoR)C and Dalloz  📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation,    to be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and  Bruylant. -   This colloquium will take place in Paris Dauphine-PSL University in September 2021.   Presentation of the topic :   Judges, regulatory and supervisory authorities, or even authorities specially instituted by Compliance Law, such as the Agence Française Anticorruption (French Anticorruption Agency), must implement it. The colloquium aims initially to identify and discuss the procedural rules that they then specifically implement, in particular when the strong requirements of Compliance Law, efficiency and immediacy, new negotiation techniques and commitment, must be articulated with the traditional procedural requirements that remain. The question arises in particular as to whether the rules of a fair trial should apply (or can they be similar in transactional procedures and in the context of judicial procedures, and how the control by judges operates during homologation) in transactional procedures, with more or less specific treatment of the evidence used. Secondly, the colloquium considers the way in which the different judges assess the different constitutive standards of Compliance Law. These are often soft Law and depending on whether the judge is repressive, administrative, or European, his or her assessment will not be legally of the same scope or of the same nature, which together leads to an issue of articulation of method. Due to the breadth of the subject, certain sectors will be particularly examined, in particular the banking sector. Thirdly, the way in which the judge himself or herself applies Compliance Law will be examined, in what appears to be a balance between pedagogy and sanction. It then appears to play a triple role, in that it ensures compliance with standards but also in that it must find effective solutions in a Law which is more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post and that it must support operators so that they act effectively, by mastering their obligations. The motivation for decisions then appears to be a primary issue. Because this last phase concerns the even more direct relationship between the judge and the operators and stakeholders, this theme is intended to give rise to a presentation and a round table. -   Will speak notably:    Claudie Boiteau, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University, Member of the Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D).   Jean-François Bohnert, Financial National Prosecutor   Olivier Catherine, Secretary General at Sonepar    Nicolas Cayrol, Professor at Tours Law School and Director of the Institut d'Etudes Judiciaires François Grua   Jean-Michel Darrois, Attorney, Darrois, Villey, Maillot, Brochier Law Firm   Marie-Laure Denis, President of the CNIL   Eric Dezeuze, Attorney, Bredin Prat Law Firm   Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor at Sciences Po (Paris), Director of the JoRC   Juliette Morel-Maroger, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University    Sophie Scemla, Associate attorney, Gide Law Firm   Sophie Schiller, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University   Read a more detailed presentation below: 

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

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