Articles in a JoRC book

► 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 -

► Full Reference: A. Mignon Colombet, "Pour une justice négociée plus équitable" ("for fairer negotiated justice"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche& M. Boissavy (ed.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC ("Compliance and due process – internal investigations and DPA"), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", to be published. - ► English Summary of this article (written in French): The contribution highlights both the criticisms levelled at the French legal mechanisms of the Judicial agremeemt of public interest (CJIP) and the guilty plea agreement (CRPC) in the name of the rights of the defence and the advantages offered by these new tools in the French legal system, which have been validated by the courts that are the guardians of fundamental rights and whose adoption is spreading. Their functioning should therefore be improved. The author believes that the risk of disregarding the right to a fair trial arises rather from the misuse of these procedurse for purposes other than those for which they exist. What must be prevented is not the exchange of a non-prosecution or the negotiation of an agreement in exchange for revelations but, which is a misuse, a prejudgement of a person who did not participate in drawing up the agreement. This often happens, particularly in the case of individuals, and it violates the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence, as well as being unfair. To remedy this, the fate of legal entities and natural persons should be more closely linked, and French Law should borrow from British Law, which involves the judge in the agreement mechanisms at an early stage to ensure that his control is effective. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published -

► Full Reference: C. Granier, "Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 95-107 - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done par the author): Because Compliance shakes up established frameworks, Compliance forces to look at certain concepts in a new light, which until then seemed to be well tamed. This is particularly the case with the notion of "Jurisprudence". Recent developments in Compliance indeed raise questions about the possible existence of "jurisprudence" (case law) that would be produced by companies during the implementation of compliance procedures. At first glance, the concept of "business jurisprudence" may appear unnatural because case law is traditionally understood as the fruit of the office of the Judge and, more particularly, of the State Judge. However, the observation that the company can position itself as a Judge with regard to itself and others in the context of the implementation of Compliance legitimately raises the question of the possibility for the latter. to produce case law. The example of Facebook's supervisory board and the first decisions rendered by this body increases the legitimacy of this crucial question. Thinking about the concept of "Jurisprudence of companies" implies to compare the process of emergence of the case law standard emanating from the Judge with the process of emergence of a "Jurisprudence" that would be produced by companies during their "jurisdictional functions". On the material level, an analogy between State case law and company case law seems conceivable. It then remains to overcome an obstacle of an organic nature: can an institution other than the judge be understood as producing case law? In view of contemporary developments in Law and the practical interest that exists in designing business case law, it seems appropriate to adopt a broader view of case law, which is detached from the traditional organic criterion. It therefore seems that it is possible but above all that it is necessary to think about the concept of "business case law" in order to highlight a new facet of the normative power of companies in the context of compliance, in particular with a view to its supervision. -   🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: L.-M. Augagneur, "The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 109-125  - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): The large platforms are in the position of arbiter of the reputation economy (referencing, notoriety) in which they themselves act. Although the stakes are usually low on a unit basis, the jurisdiction of reputation represents significant aggregate stakes. Platforms are thus led to detect and assess reputation manipulations (by users: SEO, fake reviews, fake followers; or by the platforms themselves as highlighted by the Google Shopping decision issued by the European Commission in 2017) that are implemented on a large scale with algorithmic tools. The identification and treatment of manipulations is itself only possible by means of artificial intelligence tools. Google thus proceeds with an automated downgrading mechanism for sites that do not follow its guidelines, with the possibility of requesting a review through a very summary procedure entirely conducted by an algorithm. Tripadvisor, on the other hand, uses an algorithm to detect false reviews based on "fraud modeling to identify electronic patterns that cannot be detected by the human eye". It only conducts a human investigation in limited cases. This jurisdictionality of reputation has little in common with that defined by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (legal origin, contradictory procedure, independence, application of the Rules of Law). It is characterized, on the one hand, by the absence of transparency of the rules and even of the existence of rules stated in predicative form and applied by deductive reasoning. It is replaced by an inductive probabilistic model by the identification of abnormal behaviors in relation to centroids. This approach of course raises the issue of statistical bias. More fundamentally, it reflects a transition from Rule of Law, not so much to "Code is Law" (Laurence Lessig), but to "Data is Law", that is, to a governance of numbers (rather than "by" numbers). It also comes back to a form of collective jurisdictionality, since the sanction comes from a computational apprehension of the phenomena of the multitude and not from an individual appreciation. Finally, it appears particularly consubstantial with compliance, since it is based on a teleological approach (the search for a finality rather than the application of principles). On the other hand, this jurisdictionality is characterized by man-machine cooperation, whether in the decision-making process (which poses the problem of automaticity bias) or in the contradictory procedure (which poses, in particular, the problems of discussion with the machine and the explicability of the machine response). Until now, the supervision of these processes has been based essentially on the mechanisms of transparency, a limited adversarial requirement and the accessibility of appeal channels. The French Law Loi pour une République Numérique ("Law  for a Digital Republic"), the European Legislation Platform-to-Business Regulation and the Omnibus Directive, have thus set requirements on the ranking criteria on platforms. The Omnibus Directive also requires that professionals guarantee that reviews come from consumers through reasonable and proportionate measures. As for the European Digital Services Act, it provides for transparency on content moderation rules, procedures and algorithms. But this transparency is often a sham. In the same way and for the moment the requirements of sufficient human intervention and adversarial processes appear very limited in the draft text. The most efficient forms of this jurisdictionality ultimately emerge from the role played by third parties in a form of participatory dispute resolution. Thus, for example, FakeSpot detects false Tripadvisor reviews, Sistrix establishes a ranking index that helped establish the manipulation of Google's algorithm in the Google Shopping case by detecting artifacts based on algorithm changes. Moreover, the draft Digital Services Act envisages recognizing a specific status for trusted flaggers who identify illegal content on platforms. This singular jurisdictional configuration (judge and party platform, massive situations, algorithmic systems for handling manipulations) thus leads us to reconsider the grammar of the jurisdictional process and its characteristics. If Law is a language (Alain Sériaux), it offers a new grammatical form that would be that of the middle way (mesotès) described by Benevéniste. Between the active and the passive way, there is a way in which the subject carries out an action in which he includes himself. Now, it is the very nature of this jurisdictionality of compliance to make laws by including oneself in them (nomos tithestai). In this respect, the irruption of artificial intelligence in this jurisdictional treatment undoubtedly bears witness to the renewal of the language of Law. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: E. Kleiman, "The objectives of compliance confronted with the actors of arbitration", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 335-355.  - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): International arbitration, which remains the preferred method for the resolution of disputes arising from international commercial relations, has been overtaken by compliance, the manifestations of which are everywhere: arbitral institutions, arbitrators and courts exercising curial supervision of the international regularity of awards are regularly called upon to take into account rules of compliance. Compliance has undeniably got a hold on the arbitration community.  Being operators in an unregulated activity, arbitral institutions and arbitrators must generate trust; their ability to effectively self-regulate is a prerequisite for the success of arbitration and requires transparency and exemplarity.  This self-imposed compliance is nowadays consubstantial to arbitration and is illustrated in such classic fields as prevention of conflicts of interest and control of arbitrators' availability, but also in the more recent domains of parity and diversity as well as reduction of the carbon footprint.  Moreover, compliance has caught up with the ex post control of the international regularity of arbitral awards in matters involving allegations of corruption and money laundering.  There is room for debate, particularly in France, because of the porosity of the boundaries between the methods that are specific to those mandatory rules of compliance that intend to prevent the most serious offences, and the methods that are specific to the establishment of the constituent elements of such crimes before criminal courts.  This is an important issue, especially as the increasingly imperative nature of climate change and human rights regulations will extend the scope of these overlaps between compliance methods and the control of arbitral awards. Arbitration is also taking over compliance.  Arbitrators are called upon to rule on controversies arising from economic activities that are related to compliance: contracts relating to the implementation of preventive measures in the fields of anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and human rights as well as transactions relating to the reduction of the carbon footprint and climate change, etc.  Moreover, compliance is also an arbitrable matter and arbitrators must apply or take into consideration the observance or disregard of rules of compliance when adjudicating commercial or investment disputes. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -