Economic Law, Regulation and Compliance

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, « La clause d’audit corrélée à l’Obligation de Compliance » (The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Centre de recherches Louis Josserand, La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause (The Contractualisation of Compliance: Clause by Clause), Lyon, 25 September 2026. - 🧮view the full programme of the event 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🚧This conference is based on a bilingual Working Paper: The Audit Clause, Carousel of the Contractualisation of Compliance. - 🖥️consult the slides supporting this lecture (these slides are in English; the slides projected during the lecture were the original French slides) - 🎤See the presentation of the other lecture given in this colloquium: Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses. - 📘This conference will give rise to an article, “The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation”, to be published in the book 📘Compliance and Contract, in the 📚Compliance & Regulation series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Presentation of the conference: The audit clause is the most frequently cited and most common Compliance clause: it outsources internal control techniques onto a third party. A distinction must be drawn between the audit clause securing one’s own interests, the audit clause ensuring one’s own conformity and the audit clause carrying out a Compliance project. The audit clause then appears as the “necessary accessory” to the conformity and Compliance clause. It is the “objective reflection” of the legal Compliance Obligation, which requires “detecting” in order to act, and its “subjective reflection”, since the regulated party is in charge of those who, notably in value chains, are “concerned third parties”. In a first part, the conference places itself inside the audit clause. It shows how to draft it in order to obtain the relevant information from the persons who hold it and where it is located: designating in advance the information sought, the persons, documents and places, the event triggering the audit, periodic or linked to an event, who conducts it and its modalities, according to a criterion of proportionality between the extent of the information sought and the objective pursued. It also shows how to integrate from the drafting stage the limits and risks of this audit contractually imposed on others, notably with regard to the rights of the defence and the strategic use of the audit report. In a second part, the conference places itself outside the clause. The audit clause leans on other stipulations, conformity clause or Compliance clause, corporate relationships and governance techniques. Other clauses lean on it, in order to strike (dispute resolution, sanction and termination clauses) or to draw closer (remediation clause). The court will have to interpret it in the light of its purpose, as the “necessary accessory” to the application of Compliance Law. In conclusion, the Compliance audit clause appears as the carousel of the contractualisation of Compliance: where it is knotted, where conformity and Compliance are distinguished, where the judge contributes to the deployment of Compliance 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 Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance » (Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Centre de recherches Louis Josserand, La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause (The Contractualisation of Compliance: Clause by Clause), Lyon, 25 September 2026. - 🧮read the full programme of the event (in French) 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🚧This lecture is based on a bilingual Working Paper: Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses: towards a Contractual Compliance System. - 🖥️consult the slides supporting this lecture (these slides are in English; the slides projected during the lecture were the original French slides) - 🎤See the presentation of the other lecture given in this colloquium: The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation. - 📝This lecture will give rise to an article, « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance », to be published in the book 📕Compliance and Contract, in the series 📚Compliance & Regulation, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Presentation of this lecture : Practitioners insert into a wide variety of contracts clauses that are expressly designated as “Compliance clauses”. We lack a definition, so their legal regime is uncertain. To consolidate this practice and ensure that its development produces satisfactory effects, these clauses must be classified, named and distinguished from one another. This is what this lecture sets out to do. In a first stage, a strong unicity of Compliance clauses appears. But this unicity is somewhat misleading. It proceeds from a confusion between contract and statute: whether the clause, as a block, obliges the other contracting party to comply with all the regulations, or borrows its unity from the particular corpus of which it claims to be the tool of application, the clause copies the legislation. This is the unified but rather archaic conception to which the Regulator has itself lent credence, by designating the Compliance clause only as a delegation within a normative power that would remain first and foremost its own. So as not to stop there, in a second stage, the lecture shows the great diversity of Compliance clauses, a de jure diversity born of the principle of contractual freedom and a de facto diversity resulting from the porosity of the clause to the activities concerned, the country and the persons. To be mastered, this diversity must be channelled by a nomenclature. It must also be preserved in a lasting way, because it stems from the general policy of the company and the project it wishes to develop, for example in the value chains it has chosen to build through regulatory contracts. Nevertheless, and this is the subject of the third stage of the lecture, there is a deep and programmatic unicity of Compliance clauses, which lies in the systemic goals they serve. In practice, this unicity is built through an interlinked system of clauses, precisely described and specific to each undertaking. At the level of a large company, this can give rise to a Contractual Compliance System, which is articulated and allied with the regulatory system. - 🌐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 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La définition juridique du Contrat de compliance (The legal definition of the compliance contract)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) published by the Centre for Research on Justice and Conflict Resolution (CRJ) and the Centre for Research in Economics and Law (CRED) at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Le "Contrat de compliance" (The "Compliance Contract"),  Paris II Lecture Theatre –  82 Rue Notre Dame des Champs, Paris, 12 June  2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🌐read the presentation made on LinkedIn - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based   - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat (Compliance and Contracts),  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this lecture : The lecture is divided into three parts. In the first part, the aim is to describe the reality of the “Compliance Contract”, which can be defined as the decision taken by an entity subject to a “Compliance Obligation” (most often a company, but it may also be a administrative organisation) to entrust the fulfilment of that obligation to a third party. This does not diminish the entity’s obligation to be accountable for the compliance structure, nor for its ability to produce the expected outcomes, in particular the behaviours that will contribute to achieving the Monumental Systemic Goals for which the compliance frameworks were adopted. This outsourcing is lawful; its contractual form falls under Contract Law and the principle of contractual freedom. Even if one considers that, since the subject matter of the contract is Compliance itself, it would constitute a ‘Systemic Contract’—just as Compliance Litigation is ‘Systemic Litigation’—its fundamental nature is indeed a bilateral relationship between a client and a professional (who is often subject to professional rules and codes of conduct). Indeed, there are legal consequences to this practice of “Compliance Contracts”, because it is the Compliance System that is thereby served: on the one hand, “regulatory clauses” will be inserted, whilst others will be removed (“deemed unwritten”). Contractual freedom remains the guiding principle, however. In Contract Law, it would be appropriate for the contracting parties to refer to this contribution to the Monumental Goals, which constitute the  fundamental legal norm of the Compliance System, if only to guide the contract Judge who may be called upon in the event of a dispute, as the interpretation of the parties’ intentions must be carried out in a teleological manner. In the second part, the relationship between this "Compliance Contract" and the various "Compliance Clauses" is analysed. The two should certainly not be confused, since, quite apart from these highly specific contracts through which the various compliance techniques are entrusted, in their drafting and management, to third parties, who thus become the experts, there are also clauses inserted into numerous contracts (sales, distribution, manufacturing, service, etc.), clauses which aim, amongst many other clauses serving different purposes, to incorporate compliance considerations into the contract. But first and foremost, the Compliance Contract contains numerous clauses specific to it, which often derive from compliance system, since Compliance concretisation is the very purpose of this specific contract, et nothing else: it is therefore logical that, by way of a ‘transparency effect’, the legal Compliance Systemic requirements should be incorporated into the isolated contract. Secondly, and more significantly, many various contracts contain clauses that provide for the triggering of a “Compliance Ccontract”. For example, when an audit clause is linked to a specific event and the provision stipulates that a contract will then be entered into with a particular expertal body or person, this will generate a Compliance Contract in a second time. The link between the two may give one of the contracting parties control over the other, notably if the expert is close to them. If the links between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses are developping, this could lead to a return to vertical integration. Competition Law may be justified in looking into this.  It appears that, once we have distinguished between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses, and then linked them together, we can arrive at a Contractual Compliance Strategy that is both legitimate and effective, provided that it contributes to the achievement of the Compliance Monumental Goals set by the political and public authorities.  Indeed, as soon as we distinguish between “conformity” – which is intended solely to compel the operator to obey all applicable regulations blindly and mechanically – and “Compliance Law”, which is legally guided by Monumental Systemic Goals, this contractual strategy becomes essential.   Part Three sets out to clarify the scope of this Compliance Contract. The first implication concerns the Compliance System itself, of which it forms a part; the Compliance Contract having the welcome effect of increasing the operator’s contribution to the achievement of the Monumental Systemic Goals (ensuring that systems – banking, financial, transport, energy, climate, digital, etc.—do not collapse and do not crush human beings, but rather benefit the human beings who are involved in them, whether willingly or not). To this end, the contract must enable the operator – where necessary by means of express provisions – to demonstrate its credibility in contributing to the achievement of these Monumental Goals. Reliable pathways and credible structures must be established. In the cas of technical implementation is outsourced by a Compliance Contract, this obligation to provide evidence may be undermined. To compensate for this, the Compliance Contract may itself include provisions relating to portable technical information, support available through the client's accountability mechanism, or even in the event of legal proceedings. The second aspect concerns the contractors themselves, who adapt their intentions and are bound, above all, by this “little law” which is any contract for the parties. This perspective is surprisingly underdeveloped in practice, no doubt because in Law, when considering Compliance, reference is made to unilateral “regulations” and the vertical relationship of obedience that it engenders in the operator.  This changes with the transformation of "conformity" (which is that) in "Compliance Law" (which is based on Monumental Systemic Goals and justifies contracts). The third aspect concerns third parties, namely the stakedholders (and competitors…). These third parties benefit from Compliance Contracts because they are integrated into the Compliance System and because of the transparency between this system and the Compliance Contracts. In fact, and more technically speaking, this specific Cgreement provides them not only with a accountable(the company, the public body, the State), but also with a contractual debtor. Stakeholders may assert rights against the latter. However, because the contracts themselves are also enforceable against third parties, they can anticipate these relationships with third parties – not only the competitors of the entity subject to the Compliance Obligation, but also its own relationship with stakeholders, and even its relationship with public authorities. Indeed, the object (and effect) of the Compliance Contract is to produce and build up Information that is of interest to everyone. The result is a ‘treasure trove of evidence’. A key question is how, and whether, this treasure trove can remain within the circle of the contracting parties or not. Indeed, the fourth area concerns Public Authorities. As the bodies that “uphold” the compliance system, they consider the Compliance Contract to be legitimate and one of the most effective means of ensuring that regulations are effective, efficient and properly enforced; however, they also wish to benefit from the outcome of the contract’s implementation: to access the systemic information it generates. The contracting parties do not always share this view, but the Compliance Contract is not a means of “obeying” regulations. It is the Judge who will certainly address this question of principle, which relates to the very definition of Compliance Law. This brings us to the fifth area of application, which concerns the Courts. Indeed, a number of courts are responsible for hearing such cases: the contract courts, the competition courts, the courts overseeing the various systems whose sustainability is thus safeguarded, and the courts specialising in vigilance legal duty  (which is the cutting edge of Compliance Law).  The issue of the “natural judge” was examined at the symposium held on 29 May 2026 on: Contractual litigation involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects. The judge hearing the contract case (civil or commercial judge) will tend to refer first and foremost to the contract. This is also why the Compliance Contract conceptor would be well advised to include provisions in its terms regarding its relationship with the Compliance System, so that it is not the authorities of that system who do so in a too much discretionary manner. In understanding the "Compliance Contract", as Iit was emphasised in 2022, in the judge’s interpretation of the contract, the judge is required to reconcile the parties’ intentions with a teleological approach, that is to say, to establish that the parties intended to serve the purpose of the expertise thus requested and developed (for the operator and ultimately for the stakeholders and for the system itself).  By establishing this convergence, the judge gives full effect to the Cmpliance Contract. Rather than framing the issue, as is so often done when reasoning in terms of ‘conformity’, as a conflict between contractual freedom and public policy (conformity serving a public policy that would be contrary to the contract, inferior norm in the vertical normative hiercharchy).  It must be accepted as a fundamental principle that contractual freedom, freedom of contract and a competitive market for compliance expertise are the most effective means of developing a Compliance System that will safeguard interconnected  different systems and protect the people involved in them. - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le maniement du temps dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance : de l’urgence au temps long (The management of time in contractual litigation involving compliance: from urgency to the long term)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 University, Contractual disputes involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects,  Faculty of Law, Lyon, 29 May 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based - Read the présenation of the other two papers presented at this conference: 🎥The emergence of contractual disputes involving compliance due to the convergence of legal areas 🎥Appropriate adjudication in contractual disputes involving compliance and its effective enforcement - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat  with English summaries)  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this conference :  ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻J.-M. Coulon and 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche (eds.), Le temps dans la procédure (Time in Legal Proceedings), 19966 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts,   - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation de compliance et gouvernance bancaire (Compliance obligations and banking governance)", in Chair in Business Ethics: Compliance, ESG and Sustainability Reporting & National Association of Bank Lawyers (ANJB), Compliance et vigilance bancaire : la participation des acteurs du secteur bancaire et financier à la LCB/FT (Compliance and Banking Vigilance: the Participation of Banking and Financial Sector Players in AML/CFT) , Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, 12 March 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🌐read the summary of this conference and the colloquium on LinkedIn - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to a forthcoming book in the 📚Régulations & Compliance series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.   - ► English presentation of this introductory lecture of the symposium : Based on a specific method, three perspectives will be taken. In method, to shed light on the round tables making up the day's meetings without addressing the subject in their place or pretending to answer in advance the questions they will raise, or seeking to conclude in advance without having listened to anything, which is sometimes the flaw of introductions, which are so often a kind of disguised closing statement, with just a few question marks to give the impression of change, I have adopted the old, old method of the "triple funnel" introduction. This involves starting from a point other than the subject of the conference itself, Compliance and banking vigilance: the participation of banking and financial sector players in AML/CFT, in order to approach the subject from an external perspective and in a preliminary manner, nbsp;then moving on to a second external point, and doing so a third time, so that after this three-part presentation, the subject has been explored in sufficient depth to allow the following speakers to focus on the specific topic at hand. This is all the easier given that the chosen theme itself focuses on three points: a specific ambition (the "fight against money laundering and terrorist financing"), a specific sector (the "banking sector") and a specific activity carried out by individuals; three specific terms: one ambition (the "fighting agains AML/CFT""activity"). – one sectors (the "banking sector") and one active department (the "participation of stakeholders"). - My first starting point is to define what Compliance Law is in order to link Compliance Law to the subject it covers: the banking sector. Because if it were simply a matter of "being conform with applicable regulations", it is difficult to understand why the banking sector is so concerned, so constrained, so exposed to "compliance", which is simply the British way of saying "conformity". There must be more to it than simply obeying every rule and standards for preventing breaches for it, to be obliged to be so structuring and for the banking sector to be at the forefront. It therefore appears that Compliance Law is not simply mechanical obedience to a body of regulations, but rather the contribution made by systemic operators to the realisation of political ambitions that are essential for the future (the "Monumental Goals", both negative and positive). It is in this capacity that the banking sector, because it is composed of "crucial operators", is the natural subject of Compliance Law. Its power should not be criticised; it is indispensable. In an emerging branch of law that is systemic, that is Ex Ante, that is above all a Law of action whose object is the future. Techniques of conformity is only one tool. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝 Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The monumental goals of compliance, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance and conformity: distinguishing between them in order to articulate them, 2024 - My second starting point is to start with the "Monumental Goals", this normative foundation of Compliance Law, and link it to this present specific case, privileged ambition of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Certain things are surprising. Indeed, if we refuse at the introductory stage to delve into the technicalities of the texts and the litigation surrounding them, we may wonder why these two subjects (money laundering and terrorist financing) are linked in this way. We can see the correlation between banking activitird and money laundering. Notaries, auctioneers, and, in short, anyone who handles money are also involved in the fight against it. Moreover, if we see the ratio legis, the idea remains that the one who is merely the conduit (to use the familiar basis distinction in the regulatory rule of essential network infrastructure) could also be the one who organises the content: the image remains of the money laundering banker. Even if the ex ante compliance diligence whitewashes in advance, this suspicion that remains of an ex post sanction. We pay dearly for this representation, which permeates the repressive, even Criminal, Law of banking supervision, particularly in matters of secrecy, transparency, information and risk-taking. But why extend it to terrorist financing? Because the suspicion of terrorist bankers no longer exists. The case becomes clear-cut again. It is a matter of internalising within banks the sovereign responsibility to intervene before it is too late, before people are killed. Financing is the weak and visible point of systemic evil. This is understandable. It has moved from ex post (financial processing after the crime) to ex ante (financial processing before the crime). It is of a different nature. But if this is of a different nature, there is no reason to stop this Ex Ante surveillance, because money movements provide so much information about collective and individual projects. For example, in the digital space. We must be careful about this, in light of the principle of freedom, of which the principle of non-interference is only one aspect. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Ex Ante – Ex Post Couple, Justification of a Specific Regulatory Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Les engagements dans les systèmes de régulation, 2006 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Ex Ante Responsability, a pillar of Compliance Law, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: Understanding and Keeping a Level Head, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The obligation of compliance, 2025 - My third starting point is "Governance", a rather mysterious term, as it relates more to the political art of mobilising human beings than to Law. Why is it necessary for "actors" to participate, when legal norms are binding and, in most cases, take the form of Criminal Law? The combination of the most violent norms, the application of financial penalties, and even deprivation of liberty, being often claimed as a victory for financial and banking regulatory and supervisatory bodies , even as procedural principles are being rolled back, could be a source of incomprehension. Moreover, in a legal system that would be challenged by this "Governance", it is up to the State to dictate and the banks to obey. But if banks take charge of everything, it becomes difficult to maintain this system, and it is undoubtedly no longer tenable if the Monumental Goal expands to dimensions that exceed those of the State but correspond to those of the banks. The risk then is to move from one governing body to another, which is a growing social and political risk. In practical terms, banking operators can achieve this reversal in two ways. Firstly, by effectively involving the human beings who make up their organisations, both internally and externally, their partners and stakeholders. This can be called "Governance" in an alliance based on explicitcommon  goals, with contributions that are not taken at face value but are provided by "compliance structures", "credible behaviour" and "plausible trajectories". In this respect, mutual banks are in a better position than others. Training mechanisms, which are central to Compliance Law, play an essential role here. Secondly, alliances with public authorities and regional roots, with concrete assessments, are decisive. The contract then becomes not only the mandatory means by which the regulated bank fulfils its regulatory obligation, but also the most traditional legal tool by which it exercises its freedom to contribute, in its own way, to the achievement of Monumental Goals for the future of the social group, which is currently under threat. We are far beyond "conformity": this is called Compliance Law. ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝A substantive Compliance Law, based on the European humanist tradition,in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Towards a Europe of Compliance, 2019 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Training: content and context of Compliance Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance tools, 2020 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, 2026 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🏛️Official Mission given by the French Minister of Justice, Compliance Law, Work in progress, 2025 – 2026. - 🌐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 Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le Droit de la Compliance, voie de la transition vers une égalité effective, efficace et efficiente entre les êtres humains (Compliance Law, for the transition towards the effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of the equality between human beings)", in Chair "Mutualist and cooperative banking at the service of the economy", ESCP, Les banques coopératives et les transitions​ (Cooperative Banks and Transitions), 29 January 2026. - 🧮view the general programme for the conference Cooperative banks and transitions (in French) - 📶see the slides (in French) - ► Presentation of this conference: The conference is not specifically aimed at lawyers, and even less so at specialists in Compliance Law. That is why it is divided into three parts, in order to show how Compliance Law is relevant in practice for creating effective, efficace and efficient equality between human beings. The first part of the lecture sets out the ambition of equality between human beings. As this is a political principle and not a natural one. As it is an ambition, it justifies being placed first and after that this ambition must be concretised, in a sort of second place. This second place is built bay a tro : that of effectiveness (real application of the norm), efficacy (that the goal for which the norm was established is achieved) and efficiency (that the system is transformed so that, having become robust, it endures through sustainabily). The second part of the conference will present the new branch of law known as Compliance Law. This should be distinguished from simple conformity, which consists of mechanically obeying a body of regulations that are constantly growing and becoming more complex. Compliance Law's Goal is to protect systems from risks that could cause them to disappear (all systems). "Sustainability" is the key principle, which is not limited to the climatic system (also digital system, banking system, and so on) and imposes the future as its object and the long term as its relevant time frame (unlike the market and Competition Law). "Transition" is also a key concept, as it involves moving from one state to another, from an expressed ambition to its realisation, through collaboration with others. These Goals are "Monumental" and are the normative legal basis of Compliance Law. In Europe, the Compliance Monumental Goal is to preserve systems for that the human beings who are involved in them, willingly or unwillingly, are not crushed by them, but rather benefit from them (for instance in banking sector). This is a "Monumental Negative Goal", to which is added a "Monumental Positive Goal", which a new conception of the "Ex Ante Responsability" (not liabily). Dialectically, the third part of the conference explains how Compliance Law internalises the political ambition of equality between human beings, which develops in the three concentric circles of effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency, among the operators best placed to contribute to it. Mutual banks belong to these circles more than the others. Firstly, because they are structured around the principle of taking human beings into consideration. Secondly, because they are rooted in their local areas. Thirdly, because they are driven by the long term, duration and sustainable. The transition est easer. The dificulty is the necessity to proof the effective and efficient will to do this transition. - ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Drawing the circles of Compliance Law, 2017 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, 2021 🕴🏻C. Peicuti and 🕴🏻J. Beyssade, 📝The feminisation of management positions in companies as a compliance objective. The example of the banking sector, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📘The Monumental Goals of Compliance, 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Births of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 - 🌐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 Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Saisir les principes du Droit de la Compliance à travers l'actualité (Understanding the principles of compliance law through current current legal cases and events), Jean Moulin  – Lyon 3 University Law Faculty, 10 December 2025. - ► Methodological presentation of this 4-hour MasterClass : It is difficult to teach a branch of law that is still being developed, to find a way to open its doors, because if by explaining its principles ex abrupto, the risk exists of remaining at the door, even though the aim is to open it. This door is all the more blocked by the accumulation of multiple regulatory corpus, which are now perceived as being linked to Compliance Law: GDPR, Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, FCPA, etc.; These are highly technical and complicated, and tend to be studied in silos, with little connection between them and little articulation with the traditional branches of Law. Therefore, the principles that form the backbone of Compliance Law as an autonomous branch of Law are all the less apparent, even though they would make these "compliance blocks" more intelligible and manageable. However, setting out these principles, which shed light not only on the current positive law but also on how it will evolve, seems "theoretical". In order to open the door to this new branch of Law, which already occupies a significant place in practice and is set to expand, so that it can be handled by lawyers who understand its spirit and is not entirely dominated by those from other disciplines who will master its tools (risk mapping, assessment, internal investigation, etc.), most often through algorithms and platforms (compliance by design), it is relevant to start with a few cases, a few decisions, a few texts, and a few comments, to gauge what they reveal. Because the principles are already there. They are gradually emerging. The challenge is that they often emerge quickly, in a manner that is sufficiently consistent with other branches of Law, and that the legal aspect takes precedence. That is what is at stake today. Each hour is devoted to a different case, based on a document of a different legal genre. - 🌐read a post on LinkedIn (in French) - - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental Goals, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025   - 🌐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 Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Concevoir une Raison d'être et l'explicitre (Conceiving a Raison d'être and explaining it)", speech at the round table discussion "Dire sa Raison d'être (Expressing your Raison d'être)", National Conference of the Géomètres Expert (French Chartered Surveyors), 6 November 2025, Paris. - ► Presentation of the Round Table : This round table opens two days of work bringing together all the leaders, members of the Council of the Order of Chartered Surveyors and Regional Councils of Chartered Surveyors, in the presence of the relevant Ministry, in specific sessions during which the two Raison d'être that have been developed over several years of work and adopted, the Raison d'être of the profession and the Raison d'être of the Order, are presented. 🪑🪑🪑Other participants in the round table discussion, moderated by Hervé Grélard, General Deputy of the French Order of Chartered Surveyors: 🕴🏻Thomas Bonnel, chartered surveyor 🕴🏻Luc Lanoy, chartered surveyor, 🕴🏻Séverine Vernet, Chairwoman of the French Order of Chartered Surveyors - ► Summary of my presentation : Firstly, I spoke to remind everyone what a "raison d'être" is, in itself, and why it is particularly important when the entity that embodies it also constitutes a "profession", the raison d'être expressing this hybrid nature that is destined to endure in today's societies. It moves those who uphold the raison d'être – the professional, the profession, the umbrella organisation that is the Order – from the past to the future. To effectively carry this raison d'être, its bearer cannot remain isolated. Unlike the agent who operates in a market and whose strategy is solitary dynamism against others, the bearer of the raison d'être must find allies who share similar or compatible ideas and develop points of contact to carry out a collective project (the "Monumental Goals"). This is why it is just as important to communicate, explain and share the raison d'être with the outside world. Secondly, as the discussion surrounding the statement of purpose of the French Order of Surveyors and the profession progressed, I was led to point out that the raison d'être is not, or not only, ethical in nature, but also legal in nature, constituting at the very least a legal fact that can become enforceable against those who recognise themselves in it and claim it. This kind of reward, which is the "ex ante responsibility" expressed by the raison d'être and relayed by Compliance Law, anchored in its monumental goals of sustainability and responsibility, justifies that the profession that embraces its raison d'être is not simply an efficient profession in a supply and demand market, but establishes the Order as a regulator. This places both in the long term. - ⛏️Further reading on the subject: (with English Summaries) 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 💬"Géomètres-experts : une profession qui assume concrètement sa responsabilité territoriale", 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝A quoi engagent les engagements, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche et 🕴🏻S. Vernet, 📝La profession investit le Droit de la compliance et détermine sa Raison d'être, 2023 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📧Quels sont les points de contact entre la Raison d'être des entreprises et le Droit de la Compliance ?, 2022   - 🌐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 Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Adéquation et inadéquation de la sanction comme outil de régulation financière et sa transformation par la Compliance" (Adequacy and inadequacy of sanctions as a tool of Financial Regulation and its transformation through Compliance)", contribution to the round-table discussion on"Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la Régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System)", Annual conference of the Commission des sanctions (Enforcement Committee) of the Autorité des marchés financiers – AMF (French Financial Markets Authority), Paris,  14 October 2025. - ► see the general programme of this manifestation (in French) The event comprises two round tables. The theme of the first round table is: La preuve des abus de marché entre l’AMF et le juge pénal : vers une convergence ? (Proof of market abuse between the AMF and the criminal courts: towards convergence?) 🪑🪑🪑AutresOther participants in this 2nd round table, moderated by Sophie Schiller, member of the Enforcement Committe on the topic: Quel rôle pour la sanction dans la Régulation ? (What role for sanctions in Regulatory System?) 🕴🏻Sébastien Raspiller, Secretary General of the AMF 🕴🏻Martine Samuelian, Partner, Jeantet Law Firm 🕴🏻Vincent Villette, Secretary General of the CNIL (French Personal Data Regulatory Body) - ► Summary of this intervention : In the round-table discussion on the role of sanctions, a number of contributions will be made, depending on the nature of the discussion itself. They will be brief in nature and will be aimed at an audience with a good knowledge of financial regulation. It is the occasion for me to insist on 2 things, the first naturely and probably for ever attached to the role of sanctions in all Regulatory Systems, the secund very new. The first is the indissociability between Criminal Law and Sanction, even if sanctions is defined as a regulatory tools. The secund is the conception and the use of sanctions through Compliance Law. Therefore, in the first idea, my first intervention, aimed more at establishing the subject and describing the Intangible, is on the very idea that sanctions have a role to play in financial regulation. By its very nature. But this does not make it any less difficult. It is not obvious, because if penalties are seen as a 'regulatory tool', then it is the regulatory perspective that predominates and 'colours' the tool that is the penalty. Regulation, of which the texts on the basis which sanctions are issued are only one tool and which is not the set of applicable rules, Regulation which is an apparatus of institutions, rules and decisions aimed at establishing the equilibrium of a sector and maintaining this equilibrium, which is by nature unstable, over time, which the sector could not do by its own efforts alone (Regulatory Law, which is Ex Ante Law, thus distinguishing itself from Competition Law, which is Ex Post Law). From the perspective of Financial Regulatory System, as in other sectoral regulatory systems, and in the general Regulatory Law, sanctions are a tool (and a tool like any other, simply more powerful than the others. This is the pragmatic perspective adopted by the State and the Regulatory body itself, which will use it in conjunction with other tools, such as an Information, Education and Incentive mechanism. Moreover, it shall use sanction as informative tool, as educational tool, as incentive tool. However, the principle of the autonomy of Criminal Law, and the European concept of "Criminal Matters" mean that the sanction can be seen in terms of the autonomous criteria of the seriousness of the act imputed and the sanction imposed on the legal person. In this respect, the penalty is inseparable from the way in which it is imposed (Criminal Law is constitutionally inseparable from Criminal Procedure). In this respect, the sanction is not a tool coloured by the overall objective served by the Financial Markets Regulatory Body: the sustainability of the financial system. The Enforcement Committee is not the AMF's "armed wing"; it is a "court", as the Oury ruling reminded us. Therefore, the question is and I would like to ask it directly to the Enforcement Committed: Can you be both?   As they say, could you be both carp and rabbit? Depending on whether you are viewed from one angle or another, you will be seen as the body that makes financial markets effective (a tool among the tools) or as the body that punishes misconduct (a court among the courts). It is possible, and in practice it is often true. But if we are honest, we will admit that regulation feeds on information and that the procedure before a criminal court is built on secrecy and the weapons of those who, innocent or guilty, are at risk because they are, or will be, prosecuted. We've never got out of this difficulty. We always try to strike a balance between the fact that it is in itself a repressive sanction for a person who will suffer and the fact that it is also a systemic tool: there is a 'balance' between the search for systemic benefit (which reduces the protection of individuals for the benefit of the system) and the concern for the people involved (which reduces the present and future protection of the system). The balance goes more or less in one direction. It is often public opinion, the place, the legislator and, even above all,  the civil appeal judge (vertical dialogue) and those in dialogue, between the regulator and the criminal judge (horizontal dialogue) which cause the scales of diverse technical solutions. It is also the way in which the Enforcement Committee, in defining itself as the armed wing of the AMF (carp) or as a repressive court (rabbit), chooses in its procedural behaviour the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System, more or less instrumentalised (carp) or jurisdictionalised (rabbit). - The second point, if there is to be one, concerns the development of the role of sanctions in Financial Regulatory System . On the basis of these fundamentals, an evolution in the role of sanctions in financial regulatory system (an evolution that can be observed in all sectoral regulatory systems) consists of internalising sanctions (in their conception by the texts, their elaboration by the Sanctions Committees, their application) in the economic operators sanctioned, in the economic sectors concerned, in the opinion concerned (the figure of Peelmanian circles of the audiences applying). This internalisation transforms Regulatory mission of the administrative body (which deals with market structures) into Rupervision (which deals directly with market operators) since the sanction penetrates the operator, the operator adopting commitments. This concept corresponds to the new branch of Law known as Compliance Law.  Compliance Law uses sanctions as an "incentive like any other", and (we must be careful on this point), because it is systemic in nature, the concern for the system being internalised in the operator, it is relatively insensitive to procedural rights. With the emphasis on information, it is the principle of adversarial debate (which provides information) rather than the rights of the defence that is valued. The cooperation of the person being prosecuted is highly valued, and non-cooperation becomes incomprehensible. The internalisation of sanctions by operators has led to two major changes. Firstly, these economic operators themselves must sanction, detect and prevent market abuse. The number of special obligations of vigilance is increasing. The obligation of vigilance of operators themselves is becoming a pillar of Regulation, transformed in Supervision.  The other development is the liberalisation of regulatory system in relation to territory, thank to Compliance Law. As operators are less dependent on borders than are regulators and authors of legal texts (but soft law is spreading, including repression), market abuses can be apprehended in several jurisdictions at the same time, notably through global compliance programmes. - 🌐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 VideoNews  MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation", 15 September 2025, Madrid. - This speech is the opening speech of the event. 🧮 See the general program of the event - 📅See the slides (not used), basis for this speechs - ► Summary of the conference: This  manifestation, made fo many interventions, is about the role and the evolution of the in-house lawyers in the Europe on the move. I opened the event by focusing on the importance of the Compliance which drives the companies now, in the future and for the future. It is quite difficile because currently Compliance Law is quite misunderstund by almost every. Therefore the first part of my intervention has been the explanation of what is the very new branch of Law, built of political Monumental Goals (Compliance Law is not just the obligation to be conform with, just to obey), the specificity of European Compliance Monumental Goals (not only the sustainability of systems, but also the concern for present and future human beins implied in them).  This systemic new branch of Law, humanist branch of Law in Europe put the Judge at its center. Par translation, this is creating a new sort of Litigation : the Compliance Systemic Litigation. Its object is the future (as Compliance Law itselft). Contrary to the "conformity", which might be left to algorithms, Compliance Law, inseparable to Systemic Litigation, are giving new role for Judges, for external lawyers and for internal lawyers. - 🌐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 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'enjeu de la crédibilité des rapports de durabilité. Temps long, Simplicité et Stratégie" (The credibility of sustainability reports. Time, Simplicity and Strategy), concluding speech, in Rencontres de la Haute Autorité de l'Audit (H2A), 2025,  Mise en œuvre de la directive CSRD. Premiers constats et perspectives (Annual Manifestation of the French Audit Regulatory Body Haute Autorité de l'Audit – H2A, Implementation of the CSRD directive. Initial findings and outlook),, 2 July 2025, La Défense, 1pm-6pm - This manifestation, which takes place face-to-face with simultaneous translation, begins with a presentation by Florence Peybernès, President of the French High Audit Authority ( Haute Autorité de l'Audit -H2A). It is followed by 3 round-table discussions: 🪑🪑🪑 Round table 1: Feedback on the first appointments 🪑🪑🪑 Round table 2: Cross-perspectives between preparers, verifiers and stakeholders 🪑🪑🪑 Round table 3: Perspectives for CSRD   It is following on from this that the more legal, more judicial perspective, in an articulation between Ex Ante and Ex Post, will take shape. - ► English summary of the speech, as prepared : n view of the information available at the time of preparation for this event, the considerable interest aroused by the CSRD, and also its contestation, which led to its modification, is it counter-intuitive in view of the technicality of the remarks, the flood of criticism and the number of pages one reads, the impression of the weight, constraints and uselessness of the thing which would deprive companies of their freedom, but what emerges rather is Simplicity. Why: because the sustainability report is only a tool and it is the goal it serves that needs to be considered (more generally that's how the judge looks at it), a tool that serves a European strategy (Green Deal, sustainable finance). It is this strategy that needs to be identified, and the company has a free hand in it. What we are looking at the company in its contribution to this goal that is simple, a contribution which it can, in information that is admittedly standardised, draw the outlines of Long-term and Strategy: Investors and stakeholders are not hostile to this approach: the key is the credibility of the information made available. Because Long-Term Thinking puts the future at the centre, and we don't know what that future will be. This essential element, which the courts have recalled in relation to Vigilance Obligation, must also be borne in mind, because it is first and foremost a question of providing information about the future. To express the Information they want to give on this subject, companies need to understand the Goal of the European Plan (where Simplicity lies), to adjust their own plan to it (under the more familiar term of "Strategy") the councils and lawyers need to help them with this; to blend their strategies with the European strategy, to rely on the authorities and the auditors so that what they say is credible. Credibility is at the heart of it, which is why auditors are at the heart of it. Because the only obligation they have is to say. Not to do. The CSRD should not be interpreted as imposing obligations on the companies subject to it to do things (such as the obligation of vigilance generates); the CSRD only imposes an obligation on them to say things. The CSRD imposes on them only an obligation to inform. While this may be onerous, standardised and certified, there is no obligation to do or disclose anything. Moreover, that is part of the company's own strategy, a strategy over which the company retains full control. In this respect, although standardised, the information is free and it is the credibility of the information that is crucial, but not participation in a plan whose terms would be written by the Authorities or the stakeholders. Therefore, after learning from each other, it seems that there are three fairly simple things that are sometimes buried under the complication of the details accumulated and the violence of the arguments exchanged around the European Omnibus package. These three points will be developed at the end of the round-tables.   The first is the simplicity of the breadcrumb trail of credible, accessible information imposed by the European Union to put the Green Deal into practice. This breadcrumb trail is held in particular by the various regulators. The second is the existence of a single, simple obligation on the part of the company: to say what it has done, is doing and plans to do, without being obliged to do anything in the European Action Plan (the CRSD does not forcibly enroll companies in the European action plan). This limitation to an obligation to say is essential. Its articulation with obligations to act, arising in particular from texts on Vigilance, or even identical terms, must not lead to confusion in qualifications. The third is the benefit that the company derives from the articulation of a double "singular strategy": that of the European Union, which wants to build its future, a strategy of the Union to which it is free to contribute or not to contribute, and that of its own strategy which is articulated with the first and in which green gives way to many other colours according to the will of the company.   ► English Summary of speech, as made with regard to what effectively was said during the 2 round tables:  During the event itself, I preferred to place myself rather in the direct continuation of what had been said.  In the fifteen minutes allotted, this was the reason for not proceeding in this way, but rather to highlight the fact that what has emerged, all these efforts, uncertainty, trial and error and goodwill to elaborate that went into drawing up the first sustainability reports, runs the risk of being erased because in retrospect, in 2 or 5 years' time, particularly if a lawsuit were be brought, we will have the impression that everything was self-evident, that we knew everything, that everything was clear and decided. And it's that future, which will be the future of the judge who will be called upon by a stakeholder, a regulator, a prosecutor, who always takes the past for granted, that we have to think about. We need to think in terms of evidence. Evidence of uncertainty. And always remember that the sustainability report is also a piece of evidence. Which will fuel liability claims, disputes over information, and so on. Plus encore, parce que le report de durabilité n'est qu'un outil, pour une stratégie, qui est une stratégie d'ensemble, où la CSRD n'est qu'un élément du puzzle, des éléments du rapport de durabilité peuvent être pris pour être utilisés plus tard pour alimenter d'autres documents et rapports, et d'autres litiges. Cela est notamment le cas du plan de vigilance, puisque la cartographie des risques est souvent commune au rapport de durabilité et au plan de vigilance, ce qui est logique puisque la CSRD et la CS3D se font miroir dans le grand plan d'action de l'Union que constitue le Pacte vert. Mais cela est amplifié par les entreprises, qui parfois confondent l'un et l'autre, dans la présentation même au sein du rapport de gestion. Il est pourtant essentielle de distinguer nettement l'obligation de dire (rapport de durabilité) et l'obligation de faire (plan de vigilance). L'ambiguïté des "engagements" accroît cela. Il est essentiel de veiller à un travail ex ante entre expert de la gestion, de la finance, de l'audit et du droit pour éviter que les points de contact ne se transforment en confusions, maintenant et /ou plus tard, confusions qui pourraient être préjudiciables à tous. - 🌐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 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

  - ► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Traduire dans l'institution judiciaire l'articulation entre l'international et le systémique" in CREDIP, Faculté de Droit de l'Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3, Le contentieux systémique émergent, un contentieux international justifiant la création de juridictions spécialisées, cycle de conférences sur Le contentieux international et la spécialisation des juges, Lyon , 18 avril 2025, 10h-12h. - 🪑🪑🪑Participent aussi à cette manifestation : 🪑Jacques Boulard, Premier président de la Cour d'appel de Paris 🪑Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, Première présidente de chambre de la Cour d'appel de Paris (Pôle économique) 🪑Jérémy Heymann, professeur de droit à l'Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 🪑Sabine Abravanel-Jolly, Professeure de droit au sein de l'Equipe Louis Josserand 🪑Marylou Françoise, maîtresse de conférences à l'Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 - 🧮consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation - ► Résumé de l'intervention : cette intervention ayant eu lieu après les présentations du Premier Président Jacques Boulard et Madame la Première Présidente Brigitte Brun-Lallemand, elle s'articule sur ces deux interventions.   I. Contentieux systémique et Contentieux international. On peut ainsi se demander si la nature d'un "contentieux systémique" se prête à ce qu'est un "contentieux international" ? A première vue, non. L'on pourrait poser que, d'une part, si le "contentieux systémique émergent" était "nécessairement international", alors l'on ne comprendrait pas pourquoi la Chambre spéciale internationale de la Cour d'appel de Paris ne suffisait pas et d'autre part, l'on ne comprendrait pas comment deux jugements ont été rendus sur le Devoir de Vigilance, dont on ne conteste pas qu'il appartient au Contentieux Systémique Emergent, alors qu'ils ne portent pas sur une chaine internationale de valeur : jugement TJ Paris 5 décembre 2023 dit La Poste, cas systémique actuellement devant la chambre spécialisée de la Cour d'appel de Paris ; TJ Paris 13 février 2025, dit SNCF, cas systémique, n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'appel.   II. Deux chambres spécialisées en miroir Dès lors, l'on pourrait dire que le contentieux systémique est de fait international mais pas par nature. Parce que cela n'est pas une subdivision du contentieux international, cela explique certes que la chambre 5-12 soit autonome par rapport à la chambre 5-16 (chambre internationale), mais parce que la perspective est de fait souvent transnationale, ces 2 chambres ont vocation à fonctionner en miroir. Car le système est un fait global. Et c'est plus en terme de fait global qu'il convient de le traiter, ce qui est plus facile dans des systèmes qui ne sont pas construit sur cette summa divisio du fait et du droit, qui convient mal au contentieux systémique.   III. Par nature, un contentieux dans lequel un système est "impliqué". Cela nous amène donc vers la définition du "Contentieux Systémique Emergent". Elle est simple : c'est un Cause dans laquelle un système est impliqué, dans lequel les intérêts de celui-ci sont en jeu, le premier de ses intérêts étant sa survie. C'est pourquoi la durabilité est une notion-clé, que l'on retrouve quelque soit le système impliqué. C'est pourquoi l'avenir est présent dans le contentieux systémique. C'est pourquoi l'office du juge est renouvelé car il s'agit d'un office Ex Ante, renouvellement à la fois procédural et substantiel qui conduit en pratique à un Droit processuel. Le fait systémique mène donc de droit à une dialogue des juges qui se spécialisent sur des faits globaux et les obligent, sauf à méconnaître ceux-ci, à se prendre en considération. Cela donne un nouveau statut au "droit comparé".   IV. Un contentieux émergent par le fait de systèmes nouveaux, globaux, saisis par des opérateurs locaux qui en fixent la stratégie.  Les systèmes ont déjà donné lieu à des contentieux : c'est la juridictionnalisation du Droit de la Régulation. Mais la Régulation a quitté ce prérequis des systèmes pour entrer à l'intérieur des opérateurs économiques dont le pouvoir de stratégie est situé localement. Le Droit de la Compliance internalise les besoins systémiques. Le Droit de la Compliance dont on affirma, parce qu'Ex Ante, qu'il allait dispenser du Juge, s'est lui-même juridictionnalisé. L'obligation de vigilance étant elle-même la pointe avancée de la Compliance, ne pouvait que donner une large place au Juge. Tandis que le système est l'enjeu du procès et de sa bonne solution, la partie au litige est l'opérateur cruciale : non seulement les entreprises régulées (comme les banques) mais encore les entreprises maîtresses des chaines de valeur (ce qui fait sortir le Droit de la Régulation des secteurs régulés). Or, les chaines de valeur sont un espace global contractuellement structuré transnational rattachées à un juge local qui est confronté à un office renouvelé avec le DIP.    V. Une culture juridictionnelle propre à des zones distinctes. Le Droit de la Vigilance, de la Compliance et de la Régulation tel qu'on le voit manier par les juges dépasse nos distinctions entre droit public et droit privé, entre les systèmes juridique, mais les décisions que l'on lit expriment trois cultures, procédurales et substantielles, différentes : l'Asie, les Etats-Unis et l'Europe. Cette culture de place porteuse d'une identité européenne de Vigilance, de Compliance et de Régulation repose notamment sur une culture juridictionnelle propre à cette zone-là. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, La qualification juridique du système de noms de domaine comme infrastructure et ses conséquences juridiques ("The legal status of the domain name system as an infrastructure and its legal consequence"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space). Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique, 21 février 2025, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance et l'Institut de la Recherche en Droit de la Sorbonne (André Tunc – IRDJS), 12 place du Panthéon, Paris. - 🧮see the full programme of this colloquium (in French) - ► Summary of this conference:  "Domain names" are a technical reality. This technical reality has come to the fore, seeming to have been both little "thought out" and little "conceived" in Law and, perhaps because it is little coveted, Competition Law, which neutralises the concreteness of things and services in order to focus on exchange, hardly qualifies them. It is rather from the 'Competition Policy' perspective that 'domain names' are apprehended. However, Competition Policy expresses wishes and perspectives, while Competition aw must make way for the perspective of Regulatory Law inside the liberal economic system. Looking at the technicalities of the domain name system, we can proceed in 3 stages. Firstly, if a domain name is taken in isolation, it may appear as property and/or a projection of a person, and has rightly been described as such by the courts. But domain names only exist in relation to each other, the addressing system on which the Internet itself and the digital space that enables everyone to spread, reach and be reached were built. In this way, they constitute an Infrastructure in their plurality, in a uniqueness (I). The legal system must take account of this technological reality through the concept of Essential Infrastructure, which is well known in Regulatory legal perspective(I). Secondly, the legal consequences of this legal qualification of Infrastructure must be detailed (II). Regulatory Law does not necessarily imply institutions, a regulatory authority being an indication rather than a criterion. Rather, it requires specific charges, powers and controls to ensure that the Infrastructure is established and operates to fulfill, now and in the future, the function that is crucially expected of it. Because the digital space was born of the Internet, an a-sectional and a-territorial space, Compliance Law, which is an extension of Regulatory Law, outside the sectors and internalised in the crucial operators, is essential as it is appropriate without diminishing the public dimension of the organisation. Thirdly, the evidential dimension should be emphasised (III). Indeed, because we need to ensure that the Domain Names Infrastructure is always solid and reliable, so as not to risk a systemic failure of the Internet, and therefore of the digital space, we must not remain with the traditional system of burden of proof that rests on the person making the complaint. Because there is a Compliance Obligation, it is up to the crucial operators to credibly show their ability to ensure the technical sustainability of this infrastructure on which the digital space in which we live is based. It shall be different if the issue is one of non-technical Sustainability, for example that which is linked to a particular societal project, in which the operators of the domain name system are not at the origin and are required on an ad hoc basis because they are in a good position to help the Authorities or because they wish to do so. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb