Publications

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “One always learns from Jean-Michel Darrois”, LinkedIn post, 6 October 2026. -

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Audit Clause, Carousel of the Contractualisation of Compliance, Working Paper, 10 August 2026, updated on 20 September 2026. - 📝 This Working Paper served as the basis for the conference « La clause d’audit corrélée à l’Obligation de Compliance » (The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation) (in French), given on 25 September 2026 in Lyon at the colloquium 🧮La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause, organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, as part of the 🏗️2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. 📘 It is the basis of the article 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. - ► Summary of the Working Paper: 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 Working Paper 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 Working Paper 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. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses: towards a Contractual Compliance System, Working Paper, 10 August 2026, updated on 20 September 2026. - 📝 This Working Paper served as the basis for the conference « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance » (Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses) (in French), given on 25 September 2026 in Lyon at the colloquium 🧮La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause, organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, as part of the 🏗️2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. 📘 It is the basis of the article 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. - ► Summary of the Working Paper: 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. 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 study 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, 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. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 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: L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche and L. d’Avout, « L’effacement de la filiation biologique : la Cour de cassation sape le droit français des personnes et de la famille » (The Erasure of Biological Filiation: the French Cour de cassation Undermines French Law of Persons and Family), Points de vue, Recueil Dalloz, No. 29, 6 August 2026, pp. 1384-1385 - 📝read this article (in French) - ► Summary of the article: - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the MAFR Newsletter Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Si l'heureux stratagème probatoire du Roi Salomon n'avait pas fonctionné (If King Solomon's probationary strategy hadn't worked)”, in Collective Book dedicated to Professor Pierre Crocq, Liber Amicorum, Lextenso – LGDJ, 2026, pp. 713-723. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - ► Introduction to the article: As renowned and significant in biblical scholarship as it is in legal culture and imagination, Solomon’s Judgement is a procedural measure, an evidential stratagem (I). But even a King cannot be certain of the success of an investigative measure that his authority allows him to impose; nothing guarantees the success of the evidential stratagem he has devised, that is to say, the discovery of the truth. The investigative measure he devised presupposes a maternal love that leads the woman – who might prefer to continue disputing – to choose instead not to keep the child and to leave him in a state of death, a mere inert prey to the claim of appropriation made by the plaintiff. It is the woman’s virtue that enables the Judge’s wisdom. The evidence stratagem might not have worked (II). This is scarcely considered, as King Solomon is always portrayed as wise and the mother as preferring the child to herself. But if we step outside the Book of Kings, where virtue reigns – that of the mother as well as that of the judge – to confront the passion of the woman who smothered her newborn in the night and now seeks the force of justice to seize the second, one might reflect, whilst wandering through the lobby of a courthouse, that it is all too often the case that adults put themselves before children. What if the second mother had put herself before the child? What would have happened if the judge’s order, already being carried out, had not been halted by the virtue of the defendant? (III). What would the King then have done to exercise his office as Judge justly, since the truth would not have been accessible to him? (IV). If one changes an element of the narrative, because justice is human, because passions drive the parties, because children are often the silent victims on both sides, is justice still possible? - 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 MaFR Law & Art Newsletter

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Considérer la géographie juridique africaine pour y réussir l'obligation de vigilance" (Taking into account the legal landscape in Africa to fulfil the Vigilance Obligation), in E. Da Allada (ed.), Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? (The Vigilance Duty: what African perspectives?), Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Thèmes et Commentaires” series, 2026, pp. 235-235. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - 🎤read the presentation of the conference  which summarised this topic - ► Summary of the article: The French ‘Vigilance’ Act of 2017 incorporated the technical provisions and the spirit of the ‘Sapin 2’ Act of 2016. They share a common ambition. They have been, and remain, a source of both controversy and fervour. At their heart lies the establishment of a “compliance obligation”, for which vigilance techniques form the “vanguard” in serving a grand ambition: to protect systems from present and future risks in order to safeguard the people involved in them. The passion that continues to surround the Vigilance Act – which gave rise to the CS3D Directive – is not a good thing, because the law and passion are never allies. Some are passionately committed to the triumph of vigilance by forcing companies to perform miracles, whilst others are passionately committed to the destruction of all the legislation that has established the very concept of this compliance law, built upon these monumental humanist goals. But let us recognise that in these debates on the Duty of Care, which is being legally implemented across value chains,  Africa is often cited as an example in a general discussion. It is not often considered as a distinct case in its own right. No account is taken of its strengths or its own legal mechanisms, even though value chains – particularly industrial ones – so often lead to it, both now and in the future. Through analyses of the duty of care, Africa is perceived as a place of retribution or of a new form of paternalism, and when its future is considered, prospects seem to be lacking, even though the very purpose of compliance – and therefore of due diligence – is the future.  If we take a less confrontational view and focus more on the ‘legal geography’ of African countries and their social and inter-state structures  social and inter-state structures, we can see that concern for others – both present and future – which ultimately constitutes the Monumental Aim of Compliance Law and thus of the Duty of Vigilance – is more prevalent in Africa than it is in Europe, which is now built upon legal individualism. This concern for others is reflected in legal mechanisms akin to mediation and various legal structures that our own institutions would do well to take on board – our legislators before adopting legislation, and our judges, who could listen to them as amici curiae before always reaching a decision. If we turn our attention to the African continent, where a segment of the value chains operates, and to the way work is organised, it becomes clear that here too, legislation and sanctions are not the whole story. Compliance techniques that make use of soft law and the contractual arrangements underpinning the chains themselves can remove the element of abstraction that is, by its very nature, inherent in general legislation. Making progress through contracts, under the scrutiny and with the support of the courts, is an approach that could prove more fruitful than well-intentioned legislation – which served as a catalyst – given the prominent role of Contract Law within OHADA. This serves to enhance the judge’s importance. The judicialisation of compliance is also linked to the growing connection between compliance and contracts. However, it appears that not only can European judges specialising in due diligence thus rule on matters concerning Africa – a continent they can only know from a distance (though it is the lot of every judge to be an outsider) – but African and inter-state courts, notably through OHADA, can address the duty of care because value chains are constituted by contracts. By developing it not as a foreign concept to be assimilated, but as something that expresses the very heart of the law in Africa: concern for others, solidarity, and the search for compromises and solutions to ensure that the social and environmental – that is to say, human – system continues to thrive tomorrow. - 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 MaFR Law & Art Newsletter

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La part du gracieux dans le traitement juridictionnel de la compliance (The role of Discretionary Jurisdictio in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases)", in Mélanges Dominique d'Ambra, Liber Amicorum, Lefebvre-Dalloz, 2026, pp. 175-196. - 📝read this article (in French)  - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper, base of this article - ► English summary of this article: Based on the definition of Judicial Office, the procedural principles that derive from it and the consequent powers that judges exercise, the objet of this study is to measure the degree of discretion that exists in the judicial treatment of compliance, without direct consideration for the dispute between litigants. This part is very ignored, when it should be given top priority. Indeed, because Systems are involved in compliance cases brought before civil or commercial judges, we are seeing a development of this discretionary element in judicial fonction. Discretionary matters differ from unilateral discretionary procedures, and this discretionary element relates to what the judge examines, possibly in the context of a dispute. The first part of this contribution therefore aims to describe the natural development of the discretionary power of the judge to deal with compliance cases brought before them. This role stems from the fact that, even when triggered by a dispute, what is submitted to the judge is a situation composed of a system, which cannot defend its interests before the civil or commercial judge in this Systemic Litigation arising from the very nature of Compliance Law and the Compliance Obligations it engenders on systemic entites. Moreover, it is the Future whose interests must be considered and protected, which the judge must do directly. This leads to the second part of the contribution, calling for a rethinking of the procedure and the role of the Compliance Judge, so that ex gratia matters can be dealt with. The judge must therefore verify that there are no conflicts of interest between the litigants, including hidden ones, and must learn about the systems involved. The inquisitorial principle must therefore be strengthened. But at the same time, since the primary aim is not to settle a dispute but to resolve a systemic problematic situation, the judge must facilitate the movements of the parties, and the adversarial principle must also be strengthened. Must be encouraged this activation of a powerful and discretionary approach, not as an exception but as a principle fully articulated with a contentious principle, with the dispute being only a means used by the necessary parties to enable systemic compliance situations to be resolved. -  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, "General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming. - 📝read the article - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of this article: At first glance, General Procedural Law seems to be the area the least concerned by the Compliance Obligation, because if the person is obliged by it, mainly large companies, it is precisely, thanks to this Ex Ante, in order to never to have to deal with proceedings, these path that leads to the Judge, that Ex Post figure that in return for the weight of the compliance obligation they have been promised they will never see: any prospect of proceedings would be seeming to signify the very failure of the Compliance Obligation (I). But not only are the legal rules attached to the Procedure necessary because the Judge is involved, and increasingly so, in compliance mechanisms, but they are also rules of General Procedural Law and not a juxtaposition of civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, etc., because the Compliance Obligation itself is not confined either to civil procedure or to criminal procedure, to administrative procedure, etc., which in practice gives primacy to what brings them all together: General Procedural Law (II). In addition to what might be called the "negative" presence of General Procedural Law, there is also a positive reason, because General Procedural Law is the prototype for "Systemic Compliance Litigation", and in particular for the most advanced aspect of this, namely the duty of vigilance (III). In particular, it governs the actions that can be brought before the Courts (IV), and the principles around which proceedings are conducted, with an increased opposition between the adversarial principle, which marries the Compliance Obligation, since both reflect the principle of Information, and the rights of the defence, which do not necessarily serve them, a clash that will pose a procedural difficulty in principle (V). Finally, and this "prototype" status is even more justified, because Compliance Law has given companies jurisdiction over the way in which they implement their legal Compliance Obligations, it is by respecting and relying on the principles of General Procedural Law that this must be done, in particular through not only sanctions but also internal investigations (VI). - 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, "In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakingsn", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming. - 📝read the article - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of this article: The innocents might believe, taking the Law and its words literally, that "commitments" are binding on those who make them. Shouldn't they be afraid of falling into the trap of the 'false friend', which is what the Law wants to protect them from (as stated in the prolegomena)? Indeed, the innocent persons think that those who make commitments ask what they must do and say what they will do. Yet, strangely enough, the 'commitments' that are so frequent and common in compliance behaviours are often considered by those who adopt them to have no binding value! Doubtless because they come under disciplines other than Law, such as the art of Management or Ethics. It is both very important and sometimes difficult to distinguish between these different Orders – Management, Moral Norms and Law – because they are intertwined, but because their respective standards do not have the same scope, it is important to untangle this tangle. This potentially creates a great deal of insecurity for companies (I). The legal certainty comes back when commitments take the form of contracts (II), which is becoming more common as companies contractualise their legal Compliance Obligations, thereby changing the nature of the resulting liability, with the contract retaining the imprint of the legal order or not having the same scope if this prerequisite is not present. But the contours and distinctions are not so uncontested. In fact, the qualification of unilateral undertaking of will is proposed to apprehend the various documents issued by the companies, with the consequences which are attached to that, in particular the transformation of the company into a 'debtor', which would change the position of the stakeholders with regard to it (III). It remains that the undertakings expressed by companies on so many important subjects cannot be ignored: they are facts (IV). It is as such that they must be legally considered. In this case, Civil Liability will have to deal with them if the company, in implementing what it says, what it writes and in the way it behaves, commits a fault or negligence that causes damage, not only the sole existence of an undertaking.  -   - 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, Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a sustainable Arbitration Place", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming. - 📝read the article - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of this article: The first part of this study assesses the evolving relationship between Arbitration Law and Compliance Law, which depends on the very definition of the Compliance Obligation (I). Indeed, these relations have been negative for as long as Compliance has been seen solely in terms of "conformity", i.e. obeying the rules or being punished. These relationships are undergoing a metamorphosis, because the Compliance Obligation refers to a positive and dynamic definition, anchored in the Monumental Goals that companies anchor in the contracts that structure their value chains. Based on this development, the second part of the study aims to establish the techniques of Arbitration and the office of the arbitrator to increase the systemic efficiency of the Compliance Obligation, thereby strengthening the attractiveness of the Place (II). First and foremost, it is a question of culture: the culture of Compliance must permeate the world of Arbitration, and vice versa. To achieve this, it is advisable to take advantage of the fact that in Compliance Law the distinction between Public and Private Law is less significant, while the concern for the long term of contractually forged structural relationships is essential. To encourage such a movement to deploy the Compliance Obligation, promoting the strengthening of a Sustainable Arbitration Place (III), the first tool is the contract. Since contracts structure value chains and enable companies to fulfill their legal Compliance Obligation but also to add their own will to it, stipulations or offers relating to Arbitration should be included in them. In addition, the adoption of non-binding texts can set out a guiding principle to ensure that concern for the Monumental Goals is appropriate in order the Compliance Obligation to be taken into account by Arbitrators. - 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, "Vigilance Obligation, Spearheard and Total Share of the Compliance Obligation", in  M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, " Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming. - 📝read the article - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published 📚see the series in which this book is published:  "Compliance & Regulation"  - 🚧Read the bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with further developments, technical references and hypertext links - ► Summary of this article: The "obligation of vigilance" unleashes all the more radical and passionate positions, sometimes among Law professors, because it has not been precisely defined. One word is used for another, either inadvertently or deliberately, deliberately if it can attract this or that element from one legal corpus and import it into another.  The very exercise of definition is therefore required in practice. There are specific obligations of vigilance that come under such and such a body of regulations and are imposed on such and such a category of operators to fulfill such and such a function. These are precise circles which are not confused and must not be confused. This is superimposed on what the French 2017 law so-called "Vigilance law", which is much more encompassing since it applies to all large companies in the operation of the value chains they have set up. The European 2024 directive is in the same way. But there is no general duty or obligation of Vigilance. Such a claim would be based on confusing or shifting each of these 3 levels, which must be avoided because no positive law does support this (I). If the duty of vigilance is attracting so much attention, whether or not the European CS3D is fully effective, it is because Vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Obligation (II). Vigilance requires companies, by consideration of their power and without reproaching them for it or demanding that it be reduced, to detect risks of damage to the environment and climate, but also to human rights, because they are in a position to do so in order to prevent them from turning into disasters. In this respect, the  Vigilance duty makes clearer the exact legal nature of the Compliance Obligation. Moreover, Vigilance appears as the Total Part of the Compliance Obligation (III). Indeed, although it is restricted to one area, the value chain, and to two types of risk, deterioration of the environment and deterioration of human rights, it expresses the totality of the Compliance Obligation by means of tools that the 2017 French "Vigilance law" had itself duplicated from the 2016 so-called "Sapin 2  law": to preserve systems today, but above all tomorrow, in order they do not collapse (Negative Monumental Goals), or even consolidate them (Positive Monumental Goals), so that the human beings who are willingly or unwillingly involved in them are not crushed by them but benefit from them. This is why large companies are subject to the Obligation of Compliance and Vigilance, particularly in the humanist conception that Europe is developing. The result is a new type of Litigation, of a systemic nature, for which the Courts have spontaneously become specialised, and for which the procedures will have to be adapted and the office  of the Judge shall have to evolve.   - 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, "Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming. - 📝read the article - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of this article: This article explains what companies' Compliance Obligation" is. Delving into the mass of compliance obligations, it uses the method of classification of those that are subject to an obligation of result and those that are subject to an obligation of means. It justifies the choice of this essential criterion, which changes the objects and the burden of proof of companies that are subject to an obligation of result when it comes to setting up "compliance structures" and are subject to an obligation of means when it comes to the effects produced by these compliance structures. Indeed, rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a nascent branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different legal regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they have to apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only sanctioned in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means. Although it would be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations put by legislation, starting from this observation in the evidentiary system of compliance of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether it is a question of this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would then appear that this plurality will not constitute a definitive obstacle to the constitution of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable "mass of regulations". Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by Ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (effaciety) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the Goal is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else, all of which come under the heading of efficiency. The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, commensurate with these Goals. In addition, because these structures (alert mechanisms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.)  have real meaning if they are to produce effects and behaviours that lead to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account. Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the entreprise's position, ultimately Goals at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial company, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave. - 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, Mission entrusted by the French Minister of Justice, Droit de la compliance, souveraineté juridique et attractivité économique (Compliance Law, Legal Sovereignty and Economic Attractiveness), 2025-2026. - 📜read the engagement letter of 5 September 2025 by which the French Minister of Justice entrusted Marie-Anne Frison-Roche with this mission (in French) - 📑The report of the mission, Déployer le Droit de la Compliance pour renforcer la souveraineté et accroître l’attractivité de la France avec l’Europe (Deploying Compliance Law to Strengthen France’s Sovereignty and Increase its Attractiveness with Europe), will be submitted to the French Minister of Justice in a French version and in an English version. - 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 supériorité du système de l’Internet sur le système algorithmique, car le premier est ouvert et le second ne l’est pas” (The superiority of the Internet system over the algorithmic system, because the first is open and the second is not), LinkedIn post, 23 January 2026. - read the original post on LinkedIn (in French), commenting on the World Economic Forum debate “Internet up for Grabs” (Davos, 23 January 2026) 🧱 read the French version of this post - 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, "Fiction🎬The talks in the Town  : what can a law professor do about it?", article from the Newsletter Law & Art, December 2025. - 🎬Watch the trailer - ► Summary of this article : This 1942 film seems to have left little trace. However, the main character, an innocent man whom the villain manipulates into being designated as the culprit by the small town's population, leading him to behave like a guilty person, is played by Cary Grant. This film inspired lawyers even more. And even more so law professors, because it was a law professor, the dean of Harvard Law School, who saved the innocent man who had been caught in the trap. And even more so today, since it was by playing on rumours, by creating them from the outset, in what we would call disinformation, that the powerful villain intended to win and, in the process, become mayor of the town, after escaping bankruptcy by setting fire to his own factory, a crime he blames on the innocent man thrown to the wolves of public opinion as citizens gather in the square. It's almost as if we were there… - 🔓read the article below⤵️ - 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,  « L'invention du "droit à l'enfant". Les conséquences de la pratique contractuelle comme source d'engendrement de l'enfant (The invention of the "right to a child". The consequences of the contractual practice as a source of childbearing)", in Special Issue Nouvelles filiations (New Filiations), AJ Famille, Lefebvre Dalloz, Nov. 2025, pp. 568-571.    - 📗read the table of content of the special issue in which this article is published (in French) - 📝read this article (in French) - 🚧Read the underlying bilingual working document, which includes additional technical developments, technical references and hyperlinks. - ► English summary of this article: Every legal system is built on concepts that form its pillars. Filiation is one such concept. A cas-law solution, presented as pragmatic and casuistic, can overturn this concept. Whether one agrees with it or not, it must first be acknowledged and assessed. Through a series of rulings on surrogacy, notably a ruling by its First Civil Chamber granting exequatur to a judgment recognising the filiation established by surrogacy between a child and persons with no biological link to the child and without recourse to adoption, the French Cour de Cassation has introduced the possibility of creating parentage by contract. This not only changes the concept of filiation but also changes the very structure of the French legal system, which is based on the distinction between persons and things. One may agree or disagree with this, but it must be said. Since the judge gives force to such a contract establishing filiation, with the foreign judge simply recognising it and the French judge ensuring only that the contract is balanced, the prospect opens up of a society in which individuals will be able to contractually create institutions at their disposal, within the private normative space of the contract, with the State's only function being to give effect to their right to legal recognition of their unique "project". Parentage is only a first example. Thus constructed on what was "inconceivable", i.e. a "right to a child", thanks to the contractual power to which the State should lend its force a posteriori, the judge makes parentage resulting .the judge technically declares a parentage arising from a contract to be "admissible". Is opening a society in institutions were contractually governed.  - 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 theNewsletter MaFR Droit & Art

►Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Droit de la compliance et Contentieux systémique" (Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation), in Chroniques Droit de la Compliance (Compliance Law Chronicles), Recueil Dalloz, 30 October 2025, No. 38, p. 1849 - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks -   ►read the English presentation of the previous chronicles: "Compliance and conformity: Distinguish them in order to articulate them", 2024 "Regulations, Compliance, Contracts, and Judges: places and alliances", 2023 "Contract of compliance, stipulations fo compliance", 2022 "The Adventure of the Compliance", 2020 "Compliance and Legal Personality", 2019 "TLegal Theory of Risk Mapping", 2019 ►read the English presentation of the whole chroniques - ►English summary of this article: Legal systems have changed, and Compliance Law, in its uniqueness, reflects this change and plays a powerful role in it. Through new sets of compliance rules, particularly at European level, in areas such as data protection (GDPR), anti-money laundering (AMLA), climate balance protection (CS3D) and banking and financial system sustainability (Banking Union), techniques (always the same) have been developed and imposed on large companies, which must implement them: alerts, mapping, assessment, sanctions, etc. These new regulatory frameworks only make sense in relation to their ‘Monumental Goals’: to detect systemic risks Ex Ante and prevent crises so that the systems in question do not collapse, but ‘sustain". All the legal instruments in the corpus are normatively rooted in these Monumental Goals, which are the core that unifies Compliance Law (I). Judges are the guardians (II) of this new and highly ambiguous normative framework, which relies on the practical ability of companies to do just that. They ensure that the technical provisions are applied teleologically in each of these compliance blocks, and that the regulatory frameworks are mutually supportive, for it is always the same systemic goal that all compliance regulations serve: to ensure that systems (banking, financial, climate, digital, energy, etc.) do not collapse, that they are sustainable, and that present and future human beings are not crushed by them but, on the contrary, benefit from them. This unity is still little perceived, as regulations pulverize this profound unity of compliance law in the myriad of changing provisions. Entrusting the "regulatory mass" to algorithms increases this pulverization, making the whole increasingly incomprehensible and therefore impossible to handle.  Acknowledging the judge's rightful place, i.e. at the heart of the matter, will enable us to master this new branch of law. But it's not the judge's job alone to restore clarity to a whole covered in the dust of his own technicality. The systemic object of Compliance Law is transferred to Litigation. Indeed, the Litigation that emerges from the new Compliance Law is also fundamentally new, by transitivity. Indeed, the aim of Compliance Law is to make systems sustainable (or sustainable, or resilient, the vocabulary varies). The result is litigation which is itself "systemic litigation" (III), most often initiated by an organization against a systemic operator. The place and role of each are transformed (IV).   -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Trio", in Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur  Denis Mazeaud, Lextenso – LGDJ, 2025. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the text written on the morning when Rémy called me to talk about building this collective book Denis. Since then, due to editorial deadlines, this text has been modified, since this article deals with the so specific French Concours d'Agrégation de Droit, and François Terré, who prepared me for it, joined Pierre Catala before the overall typescript became final. At Pierre Catala's funeral, where Rémy recounted their last meeting, I was seated at the back next to Yves Lequette, and at François Terré's funeral I was again seated at the back next to Jacques-Henri Robert. Yves Lequette and Jacques-Henri Robert, with whom I worked long and hard to prepare the Mélanges in honour of François Terré. Yes, it is indeed the Mélanges that, in a great chain, honour the masters. It doesn't matter that this is incomprehensible to those outside the Alma Mater. When I read Denis's bibliography, which opens his Mélanges, I discover that Denis, who contributed to so many Mélanges, had his first contribution to this sort of books for the Mélanges conceived for François.   - ► English Summary of this contribution : The contribution pays tribute to Denis Mazeaud as a candidate in the Concours d'Agrégation des Facultés de Droit that we took together. As long as the University benefits from professors instituted in this way, i.e. in a non-competitive relationship with their peers and in a non-financially valued relationship with their knowledge and talent, Alma Mater will remain. - 📗Read the general presentation of these Mélanges. - 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, "De l'obligation de compliance à l'obligation de vigilance : le rôle du juge (From the obligation of compliance to the obligation of vigilance: the role of the judge)", in Round table De la compliance au devoir de vigilance. Une nouvelle responsabilité des entreprises (From Compliance to the Vigilance duty. A new responsibility for businesses," Lettre des juristes d'affaires, Oct. 2025. - 📝read the article reproducing the entire discussion (in French) - ► Summary of my contribution:  In this debate, the terms of which have been reproduced in the journal, I was asked to explain how the legal system had evolved, first by establishing Compliance Law, built on systemic ambitions to prevent sectoral disasters (banking, finance, energy), ambitions that constitute "Monumental Negative Goals", and then evolving on the one hand "Monumental Positive Goals", namely the protection of human beings involved willingly or unwillingly in these systems, on the other hand, outside even sectors with clearly defined boundaries, such as environmental or digital ambitions. The duty of vigilance extends this regulatory law and gives concrete form to the "compliance obligation" to which companies are subject. It is important to maintain a sense of proportion in the conception of the responsibility attached to it so as not to lose everything. Companies are bound by the goals but must remain free in their choice of means, and in particular be encouraged to use contractual techniques. This measure is entrusted to the judge because, due to the Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, it is at the heart of this new branch of Law, which is developing independently of fluctuations in the regulations. During the discussion, I was asked for my opinion on the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeal on 17 June 2025, known as La Poste case. I pointed out that the comments had often focused only on the developments regarding risk mapping, whereas this ruling first establishes the principle that the vigilance plan is the work of the company's decision-making bodies and is not co-constructed, as consultation is a process of discussion and taking in consideration, which is not the same thing, with the judge himself pointing out that they must not interfere in management. In the discussion, I emphasised that if we were to highlight the essence of what would be a "new responsibility", it would primarily concern a new probative dimension that the company must implement in Ex Ante. The implementation of the CSRD, even if it has been excessively standardised, is in line with this, and this probative culture must be developed. - ⛏️Further reading on the subject : 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2026 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Vigilance, the front line and integral part of the compliance obligation, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in Order and keep the sense of Reason, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024 -   -   - ► Article summary : The  - 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