♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, "The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system", in M.A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published

____

► Summary of this article: the article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork. 

To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the "probatory square" in a "probatory system" that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance.

The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law

In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof.

The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the "round of the burden of proof". But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a "compliance contract" or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law. 

Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof. 

In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with. 

In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools. 

If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law.

____

🚧read the Bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article.

____

📘 read the general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

_______

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, notes prises pour faire le rapport de  synthèse du colloque de  La société vigilante, 24 mars 2023.

____

► Méthode : En raison de la richesse et la diversité des propos tenus, pour tenir le temps imparti, des passages n'ont pas été repris à l'oral. 

Parce qu'il s'agit d'une synthèse, le document ne s'appuie que sur les propos tenus et n'est pas doté de références techniques, ne renvoyant pas non plus à des travaux personnels.

____

► Articulation des notes prises au fur et à mesure de l'écoute des différentes interventions des orateurs successifs :

____

🔻Lire les notes prises d'une façon exhaustive ci-dessous.

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, Vigilance, Compliance Monumental Goals and "Vigilant Company", Working Paper, March 22.

____

🎤 This Working Paper has been done as basis for the  ntroduction of the colloquiul La société vigilante ("Vigilant Company") at the Aix-Marseille University on March 24, 2023 (conference given in French) 

____

► Summary of the Working Paper: P

____

🔓read the Working Paper⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche "Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.

___

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article

____

► Summary of this Article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore, Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

📘​See the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals in which this article will be published

____

► read the presentation of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  

📝 Role and Place of Compagnies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

________

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Place and rôle of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in situation of crisis", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.

____

► Article Summary:  This article has a very topic: the place of private Companies, regarding the chapter's issue: "the ordeal of a crisis". The crisis constitutes a "test", that is to say, it brings evidence. Let us take it as such.

Indeed, during the health crisis, Companies have helped the Public Authorities to resist the shock, to endure and to get out of the Crisis. They did so by force, but they also took initiatives in this direction. From this too, we must learn lessons for the next crisis that will come. It is possible that this has already started in the form of another global and systemic crisis: the environmental crisis. In view of what we have been able to observe and the evolution of the Law, of the standards adopted by the Authorities but also by the new case law, what can we expect from Companies in the face of this next Crisis, willingly and strength?

____ 

🚧Read the bilingual Working Paper, with more developments, technical references, and hypertext links.

____

📘go to the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

________

.  

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law", in M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.

___

► Article Summary: Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a form of universality.

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, an extremely dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools regarding these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore, Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

🚧 read the bilingual Working Papier, with more technical developments, references, and links

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goal, in which this article is published.

________

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. rison-Roche., "The Principle of Active Systemic Proximity, a corollary of the renewal of the Principle of Sovereignty by Compliance Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

,___

🚧 read the Bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article.

____

► Summary of this Article:  Surprisingly, it is often in a quarrelsome, angry, dissatisfied tone that we first speak of Compliance, especially when Compliance takes a legal form, because it is then we talk about sanctions coming from afar. These sanctions would strike both extremely hard and in an illegitimate way, Law only therefore takes its part in Compliance to increase its brutality: the Law is what would prolong the war between States to better hit this kind of civilian population that would be the companies..., in a new kind of "planetary total war"...

Why so much detestation, which can only be generated by such a presentation?

Because, thanks to the power of Law, Compliance would therefore be the means for a State, finally found, to meddle in the affairs of others to serve its own interests, including those of its companies, to go to war against other States and to the companies they care about without even having to formally declare the war to them. Compliance Law would finally allow a State that is not even a strategist, just smarter, to leave its territory to regulate others. It is true that it seems even more exasperating that it would also be under the guise of virtue and good purposes. Thus, it is not possible to count the number of the writings that describe and comment on the occurrences of the expression "Trojan horse", "economic war", etc. There are thus more articles on this subject of Compliance Law as a means of going to dictate to subjects of law who are nevertheless subject to other legal systems their behavior and to sanction them for having failed to do so, than on all other technical Compliance matters.

As soon as the term "extraterritoriality" is dropped, the knives are drawn. The dejection of defeat... because who can fight against American power, American Law seducing everyone? The call for resistance, or at the very least for "reaction"... In any case, it would be necessary to put the analysis back on its true terrain: politics, conquest, war, so leaving the legal technique there, area which would be good for the naive and above all count the divisions amassed on each side of the borders, then note that only the United States would have had the ingenuity to count many of them, with their armada of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, with Compliance Law amassed like so many gold coins since the 1930s, American companies relaying the assault by internalizing Compliance Law through internal codes, law that is "soft" only in name, and community standards governing the planet according to American principles, the solution then consisting of line up as many of them as possible in reaction, then attempt to "block" the assault. Because if there is no Global Law, Compliance Law would have succeeded in globalizing American Law.

The technique of blocking laws would therefore be the happy outcome on which the forces should concentrate to restore "sovereignty", since Europe had been invaded, by surprise by some famous texts (FCPA) and some cases whose evocation (BNP case) to the French ear sounds like a Waterloo. Compliance Law would therefore only be a morne plaine...

But is this how we should understand the notion of Sovereignty? Has the so-called question of "the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law" not been totally biased by the question, certainly important but with both very precise and extremely specific outlines, of embargoes which have almost not related to Compliance Law?

The first thing to do is therefore to see more clearly in this kind of fight of extraterritoriality, by isolating the question of embargoes from other objects which should not be assessed in the same way (I).

This done, it appears that where Compliance Law is required, it must be effectively indifferent to the territory: because Compliance Law intervenes where the territory, in the very concrete sense of the land in which we are anchor is not present in the situation to be governed, situation to which our minds have so much difficulty adapting and which, however, is now the most common situation: finance, space, digital. If we want the idea of ​​civilization to remain there, that the notion of "limit" be central there. However, Sovereignty is not linked to omnipotence, it is the grandchildren who believe that, it is on the contrary linked to the notion of limits (II).

But if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by the territory, the ground on which we walk and the border on which we stumble and which protects us from aggression, if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by death and the oblivion into which our body and our imagination eventually fall. Indeed, technology erases both natural limits. The Law was the very reflection of these limits, since it was built on the idea of ​​life and death, with this idea that, for example, we could no longer continue to live after our death. Digital technology could challenge this. In the same way, Law had in the same "natural" way reflected the terrestrial borders, since Public International Law being internal Public Law, took care that each sovereign subject remained in its terrestrial borders and did not go beyond, without the agreement of others, Public International Law organizing both the friendly reception of the other, by treaties and diplomacy, as well as unfriendly entry, by the Law of War, while  Private International Law welcomes foreign legal systems if a extraterritorial element is already present in the situation.

The complexity of the rules and the subtlety of the solutions do not modify the solidity of this base, always linking the Law to the material reality of this world which are our bodies, which appear and disappear and our "being" with them, and the earth squared by borders. Borders have always been crossed, International Commercial Law being only an economic and financial translation of this natural taste for travel which does not question the territory, human beings passing from one to another.

But the Global has arrived, not only in its opportunities, being not an issue because one can always give up the best, but also in global risks whose birth, development and result are not mastered and of which it is not relevant to thinking only of repairing the damage, because preventing risks from degenerating into a systemic catastrophe is what is at stake today. What if territory slips away and hubris seizes human beings who claim that technology could be the new wings leading a fortunate few to the sun of immortality? We could go towards a world that is both catastrophic and limitless, two qualifiers that classical philosophers considered identical.

Law being what brings measure, therefore limits in a world which, through technology, promises to some the deliverance of all these "natural" limits, could, by the new branch of Compliance Law, again inserting limits to a world which, without this contribution, would become disproportionate, some being able to dispose of others without any limit: in doing so, Compliance Law would then become an instrument of Sovereignty, in that it could impose limits, not by powerlessness but on the contrary by the force of Law. This explains why Compliance is so expressly linked to the political project of "Digital Sovereignty".

To renew this relationship between Law and Sovereignty, where the State takes a new place, we must think of new principles. A new principle is proposed here: the Principle of "Proximity", which must be inserted into the Ex-Ante and systemic Law that is Compliance Law. Thus inserted, the Principle of Proximity can be defined in a negative way, without resorting to the notion of territory, and in a positive way, to posit as being "close" what is close systemically, in the present and in the future, Compliance Law being a branch of Systemic Law having as its object the Future.

Thus, thinking in terms of Proximity consists of conceiving this notion as a Systemic Principle, which then renews the notion of Sovereignty and founds the action of entities in a position to act: Companies (III).

If we think of proximity not in a territorial way, the territory having a strong political dimension but not a systemic dimension, but if we think of systemic proximity in a concrete way through the direct effects of an object whose situation immediately impacts ours (as in the climatic space, or in the digital space), then the notion of territory is no longer primary, and we can do without it.

If the idea of ​​Humanism should finally have some reality, in the same way that a company donneuse d'ordre ("order giver") has a duty of Compliance regarding who works for it, this again meets the definition of Compliance Law as the protector of human beings who are close because they are internalized in the object consumers take. It is this legal technique that allows the transmission, with the thing sold, of the procedural right of action for contractual liability.

Therefore, a Principle of Active Systemic Proximity justifies the action of companies to intervene, in the same way that public authorities are then legitimate to supervise them in the indifference of the formal legal connection, principe of indifference already functioning in the digital space and in environmental and humanist vigilance.

It is therefore appropriate to no longer be hampered by what is a bad quarrel of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law (I), to show the consubstantial Indifference to the territory of this new branch of Law (II) and to propose the formulation of a new Principle: the "Principle of Active Systemic Proximity (III).

____ 

► See the general presentation of the book, 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article will be published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

___

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, " Definition of Proportionality and Definition of  Compliance Law", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p.

___

► Article Summary: The use of Proportionality t always limit powers is only justified when it is about sanctions, but sanctions are only one tool among others in Compliance Law, intended moreover to have little place in this Ex Ante branch of Law. And returning to the very nature of Compliance Law, which relies on operators, private or public, because they are powerful, then using proportionality to limite powers is detrimental to Compliance Law. 

However, nothing requires that. Compliance Law is not an exception that should be limited. On the contrary, it is a branch of Law which carries the greatest principles, aimed at protecting human beings and whose Normativity lies in its "Monumental Goals": detecting and preventing future major systemic crisis (financial, health and climate ones).

However, literally the principle of Proportionality is: "no more powers than necessary, as many powers as necessary".

The second part of the sentence is independent of the first: this must be used.

Politics having fixed these Monumental Goals, the entity, in particular the company, must have, even tacitly, "all the necessary powers" to achieve them. For example, the power of vigilance, the power of audit, the power over third parties. Because they are necessary to fulfill the obligations that these "crucial operators" must perform as they are "in a position" to do so.

So instead of limiting the powers, the Principe of Proportionality comes to support the powers, to legitimize them and to increase them, so that we have a chance that our future is not catastrophic, perhaps better.

In this respect, Compliance Law, in its rich Definition, will itself have enriched the Principle of Proportionality.

____ 

🚧read the Working Paper, with technical developments, references, and hypertext links.

____

📘go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, 

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

________

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️ s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Instaurer l'insécurité juridique comme principe, outil de prévention des crises systémiques catastrophiques totales", in G. Gerqueira, H. Fulchiron et N. Nord (dir.), Insécurité juridique : l'émergence d'une notion ?, 2023, pp. 153-167. 

___

📝read the article (in French)

____

► Résumé de l'article : Avant

____ 

📝 Lire le document de travail bilingue, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes, ayant servi de base à cet article

____.

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, 500 p. _

____

► Presentation of this book: Sanctions, controls, appeals, deals: judges and lawyers are everywhere in the Compliance mechanisms, creating unprecedented situations, sometimes without a solution yet available.  Even though Compliance was designed to avoid the judge and produce security by avoiding conflict. This jurisdictionalisation is therefore new. Forcing companies to prosecute and judge, a constrained role, perhaps against their nature. Leading to the adaptation of major procedural principles, with difficulty. Confronting arbitration with new perspectives. Putting the judge at heart, in mechanisms designed so that he is not there. How in practice to organize these opposites and anticipate the solutions? This is the challenge taken up by this book.

____

📘 In parallel, the English version of this book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, is published in the series co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. 

____

🧮 This book comes after a cycle of colloquia organised in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Academic Partners.

____

This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in the collection "Régulations & Compliance", founded and managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

___

🏗️ General construction of this book:

The book begins by a double Introduction, the first (in free access) summarizing the book, the second, substantial, relating to the need to reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose the Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law. 

The first Part is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law. of Compliance: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, even of others.

The second Part relates to Compliance general procedural Law, the procedure being the way between the dispute and the judgement. 

The third Part continues this journey to the judge and aims to measure the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in dispute resolution methods where it was not, with some exceptions, present, but where it has a great future: Arbitration.

Because trial and judicial decision are inseparable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law should not be divided but compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon of their dissociation, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding the latter must not be dissociated, because therefore Compliance mechanisms and the Rule of Law must be thought out and practiced then, the rise in power of one must be the sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the 'weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Part relates to the Judges in the Compliance mechanisms and culture. 

____

► Read in free access the article: M.A. Frison-Roche, "Lignes de force de l'ouvrage La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance" (Lines of Forces of the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance).

____

►Read below the summaries of each contribution of the book⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conforter le rôle du Juge et de l'Avocat pour imposer la Compliance comme caractéristique de l'État de Droit" ("Reinforce the Judge and the Attorney to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 29-55. 

____

► This article is the introduction of the book.  

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks 

____ 

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): One can understand that the compliance mechanisms are presented with hostility because they seem designed to keep the judge away, whereas there is no Rule of Law without a judge. Solid arguments present compliance techniques as converging towards the uselessness of the judge (I). Certainly, we come across magistrates, and of all kinds, and powerful ones, but that would be a sign of imperfection: its ex-ante logic has been deployed in all its effectiveness, the judge would no longer be required... And the lawyer would disappear so with him...

This perspective of a world without a judge, without a lawyer and ultimately without Law, where algorithms could organize through multiple processes in Ex Ante the obedience of everyone, the "conformity" of all our behaviors with all the regulatory mass that is applicable to us, supposes that this new branch of Law would be defined as the concentration of processes which gives full effectiveness to all the rules, regardless of their content. But supposing that this engineer's dream is even achievable, it is not possible in a democratic and free world to do without judges and lawyers.

Therefore, it is imperative to recognize their contributions to Compliance Law, related and invaluable contributions (II).

First of all, because a pure Ex Ante never existed and even in the time of the Chinese legists, people were still needed to interpret the regulations because a legal order must always be interpreted Ex Post by who must in any case answer the questions posed by the subjects of law, as soon as the political system admits to attributing to them the right to make claims before the Judge. Secondly the Attorney, whose office, although articulated with the Judge's office, is distinct from the latter, both more restricted and broader since he must appear in all cases where the judicial figure puts himself in square, outside the courts. However, Compliance Law has multiplied this since not only, extending Regulatory Law, it entrusts numerous powers to the administrative authorities, but it also transforms companies into judges, in respect of which the attorneys must deal with.

Even more so, Compliance Law only takes its sense from its Monumental Goals. It is in this that this branch of the Law preserves the freedom of human beings, in the digital space where the techniques of compliance protect them from the power of companies by the way that the Compliance Law forces these companies to use their power to protect people. However, firstly, it is the Judges who, in their diversity, impose as a reference the protection of human beings, either as a limit to the power of compliance tools or as their very purpose. Secondly, the Attorney, again distinguishing himself from the Judge, if necessary, reminds us that all the parties whose interests are involved must be taken into consideration. In an ever more flexible, soft, and dialogical Law, everyone presenting himself as the "advocate" of such and such a monumental goal: the Attorney is legitimate to be the first to occupy this place.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Lignes de force de l'ouvrage La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance" ("Main lines of the book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 1-28. 

____

► This article constitutes the first part of the Introduction of the book; its access is free⤵️ 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): This free access article ⤵️explains firstly the general purpose of the book and secondly how the book is structured in 4 parts.

Then, thirdly and following the table of contents, this article takes up in a few lines each of the contributions.

This is how the "main lines" of the book La juridictionnalisation de la compliance ("The Juridictionnalisation of Compliance") become even clearer

____

🔓read this article in full text (in French) ⤵️

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Ajuster par la nature des choses le Droit processuel au Droit de la Compliance" ("Adjusting by the nature of things General Procedural Law to Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 251-262. 

____

📝read the article (in French)

____ 

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► The principal elements of this articles had been presented during the scientific manifestation held on September 23, 2021, at Dauphine University in Paris, coorganised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institute Droit Dauphine. 

In the book this article is placed in the chapter II about the General Procedural Law in the Compliance Law.  

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Procedural law is an invention, essentially due to professor Motulsky, going well beyond the gain that one always has in comparing types of procedures with each other. As he asserted, there is Natural Law in General Procedural Law, in that as soon as there is the Rule of Law Principle there cannot be, whatever the "procedure", even the "process" such and such way of doing things: for example, to decide, to seize the one who decides, to listen before deciding, to contest the one who has decided.

General Procedural Law therefore depends on the nature of things. However, Compliance Law organizes things in a new way. Therefore, both the simple and iron principles of General Procedural Law creep in where we do not expect them at first sight, because there is no judge, this character around whom ordinary procedures fit together. The principles of General Procedural Law are essential in companies. Even if the regulations do not breathe a word about it, it is up to the Judges, in particular the Supreme Courts, to recognize this nature of things because on this effect of nature that  General Procedural Law is built: when compliance mechanisms oblige companies to strike, General Procedural law must oblige, even in the silence of the texts, to arm those who can be hit, even stand up against devices that would set aside too much these defenses that are easily considered contrary to efficiency (I).

But because it is a question of making room for this nature of the things of which the Rule of Law Principle entrusts the custody to the Judge and the Lawyer, the General Procedural Law must also adjust itself to what the extraordinary new branch of Law Compliance Law is. Indeed, Compliance Law is extraordinary in that it expresses the political pretention to act now so that the future will not be catastrophic, by detecting and preventing the realization of systemic risks, or even that it is better, by building effective equality or real concern for others. Because it is the Monumental Goals that defines this new branch of Law, a disputed systemic issue, possibly disputed by several parties before a judge, the procedural principles used by the court must be broadened considerably: they must then include civil society and the future (II).

General Procedural Law thus naturally acquires an even more place than in the classic branches of Law since on the one hand it imposes itself outside of trials, particularly in companies and on the other before the courts it involves people who had hardly any place to speak and thinks themselves, especially the systems entering the "causes" of Compliance now debated before the Judge.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le jugeant-jugé. Articuler les mots et les choses face à l'éprouvant conflit d'intérêts" ("The Judge-Judged. Articulating words and things in the face of the testing conflict of interest"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 59-80. 

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Since the topic of this article is part of a chapter devoted to the Company established as Prosecutor and Judge of itself by Compliance Law, chapter aiming to use the relevant qualifications, it is appropriate therefore to worry about the adjustment of words and things, of the way in which the relationship between ones and the others evolve, and of the more particular question of knowing if this evolution is radical or not when one speaks of "judge ".

because "judging" is a word that the Law has disputed with other disciplines, but that it has appropriated not so much to confer more powers on those who act in its name, for example that who supervise and punish, but on the contrary to impose limits, since to the one who judges it has put the chains of the procedure under foot, thus making bearable for the other the exercise of such a power. Therefore, those who want the power to judge would often want to not have the title, because having de jure the title of judge is being subject to the correlated regime, it is to be submitted to procedural correctness.

It is therefore to better limit that the Law sees who judges, for obliging this so-powerful character to the procedure. But the Law also has the power to appoint a judge and to fix the contours of all the characters in the trial. He usually does it with clarity, distinguishing the ones of the others, not confusing them. This art of distinction has constitutional value. Thus, not only the one who judges must be named "judge" but the procedural apparatus which goes with this character, and which constitutes a way of doing things and fundamental rights, are not "granted" by kindness or in a second step: it is a block. If you didn't want to have to endure procedural rights, you didn't have to want to be a judge. Admittedly, one could conclude that the procedure would therefore have become "substantial"; by this elevation, it is rather a fashion of saying that the procedure would no longer be a "servant": it is a kind of declaration of love for the procedure, as long as one affirms that at the acts of judging , or investigating, or prosecuting, are "naturally" attached the procedural rights for the one who is likely to be the object of these powers.

Compliance Law, in search of allies to achieve the Monumental Goals for the aims of which it was instituted, will require, or even demand, private companies to go and seek themselves, in particular through investigations. internal or active vigilance on others, for finding facts likely to be reproached to them. Compliance Law will also require that they prosecute those who have committed these acts. Compliance La will again demand that they sanction the acts that people have committed in their name.

This is clearly understood from the point of view of Ex Ante efficiency. The confusion of roles is often very efficient since it is synonymous with the accumulation of powers. For example, it is more efficient that the one who pursues is also the one who instructs and judges, since he knows the case so well... Besides, it is more efficient that he also elaborates the rules, so he knows better than anyone the "spirit" of the texts. This was often emphasized in Regulatory Law. When everything is Information and risk management, that would be necessary ... But all this is not obvious.

For two reasons, one external and the other internal.

Externally, the first reason is that it is not appropriate to "name" a judge who is not. This would be too easy, because it would then be enough to designate anyone, or even to do it oneself to appropriate the regime that goes with it, in particular for obtain a so-called legitimate power for obtaining that others obey even though they are not subordinate or from them they transmit information, even though they would be  competitors: it would then be necessary to remember that only the Law is able to appoint judge ; in this new Compliance era, companies would be judges, prosecutors, investigators!  Maybe, if the Law says it, but if it didn't, it would be necessary to come back to this tautology ... But are we in such a radicalism? Moreover, do judges have "the prerogative" of judgment and the Law has not admitted this power for companies to judge for a long time? As soon as the procedure is there in Ex Ante and the control of the judge in Ex Post?

The second reason, internal to the company, situation on which the article focuses, is that the company investigates itself, judges itself, sanctions itself. However, the legal person expressing its will only through its organs, we underline in practice the difficulties for the same human being to formulate grievances, as he/she is the agent of the legal person, addressed to the natural person that he/she himself/herself is. The two interests of the two are not the same, are often opposed; how the secrets of one can be kept with respect to the other, represented by the same individual? ... It is all the mystery, even the artifice of legal personality that appears and we understand better that Compliance Law no longer wants to use this strange classical notion. Because all the rules of procedure cannot mask that to prosecute oneself does not make more sense than to contract with oneself. This conflict of interest is impossible to resolve because naming the same individual X then naming him/her Y, by declaring open the dispute between them does not make sense.

This dualism, which is impossible to admit when it comes to playing these functions with regard to corporate officers, can come back to life by setting up third parties who will carry secrets and oppositions. For example, by the designation of two separate lawyers for the human being agent and the human being representative of the legal person, each lawyer being able to have secrets for each other and to oppose each other. These spaces of reconstitution of the so "natural" oppositions in procedure between the one who judges and the one who is judged can also take the technological form of platforms: where there is no longer anyone, where the process has replaced the procedure, there is no longer any human judgment. We can thus see that the fear of conflicts of interest is so strong that we resign ourselves to saying that only the machine would be "impartial", a derisory conception of impartiality, against which it is advisable to fight.

This then leads to a final question: can the company claim to exercise the jurisdictional power to prosecute and judge and investigate without even claiming to be a prosecutor, an investigating judge, or a court? The company's advantage would be to be able to escape the legal regime that classical Law attaches to its words, mainly the rights of the defense and the rights of action for others, the principle of publicity of justice for everyone, which expresses the link between procedure and democracy. When Facebook said on June 12, 2021 "react" to the decision of May 5, 2021, adopted by what would only be an Oversight Board to decide "as a consequence" of a 2-year suspension of Donald Trump's account, the art of qualifications seem to be used in order to avoid any regime constraint.

But this art of euphemism is very old. Thus, the States, when they wanted to increase repression, presented the transformation of the system as a softening of it through the "decriminalization" of Economic Law, transferred from the criminal courts to the independent administrative agencies. The efficiency was greatly increased, since the guarantees of the Criminal Procedure ceased to apply. But 20 years later, Words found their way back to Things: under Criminal Law, slept the "criminal matter", which requires the same "Impartiality". In 1996, a judge once affirmed it and everything was changed. Let us therefore wait for what the Courts will say, since they are the masters of qualifications, as Article 12 of the French Code of Civil Procedure says, as Motulsky wrote it in 1972. Law has time.

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance" ("The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p 409-442.

____

📝read the article (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks 

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): the article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork. 

To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the "probatory square" in a "probatory system" that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance.

The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law

In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof.

The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the "round of the burden of proof". But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a "compliance contract" or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law. 

Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof. 

In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with. 

In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools. 

If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law.

________

♾️suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A. Les grands cas juridictionnellement résolus par le Droit de la compliance, document de travail, janvier 2023.

____

🎤 Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une intervention sur ce thème, prenant place dans la formation de deux jours conçus par François Ancel et Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Le Droit de la Compliance pour l'Ecole nationale de la Magistrature, les 2 et 3 février 2023. 

____

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Le

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, Regulatory and Compliance Law, expression of the missions of a professional Order, Working Paper, July 2022.

____

🎤 This Working Paper has been done as basis for an intervention in the Annual Congress of the French Professional Order of the Géomètres-Experts, September 15, 2022 (conference given in French) 

____

🎥watch the short presentation of this speech (in French) 

____

🎥watch the full speech given on 15 September 2022, based on this working paper

____

► Summary of the Working Paper: Professional orders should not present themselves as exceptions, however legitimate they may be, in relation to a principle, which would be the competitive system, but as the expression of a principle. This principle is expressed by two branches of Law whose importance is constantly growing in European Law, liberal branches which are based on the conception of economic life and the definition of company, turned towards the future: the Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, two branches of Law at the same time related and distinct.

Indeed, and this is the topic of the first part, Competition Law conceives professional orders as exceptions since these "corporations" constitute structural agreements. French domestic legal system both consolidates the professional orders by backing them up to the State, which would sub-delegate its powers to them, but involves them in the questioning by the European Union of the States and their tools. Most often the temptation is then to recall with a kind of nostalgia the times when the professional orders were the principle but, except to ask for a restoration, the time would be no more.

A more dynamic approach is possible, in accordance with the more general evolution of Economic Law. Indeed, the Professional Order is the expression of a profession, a little-exploited concept in Economic Law, over which the Order exercises the function of "Second-level Regulator", the public authorities exercising the function of "First-level Regulator". The Banking and Financial Regulatory Law is built in this way and operates thank to that, at national, European, and global level. This is what should be linked.

The Professional Orders therefore have the primary function of spreading a "Culture of Compliance" among the professionals they supervise and beyond them (clients and stakeholders). This culture of Compliance is developed regarding the missions which are concretized by the professionals themselves.

Therefore, the second part of the Working Paper deals with the legal evolution of the notion of "Mission" which has become central in Economic and General Law, through the technique of the mission-based company. However, there are multiple points of contact between the raison d'être, the company with a mission and Compliance Law as soon as the latter is defined by the concrete and overly ambitious goals that it pursues. : the Monumental Goals.

Each structure, for example the French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is legitimate to set the Monumental Goal that it pursues and that it inculcates, in particular the conception of territory and the living environment, joining what unites all the Monumental Goals of Compliance: concern for others. The French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is adequate because it has a more flexible relationship, both tighter and broader, with the territory than the State itself.

By instilling this in professionals, the Professional Order develops in the practitioner an "ex ante responsibility", which is a pillar of Compliance Law, constituting both a charge and a power that the practitioner exercises, and of which the Professional Order must be the supervisor.

____

🔓read the Working Paper⤵️

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Ce qui est commun à la Compliance, au Contrat et aux Parties contractantes". Éléments pour la synthèse", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Université de Nîmes Compliance et Contrat : les acteurs et leurs stratégies, Nîmes, 18 novembre 2022.

____

🧮 lire le programme complet du colloque

____

🏗️Ce colloque prend place dans le cycle de colloques, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et les Universités qui sont ses partenaires académiques, pendant l'année 2022/2023 autour du thème général L'obligation de compliance.

____

► des difficultés techniques et d'organisation du temps ont empêché l'exposé oral de la synthèse réalisée sur le vif au terme de l'audition des différentes contributions faites dans la journée.  Il en reste donc les notes prises sous la forme d'un document de travail, auquel le lendemain ont été ajoutées quelques notes en pop-up pour aller plus loin.

____

► Résumé du document de travail résumant le colloque : En premier lieu, il convient de ne pas confondre les trois piliers dont l'enjeu est de percevoir l'articulation. En effet pour mesurer les stratégies des parties par l'usage qu'elles font du contrat au regard de leurs obligations de compliance, il faut distinguer leurs obligations de conformité et leurs obligations de compliance; distinguer dans les contrats les éléments subjectifs (que sont les parties) des éléments objectifs (que sont les clauses), distinguer le contrat au sens technique des mouvements de "contractualisation" qui renvoie à une appellation plus large et plus vague, distinguer entre la partie juridiquement contractante, personne morale ou personne physique, de l'entreprise, souvent désignée comme le sujet du Droit de la Compliance, distinguer l'usage que celle-ci fait de son pouvoir normatif de l'usage qu'elle fait de son pouvoir contractuel, distinguer les techniques juridiques de régulation au sens strict de ce qu'on désigne souvent d'une façon plus générale et plus vague comme un pouvoir de "régulation". Ces distinctions sont d'autant plus bienvenues que s'agissant des parties contractantes, il convient de distinguer les parties au contrat et les "parties prenantes" telles que le Droit de la Compliance les considère, l'ensemble de ces distinctions et articulations montrant qu'à première vue le Droit de la Compliance montrant plutôt l'entreprise assujettie dans un rapport avec la norme unilatéralement édictée, le contrat ne lui serait pas forcément l'instrument le plus naturellement adéquat.

Pourtant, en deuxième lieu, les clauses de compliance, voire les contrats de compliance, ont été multipliées par les entreprises parce que c'est un moyen pour elles de satisfaire leurs obligations légales de compliance en se créant, par le contrat, des débiteurs qui exécutent des prestations de compliance. Ainsi, c'est parce qu'il est assujetti légal qu'il devient créancier contractuel tandis que son cocontractant en devient débiteur parce que sa profession l'implique ou parce que sa position dans la chaîne de valeur l'implique.

En troisième lieu, les créanciers et les débiteurs contractuels d'un contrat de compliance ou d'une clause de compliance peuvent être concrètement saisis, comme le font les textes eux-mêmes qui ne visent que les opérateurs cruciaux, les contrats distinguant parmi les parties des catégories concrètement distinctes.

____

🔓Lire les développements du document de travail, constituant la synthèse du colloque, ci-dessous ⤵️

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️ s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Le juge, tiers régulateur des obligations contractuelles de compliance, document de travail, octobre 2022.

____

🎤 ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une conférence, prononcée le 18 novembre 2022 à l'Université de Nîmes.

____

📝Il sert aussi de base pour un article qui sera publié dans un ouvrage, publié dans sa version française dans l'ouvrage 📕L'obligation de Compliance, dans la collection 📚Régulations & Compliance et dans sa version anglaise dans l'ouvrage 📘Compliance Obligation, dans la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Résumé du document de travail  : 

🔓Lire les développements ci-dessous ⤵️

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️ s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Fonder la compliance", in Revue de l'ACE, La compliance, n° spéc. n°157, septembre 2022, p.17-31.

____

► Résumé de l'article : L'article traite le sujet en 20 étapes 

1. Pourquoi fonder les pratiques de compliance ? Pour des impératif pratiques 
2. Fonder les pratiques de compliance pour rendre supportables, car compréhensibles, les pouvoirs et les charges concentrés dans les outils de Compliance 
3. Fonder les pratiques de compliance pour maîtriser un savoir technique exponentiel 
4. Fonder les pratiques pour y trouver la part du Droit 
5. Fonder la Compliance sur les process d’efficacité 
6. Rendre supportable la Compliance fondée sur les process d’efficacité par un mix de procédure et d’éthique
7. Les professionnels de la Compliance fondée sur des process
8. La place particulière de l’avocat et du juge dans la Compliance fondée sur des process
9. Fonder la Compliance sur l’obligation de donner à voir par avance que l’on se conforme à la réglementation applicable
10. L’aporie de la Compliance fondée sur l’obligation de donner à voir par avance que l’on se conforme à la réglementation applicable 
11. Les charges engendrées de la Compliance fondée sur l’obligation de donner à voir par avance que l’on se conforme à la réglementation applicable 
12. L’impraticabilité de la Compliance fondée sur l’obligation de donner à voir par avance que l’on se conforme à la réglementation applicable
13. Fonder la Compliance sur des buts substantiels ponctuels
14. Les professionnels de la Compliance impliquées par la Compliance fondée sur des buts substantiels ponctuels 
15. Fonder la Compliance par des buts substantiels globaux et à venir
16. Fonder la Compliance par les Buts Monumentaux, négatifs et positifs
17. Les professionnels de la Compliance fondée sur les Buts Monumentaux
18. La place particulière de la population concernée et de l'Etat dans la Compliance fondée sur les Buts Monumentaux
19. La place particulière de l’avocat et du juge dans la Compliance fondée sur les Buts Monumentaux
20. L'avenir du Droit de l'Avenir

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue, doté de références techniques supplémentaires et de liens hypertextes, ayant servi de base à cet article

____

lire la revue dans son intégralité

_________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance, the new legal way for human values: towards an Ex-Ante responsability", in Homenagem aoe Professor Arnoldo Wald, A Evoluçào do Direito no Século XXI, 2022, pp. 977-983.

_____

► Article Summary:  For the first time, the future is the first question for the Humanity. The classical legal conception of Tort Law concerns the Past, the philosophical conception of Hans Jonas, a Responsability for the Future, an Ex-Ante Responsability must become a legal notion. 

Traditionally, the Legislator takes decision for the Future and the Judges takes ones for the Past, but now in front of the possible disparition of human beings on this planet, global and catastrophic perspective, all legal perspectives need to be used, breaking the classical repartition, in the priority of the future.  To do something, the Responsability must be put on everyone in a legal force, not only on the classical subject of Law and because of past behaviors, but because the operators, States, firms, or individuals, are "in position" to do so. 

This new "Ex-Ante Responsability" is an essential part of the Compliance Law, very new branche of Law, with an extraterritorial effect, to find immediate and active solutions for the future. Because the issue is global, international Arbitration is in position to apply the conception, because international arbitrators are the global judges.

This new conception of legal Ex-Ante Responsability, declared by courts, expressed human values, such as the concerns for the others, in concordance withe the humanist tradition of European and American Law, Compliance being not at all to obey regulations but to concretise an alliance a Monumental Goal, here for the preservation of human beings in the future, and the powers and the legal duties of corporate and people to do so. 

____

📝 read the article 

____

📝 Go to the general presentation of the book, Les buts monumentaux de la compliance, in which this article is published in French.

______

► Read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝 Les lignes de force de l'ouvrage Les buts monumentaux de la compliance

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance contract, compliance stipulations, working paper, September 2022.

____

►Summary of this working paper:  Compliance Law has multiplied obligations. However, although Tort Law is emerging in Compliance issues and contracts are multiplying in practice, for the moment the relationship between Compliance Law and Contract Law is not very visible (I).

However, there are contracts whose sole purpose is to give concrete form to Compliance, which creates a specific contract and must influence its implementation (II). Moreover, there is much to learn from the diversity of compliance stipulations scattered throughout a wide range of contracts (III).

________

🔓read the developments below⤵️

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, 520 p.

____

► English Summary of the book: Seize Compliance by its mind: its Monumental Goals. The notion of "monumental goals" of Compliance was proposed in 2016 by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche📎!footnote-2696. It has become explicit in the texts and the resolution of cases, for example to fight against climate change, make human beings effectively equal, force to be extraterritorially vigilant about suppliers. 

Compliance Monumental Goals are targeted ex ante by regulations, contracts, CSR, and international treaties. Creating an alliance between business and political authorities, aiming for a new form of sovereignty. The presence in litigation of these Monumental Goals of global dimension renews the responsibilities and the Judge office. Describing and conceiving these Monumental Goals makes it possible to anticipate Compliance Law, which is more powerful every day.

____

📘In parallel, a book in English Compliance Monumental Goals, is published in the collection copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant 

__

🏛️ This book follows a cycle of colloquia 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by its universities partners. 

____

📚This volume is one of the books dedicated to Compliance in the collection Regulations & Compliance :  : read the presentations of the other titles of this collection.

____

► General construction of the Book : The book opens with a double Introduction, the first summarizing the book (in free access) ​and the second, more substantial, proposing  the Monumental Goals as definition of Compliance Law putting them at its "beating heart", giving this new branch of law its originality and specificity, explaining what, in the History of the United States and Europe, gave birth to this singular corpus and justifies a substantial definition of Compliance Law. The concept of Monumental Goals is explained, justifying both systemic and political nature of Compliance Law, the practical consequences of which legal specific rules are thus better identified and limited, since Compliance Law does not lead to all-obedience. We can then determine what we can expect from this Law of the Future that is Compliance Law.

From there, the book unfolds in 5 titles.

A first Title is devoted to the "radioscopy" of this notion, in itself and branch of Law by branch of Law.

A second Title aims to measure how the Monumental Goals are questioned by a crisis, for example in a health situation, but not in that example, if they aggravate it and must be discarded, or if, on the contrary, they are exactly conceived for this hypothesis. of crisis, risks, catastrophes and that it is advisable to exploit them, in order, in this "test", to benefit from the alliance between the political authorities, public powers and crucial operators.

Once made explicit and tested, the Monumental Goals must find a sure way to be considered. Therefore, a third Title aims to measure in principle and in practice how the Proportionality method can help the integration of Compliance, thus giving a new dimension to the Law without dragging it into insecurity and illegitimate grabbing of powers.

But because Compliance Monumental Goals express a very great ambition, the question of a bearable, even beneficial relationship with the international competitiveness of companies, standards and systems must be opened. This is the object of the fourth Title.  

Finally, because the Monumental Goals express by nature a new ambition of the Law in a world which must not give up in what could be the prospect of its abyss, the fifth Title has for object the relationship between the Monumental Goals of Compliance and Sovereignty.

___

► Understand the book through the Table of Contents and the summaries of each article:

DOUBLE INTRODUCTION

🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📝Summary of the book Les buts monumentaux de la compliance (in French) : free access

🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A.,📝,Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance 

I. LA NOTION DE BUTS MONUMENTAUX DE LA COMPLIANCE (" THE IDEA OF COMPLIANCE MONUMENTAL GOALS") 

🕴️Maistre, R.-O.,📝 Quels buts monumentaux pour le Régulateur dans un paysage audiovisuel et numérique en pleine mutation ?

🕴️Beaussonie, G., 📝Droit pénal et Compliance font-ils système ?

🕴️Le Fur, A.-V., 📝Intérêt et raison d’être de l’entreprise : quelle articulation avec les buts monumentaux de la compliance ?  

🕴️Le Goff, A., 📝La part des banques dans la concrétisation des Buts monumentaux de la Compliance

🕴️Vaquieri, J.-F., 📝Les "Buts Monumentaux" perçus par l'entreprise. L'exemple d'Enedis

🕴️Malaurie, M..,📝 Les buts monumentaux du droit du marché. Réflexion sur la méthode

🕴️La Garanderie, D. de, 📝Sur les buts monumentaux de la compliance sociale

🕴️Peicuti, C. &🕴️Beyssade, J., 📝La féminisation des postes à responsabilité dans les entreprises comme But de la Compliance. Exemple du secteur bancaire 

🕴️Gavanon, I.,📝 Le droit des données personnelles dans l’économie numérique à l’épreuve des buts monumentaux

🕴️Petit, B.,📝 L'agencement des buts monumentaux du droit du travail : un ensemble mouvant et souvent paradoxal   

🕴️Huglo, Ch., 📝 À quelles conditions le Droit climatique pourrait-il constituer un But Monumental prioritaire ?

II. MISE EN OEUVRE DES BUTS MONUMENTAUX DE LA COMPLIANCE EN ARTICULATION DU PRINCIPE MAJEUR DE LA PROPORTIONNALITÉ ("IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE MONUMENTAL GOALS IN ARTICULATION OF THE MAJOR PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY") 

🕴️Rapp, L., 📝Proportionnalité et Normativité  

🕴️Bär-Bouyssière, B., 📝Les obstacles pratiques à la place effective de la proportionnalité dans la Compliance

🕴️Mendoza-Caminade, A., 📝Proportionnalité et évaluation. L'exemple du Droit de la propriété intellectuelle

🕴️Meziani, L., L., 📝Proportionnalité en Compliance, garant de l’ordre public en entreprise

🕴️Segonds, M., 📝Compliance, proportionnalité et sanctions. L'exemple des sanctions prononcées par l'Agence française anticorruption. 

🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📝Proportionnalité et Compliance 

 III. LES BUTS MONUMENTAUX DE LA COMPLIANCE ÉPROUVÉS PAR LES SITUATIONS DE CRISES ("THE COMPLIANCE MONUMENTAL GOALS TESTED BY CRISIS SITUATIONS")

🕴️Oumedjkane, A., Tehrani, A. et Idoux, P., 📝Normes publiques et Compliance en temp de crise : les Buts Monumentaux à l'épreuve. Eléments pour une problématique  

🕴️Bonnet, J., 📝La crise, occasion de saisir la Compliance comme mode de communication des autorités publiques  

🕴️Sudres, N., 📝Gel hydroalcoolique, Covid-19 et Compliance :  des insuffisances de la démarche de conformité à l’émergence d’îlots de compliance  

🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📝Place et rôle des entreprise dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

IV. EFFECTIVITÉ DES BUTS MONUMENTAUX DE LA COMPLIANCE ET COMPÉTITIVITÉ INTERNATIONALE ("EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPLIANCE MONUMENTAL GOALS AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS") 

🕴️Deffains, B., 📝L’enjeu économique de compétitivité internationale de la compliance

🕴️Roda, J.-Ch., 📝Compliance, enquête interne et compétitivité internationale : quels risques pour les entreprises françaises (à la lumière du Droit antitrust) ?

🕴️Marty, F., 📝L'apport des programmes de conformité à la compétitivité internationale : une perspective concurrentielle

🕴️Lochmann, S., 📝Les agences de notation ESG et l'effectivité de la Compliance face à la Compétitivité internationale

🕴️Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📝Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale  

V. LA COMPLIANCE PORTÉE PAR LES BUTS MONUMENTAUX, NOUVELLE VOIE DE SOUVERAINETÉ ("COMPLIANCE SUPPORTED BY MONUMENTAL GOALS AND NEW WAY OF SOVEREIGNTY") 

🕴️Bismuth, R., 📝Compliance et Souveraineté : relations ambigües

🕴️Benzoni, L., 📝Commerce international, compétitivité des entreprises et souveraineté :  vers une économie politique de la compliance

🕴️Boursier, M.-A., 📝Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : mode d'expression des Etats

🕴️Pottier, S.,📝 Pour une compliance européenne, vecteur d'affirmation économique et politique

🕴️André, Ch., 📝Souveraineté étatique, souveraineté populaire : quel contrat social pour la compliance ?

Frison-Roche, M.-A., 📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p.21-44.

___

📝 Read the article (in French)

____

🚧 Read the bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article

____

► English Summary of this Article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

📕Read the general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published.

____

► Read the presentation of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du principe de souveraineté par le droit de la compliance

________