Publications

First of all, this working document was used as a support for an oral intervention done in French on the general topic.  L'officier ministèriel est-il soluble dans la blockchain ? (Is the ministerial officer soluble in the blockchain?) at the "Club du Droit", which took place at the Conseil supérieur du Notariat on May 14, 2019, in Pars. Consult the general presentation of the conference (in French). Then it serves as a basis for an article to be published in the Revue Defrénois (in French). - Introduction & Summary. The technical analysis of the confrontation between the tool that is the blockchain and the function that ensure these particular people who are the "ministerial officers"¹Sur la confrontation déjà faite dans l'analyse économique de la "régulation" et la fonction notariale, v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., ...., might make it possible to deduce the use that they must make of it. . For this, it is necessary to keep in mind this distinction so simple: the blockchain is a tool, a thing, a machine, an algorithm, a mechanical, mathematical power, while the ministerial officer is a human being. This refers to the distinction that the Western legal system, whether Civil Law or Common Law, poses as summa divisio: the distinction between human beings and things. This first distinction is formulated so that we do not treat human beings as things, since they are legally qualified as "person"²Frison-Roche, M.A., Pour protéger les êtres humains, la nécessité éthique de la notion juridique de personne, 2018. . This is not a natural idea, because if the opportunity arises we would be inclined to treat the other human being as thing. It would be nice and effective. But Law, in its first principle, opposes it, to protect the one who can not afford to be a wolf for the other. This political reason implies that this distinction remains very clear and strong. Now, many try at any moment to make us forget it. For this essential distinction to remain effective, not only should we not imagine human beings as things (reduced to their bodies, for example, or reduced to mechanical acts of consumption³Anders, G., notamment dans son ouvrage central L'obsolescence de l'homme (1956), présentant l'être humain réduit à l'état de "machine désirante" par une société de pure et simple consommation. Le souci qu'il en a comme philosophe rejoint le souci qu'en avait Jacque Ellul, comme juriste, s'inquiétant de la "société technicienne" (...). Or, les machines correspondent aujourd'hui au dessin que ces auteurs du milieu du XXième siècle en faisaient. De la même façon, Alain Supiot rapporte à Kafka le souci du "machinisme" dans le fonctionnement des institutions humaines (....) ; il ne fait notamment dans son analyse de Kafka comme "artiste de la Loi" (2019).), like this is notably described and denounced by Alain Supiot in his successive works⁴Par exemple Supiot, A., La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015 ; Mondialisation ou globalisation ? Les leçons de Simone Weil, 2019 ; Le droit au XXIème siècle : droit, technique et écoumène (dernière leçon au Collège de France, 22 mai 2019). Sur cette idée folle et dévastatrice qu'il faut faire davantage confiance aux machines qu'il ne faut faire confiance aux êtres humains, ce qui justifierait donc de "mécaniser" les autres humains, idée folle reprise le plus souvent par les auteurs avec entrain, v. par ex. Caprioli, E.A., La blockchain ou la confiance dans la technologie, JCP 2016. 672, n° 3. , but it is also necessary that, especially by an imagined vocabulary, one represents things as acting like people, whereas it does not only machines and tools. But technology represents more and more things with anthromophormi forms and reactions , through robots which "speak", "intelligent" machines, etc. The economic success of promoters of machines and other human-like robots, mechanical solutions presented as "intelligent", is based on forgetting the distinction between the person and things. It is certainly possible to erase this distinction from our system of thought. The difficulty is that it is the basis of Western Lawl⁵Frison-Roche, M.-A., La disparition de la distinction de jure entre la personne et les choses : gain fabuleux, gain catastrophique, 2017.  and that there are strong reasons to keep it because this distinction protects the weak human being from injustice, permits him and her to participate in the general  order, to avoid an order built on a pure balance of power which can only lead to violence. It is this background that is played in the practical questiond of insertion of blockchains and other technologies and the way in which the various professions must exercise their functions today. If these tools are consistent with these functions, or even improve them, professionals must welcome them without suspicion, or even participate directly in developing them. If these tools are not capable of fulfilling certain functions entrusted to these professionals, then these functions must not be inadvertently or maliciously inserted into a blockchain, whose capacity for preservation and reliability does not amount to anything, because a thing doesn't have any ability to think. This is why we must start from the functions, by dinstinguising the technical function of conservation, duplication and elaboration of acts (I). It seems that assuming the technical reliability of preservation and duplication acquired through the blockchain, as soon as there is a part of elaboration in the act, human intervention must step in because a machine is unfit to check the facts. Here we find the distinction between the retranscribed negotium, this retranscription never being mechanical, and the instrumentum itself, which, split from what gave rise to it, can be subjected to duplicative and conservation technologies. These technologies of conservation and duplication could be so efficient that the notions of original and copy could be questioned because of the reliability of the blockchain (II). Thus the blockain is an effective technology on the instrumentum as documents divided from the negotium, but it can not guarantee the correspondence between the two ; it has only the reliability in the conservation, the availability and the duplication to infinity of the instrumentum, of what is extremely useful, and justifies that ministerial officers incorporate this technology. But the function of these are not limited to being agents of conservation and duplicators. We do not simply move from the copyist monk to the blockchain. The main and so precious function of the ministerial officers is to check the accuracy of the mentions of the instrumentum in relation to the reality of the negotium. This is so precious for a market economy to have this correspondance⁶Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'acte authentique, acte de marché, 2010. . The ministerial officer does so as a human being, while a machine can neither check this correspondence nor advise the parties – especially not the weak part in the negotium. This is why the State – which has never ignored the effectiveness of "decentralization" techniques – has decentralized its office and its correspondance. With a sole and autonomous machine, it is not possible to know if  acts correspond to the objective reality of the transactions (their object) as well as to their subjective reality (consent). If we choose not to entrust this to human beings carrying this function, for which a machine is unfit, it would be a political choice It will have a price (III). This would be the choice of a very liquid and unsecured market (without intermediary, with the benefit of lower cost in Ex Ante and higher risk for the long term). In policy, the balance is always between security and liquidity, especillay in financial systemic policy. This was done by American Law, wich prefered low costs and high liquidity, especially for real estate loans, which were securitized by subprime mortgages. For the moment, this choice is not made in this sense by European Law, safety concern in the elaboration of the acts being preferred and the distinction between the human aptitude and the mechanical aptitude remaining. And we know that in the first system the reajustment takes the form of a general crisis, which reinjects the reality of the negotiums, lost in the instrumentums.  What price are we ready to pay ? Once this distinction is clearly made, because the elaboration of an acte mus be made bye the ministerial officer, human being invested by the State of the particular charge ensures the accuracy of the mentions of the act with the reality of people, wills, obligations and goods, it is all the more expedient for ministerial officiers to organize themselves to develop blockchain technology. Indeed, once this act has been developed reliably, ans as such deserves to be "authentic", because of the continuum between elaboration, preservation and duplication, because it is up to the ministerial officiers to draw up the deeds more incontestably reliable. It is up to them to equip themselves with the technological means of best conservation and duplication of acts elabored by them (IV). 

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, L'apport du Droit de la Compliance dans la Gouvernance d'Internet  (The contribution of Compliance Law to the Internet Governance), Report asked by the French Government, published the 15th of July 2019, 139 p. - ► Report Summary. Governing the Internet? Compliance Law can help. Compliance Law is for the Policy Maker to aim for global goals that they require to be achieved by companies in a position to do so. In the digital space built on the sole principle of Liberty, the Politics must insert a second principle: the Person. The respect of this One, in balance with the Freedom, can be required by the Policy Maker via Compliance Law, which internalises this specific pretention in the digital companies. Liberalism and Humanism become the two pillars of Internet Governance. The humanism of European Compliance Law then enriches US Compliance law. The crucial digital operators thus forced, like Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc., must then exercise powers only to better achieve these goals to protect persons (against hatred, inadequate exploitation of data, terrorism, violation of intellectual property, etc.). They must guarantee the rights of individuals, including intellectual property rights. To do this, they must be recognized as "second level regulators", supervised by Public Authorities. This governance of the Internet by Compliance Law is ongoing. By the European Banking Union. By green finance. By the GDPR. We must force the line and give unity and simplicity that are still lacking, by infusing a political dimension to Compliance: the Person. The European Court of Justice has always done it. The European Commission through its DG Connect is ready.   ► 📓 Read the reporte (in French) 📝 Read the Report Summary in 3 pages (in English) 📝 Read the Report Summary in 6 pages (in English) -   ►  Plan of the Report (4 chapters): an ascertainment of the digitization of the world (1), the challenge of civilization that this constitutes (2), the relations of Compliance mechanisms as it should be conceived between Europe and the United States, not to mention that the world is not limited to them, with the concrete solutions that result from this (3) and concrete practical solutions to better organize an effective digital governance, inspired by what is particularly in the banking sector, and continuing what has already been done in Europe in the digital field, which has already made it exemplary and what it must continue, France can be force of proposal by the example (4). -   📝  Read the written presentation of the Report done by Minister Cédric O (in French). 🏛 Listen to the oral  presentation of the Report by Minister Cédric O durant the parliamentary discussion of the law against hate contente on the Internet (in French). -   💬 Read the interview published the 18 July 2019 : "Gouvernance d'Internet : un enjeu de civilisation" ( "Governing Internet: an Issue of Civilization"), given in French,  📻 Listen the Radio broadcast of July 21, 2019 during which its consequences are applied to the cryptocurrency "Libra" (given in French) 🏛 Presentation of the Report to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel- CSA (French Council of Audiovisual) on Septembre 5, by a discussion with its members presentation (in French) 💬 Read the  Interview published the 20 December 2019 : "Le droit de la compliance pour réguler l'Internet" ("Compliance Law for regulate Internet"), given in French -     read below the 54 propositions of the Report ⤵️ - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

►  Complete reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Having a good behavior in the digital space, working paper, April 2019. - 📝  This working document serves as a basis for a contribution to the collective book dedicated to Professor Michel Vivant, article written en French.   Summary: The jurist sees the world through the way he learns to speak¹Cornu, G., Linguistique juridique, 2005. , legal vocabulary build by Law itself, whether in common law or in civil law. Thus, we think we are dealing with the human being who does not move, taken by the legal notion expressed by the term "person", their body and their biological development in time, from the birth to the death, holding entirely in this hollow of that word "person", while the behavior of the human being with regard to the world, others and things, are grouped in other branches of Law: the Contract and Tort Law and the Property Law, which are only what people do with and about things. The Law of the Environment has already come to blur this distinction, so finally so strange because this classical conception refers to a person taken firstly in his immobility (Law of individuals), and then in his only actions (Contrats and Tort Law, Property Law). Indeed, the very notion of "environment" implies that the person is not isolated, that he/she is "surrounded", that he/she is what he/she is and will become because of what surrounds him/her ; in return the world is permanently affected by his/her personal action. On second thought, when once "Law of Individuals" was not distinguished from Family Law, the human being was more fully restored by this division in the legal system that not only followed him/her from birth to death but also in him/her most valuable interactions: parents, siblings, couples, children. Thus Family Law was finer and more faithful to what is the life of a human being. To have instituted Law of Individuals, it is thus to have promoted of the human being a vision certainly more concrete, because it is above all of their identity and their body about what Law speaks, astonishing that we have not noticed before that women are not men like the others. To have instituted the Law of the people, it is thus to have promoted of the human being a vision certainly more concrete, because it is above all of his identity and his body that one speaks to us, astonishing that the we have not noticed before that women are not men like the others²Frison-Roche, M.-A. & Sève, R., Le Droit au féminin (ed.), 2003. without however remembering that abstraction is sometimes the best of protections³Under this "mask" of the "subject of Law", we are all equal. S. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Le sujet de droit, 1989..  But it is also to have isolated human beings, split from what they do, what they touch, what they say to others. It is by taking legally a static perception of a "man without relationship". We have gone from the legal individualism of the Law of the sole man. From this concrete vision, we have all the benefits but Law, much more than in the eighteenth century, perceives the human being as an isolated subject, whose corporeality ceases to be veiled by Law⁴Baud, J.P., L'affaire de la main volée. Histoire juridique du corps humain, 1993. , but for whom the relation to others or to things does not define him or her. Which brings the human being a lot closer to things. An human being who is a legal subject who does what they wants, as they can, limited by the force of things. But in fact things are so powerful and the human being, in fact, so weak. For example, the marks people leave are erased by time. Their grip on the world stops at the extent of their knowledge, the time and money they have, building to use better their own time and to reach projects that they designed, In this conception, Person and Liberty are one, returning the subject to their solitude. This freedom will come into conflict with the need for order, expressed by society, social contract, state, law, which imposes limits on freedom of one to preserve freedom of the other, as recalled by the French Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme  of 1789. Thus, it is not possible de jure to transform every desire in action,, even though the means would be within reach of the person in question, because certain behaviors are prohibited in that they would cause too much disorder and if they are nevertheless committed, they are punished for order to return. Thus, what could be called "law of behavior", obligations to do and not to be put in criminal, civil and administrative Law, national and international Law, substantial Law and procedural Law :they will protect the human being in movment pushed by the principle of freedom forward others and thing, movement inherent in their status as a Person.  The human being is therefore limited in what they want to do. In the first place by the fact: their exhausting forces, their death that will come, the time counted, the money that is lacking, the knowledge that they does not even know not holding, all that is to say by their very humanity; Secondly, by the Law which forbids so many actions …: not to kill, not to steal, not to take the spouse of others, not to pass as true what is false, etc. For the human being on the move, full of life and projects, Law has always had a "rabat-joy" side. It is for that reason often ridiculous and criticized because of all its restraining regulations, even hated or feared in that it would prevent to live according to our desire, which is always my "good pleasure", good since it is mine. Isolated and all-powerful, the human being alone not wanting to consider other than its desire alone. Psychoanalysis, however, has shown that Law, in that it sets limits, assigns to the human being a place and a way of being held with respect to things and other persons. If one no longer stands themselves by the prohibition of the satisfaction of all desire (the first of which is the death of the other), social life is no longer possible⁵On neurosis as a constitutive mode of child sociability, s. Lebovici, S., "C'est pas juste", in La justice. L'obligation impossible, 1994. . Thank to the Law, everyone follows the same Rule at the table, from which a discussion can take place between guests and without which it can not⁶Read the article of Alain Supiot about the idée of Rule common of all, under the discussion between all, presented by this author through the artwork of Kafka : "Kafka, artiste de la loi", 2019; Kafka is very present in the work of Alain Supiot, for example in his First Lesson in the Collège de France, 2012, or in an Introduction of La Gouvernance par les nombres ; This latter book is now available in English : Governance by numbers. The making a legal model of allegiance, 2017 (translated by S. Brown). . You stand straight in your chair, you do not eat with your fingers, you do not speak with your mouth full, you do not interrupt the speaker. Admittedly, one often learns at the beginning of the learning of the Law that one should not confuse "politeness" and Law. That these rules are politeness and that this is not Law … But this presentation aims to make it possible to admit that the criterion of Law would be in the effectiveness of a sanction by the public power: the fine, the prison, the confiscation of a good, which the rudeness does not trigger whereas Law would imply it: by this way we are thus persuaded of the intimacy between the public power (the State) and Law… But later, after this first lesson learned, the doubt comes from the consubstansuality between Law and State. Is it not rather appropriate to consider that Law is what must lead everyone to "behave well" with regard to things and people around them? The question of punishment is important, but it is second, it is not the very definition of Law. The French author Carbonnier pointed out that the gendarme's "kepi" is the "Law sign", that is to say what it is recognized without hesitation, but it is not its definition. The first issue dealt with by Law is then not so much the freedom of the person as the presence of others. How to use one's freedom and the associated deployment of forces in the presence of others? How could I not using it when I would like to harm them, or if the nuisance created for them by the use of my free strength is indifferent to me⁷That's why splitting Persons Law and Family Law masks another reality: the family is not made up of third parties. The links are there. They pre-exist. Starting from the only Persons Law pushes to think one can "build" his/her  family by links drawn on white paper: the contracting of the families made up of individuals becomes thinkable, even natural. How can Law lead me to use my means for their benefit while our interests do not converge?  We do not use our force against others because we have interest or desire, we do not give him the support of our strength while he indifferent us, because Law holds us. If the superego was not enough. If Law and the "parental function of the States" did not make alliance. We do it because we hold ourselves Or rather we were holding ourselves. Because today a new world has appeared: the digital world that allows everyone not to "hold" himself, that is to say to constantly abuse others, never to take them into consideration, to attack massively. It's a new experience. It is not a pathological phenomenon, as is delinquency (which simply leads to punishment), nor a structural failure in a principle otherwise admitted (which leads to regulatory remedies) but rather a new use, which would be a new rule: in the digital space, one can do anything to everyone, one is not held by anything or anyone, one can "let go" (I). This lack of "good behavior" is incompatible with the idea of ​​Law, in that Law is made for human beings and protect those who can not afford to protect themselves; that is why this general situation must be remedied  (II).

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance et personnalité, in Recueil Dalloz, n°11/7812, avril 2019, pp. 604-606 -   ► Chronique English Summary: Compliance is often presented as a set of mechanical procedures, in which human beings are absent. It's the opposite. It is an Information Law, in its function of preventing systemic risks and a markets protection Law, which poses the requirement of knowing “truly” the person who is “relevant”, generalizing what Company or Competition Law had partially admitted. Even more, beyond systems, Compliance Law, insofar as it is a Protection Law, aims to protect human beings, directly or indirectly concerned, establishing them as legal persons, true final subjects of law of this new branch of Law. - 📝read the chronique (in French). - 🚧  read the bilingual Working paper, Compliance and Personality, basis of this chronique,    working paper including footnotes, technical references and hyperlink - 📖 read the other chroniques Chronique MAFR Droit de la Compliance -

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Creating "Regulation Law" at Dauphine, in Huault, I. and Bouchard, B. (ed.), 50 years of Research in Dauphine. 1968-2019, 2019, pp. 110-114 Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)   Read also:  The foreword of the book written by Bruno Bouchard (in French) The preface of the book written by Ivar Ekeland (in French) The table of contents of the book (in French)

This working paper has served as a basis for an article subsequently published in French in the Law Journal Recueil Dalloz (see Compliance et personnalité, Recueil Dalloz, 2019). It is enriched with notes, references and links.    Summary: Compliance Law is often presented as empty and a mechanical set of procedures, in which human beings do not matter. It is the opposite. The concern of human beings justifies it fights against the legal technique of the personality. Indeed as Compliance Law is an legal construction around Information and even in its core function of prevention of the systemic risks and its markets protection, the Compliance Law sets the requirement to know "genuinely" the person who is "relevant" – behind the legal person – for the purpose set, for example the fight against corruption or money laundering, establishing in principe what are only exception in Corporate Law or Competition Law. In a more European conception of Compliance Law, as Law of direct protection of human beings beyong legal personnalities, from near the company and even far, humans being the real and effective beneficiaries of the new branch of Law. 

This working document is the basis for a conference held in Nice on February 4, 2020.   Refer to the presentation of the conference, in particular to the slides which are the support of its presentation.   The working document is also the underlying of the article to appear in the book: Compliance Tools..   Summary of the Working Paper. The link between Law and History is so often emphasized, also between Law and Society, but very little between Law and Geography. Braudel does not have enough emulators in the matter. However Pascal affirmed as an observation that the legal rules are not the same below and beyond the Pyrenees. Montesquieu in the new formulation which he proposes of the Theory of climates, gives to the observation of the variety of systems and their correlation with geography a more normative turn. Human beings would be different according to the regions and by the effect of time a difference of nature appears which implies that one should not conceive the same rule according to the zones of the world. Everyone often talk about Montesquieu and affirms the good idea to return to his conception on the art of designing Law. Why not use this specifif theory  in matters of Compliance Law, globally applied since the climates are so different? All the more if we take more literally the reference to "climate", to different climates and we have in mind the now very strong link between Law and environmental policies on the one hand and the tools of Compliance Law on the other hand (like the so-called "green finance").   If we have to do it with caution, we can already do it as an exercise, if only to test the way we design and apply Compliance tools without ever thinking about the differences in latitude, which are neither hot nor cold to artificial intelligences.   It is certainly with great caution that we should move forward but by expressing more consideration for the essential relationships between Law, Compliance and Geography. This consideration must be not just a simple indicator that ultimately comes in the risk mapping and in the programs compliance, If we pay attention, then firstly this avoids two pitfalls (I). The first is to avoid giving all the space to tools that do not integrate this geographic dimension, by reducing what Compliance itself is. This risk of giving too little importance to the geographic dimension in the design and use of Compliance tools (A) can take three forms. Indeed if we reduce Compliance to being only a "procedure" aiming to mechanically ensure the entreprise "conformity" to "regulation" (1), then this literally meaningless definition can apply everywhere and to everyone. But is Compliance Law just that? It is notably to ignore its normative teleological character. The second exclusion from geographic relevance, which similarly signals a poor vision of Compliance, consists in entrusting the entire mechanics of Compliance to platforms and algorithms, by which machines "talk" and would be able to "develop standards" (2) . If Compliance is only data capture, storage and correlation, this is conceivable. But the "ground" where the weak signals are perceived, memorized, where the standards are "internalized, shows that it varies according to the zones. As such, the idea of" regulation by data ", promoted by many regulations and Regulators deserves be more careful because the information does not make the decision by itself, Compliance Law remaining from Ex Ante with humans who decide for the future. Similarly, Compliance Law takes shape in companies, either all (about corruption, worker security), or those of certain sectors (banks for money laundering) or of a certain size (vigilance mechanisms). When it is assumed that the compliance standards, embodied by internal controls, are the same for all of the locations of the so-called "global" company (3), is this not a somewhat outdated vision of the company? While we question the State, because too hierarchical, this is the board of the company which sometimes imposes via its private regulatory power the same standard, fixed on the West …..   But once alerted on this first type of pitfall is to better guard against another type of pitfall. It is the reverse. Indeed, we must be careful not to give too much importance to the geographic dimension in the design and use that we have of Compliance tools (B).  It is not appropriate to draw boundaries between Compliance systems, since Compliance has given rise to a new Law branch, strongly linked to the phenomenon known as "globalization" (1). However, not only can we observe the permanence of these borders, on which international settlement systems run up, but we note that Compliance Law allows the construction of new walls, against which we could do nothing. While there is a war between exported local Compliances, of which that of the United States is the most conspicuous because its voice carries the most, but it is above all a defeat of the Law, but about which we tends to confuse the part and the whole (2).   Once we have tried to regain our senses a little, it could be possible to classify Compliance tools because the Compliance techniques, as soon as we want them substantial, that is to say built on the goals that their power can actually achieve, have an immense field of action which means that we must at the same time identify general but concrete rules. To find the right relationship between Compliance Law and Geography (II), we can propose a triptych. In the first place, there is undoubtedly what concerns technical information and conservation methods, where we can accelerate by passing stages of development and pass directly to detection techniques, without worrying about keeping in the geographic place what appears there before mais is not useful (A). Then by focusing on the normativity of Compliance, that is to say the different goals pursued, it turns out that some are certainly objectively anchored in the geography of an area, which finds particularly its relevance in terms of environment, but have effects that pass the Pyrenees dear to Pascal, which justifies global compliance requirements, as shown in the case of the Amazon, which is a "crucial object" (B).  Even more, if we put some hope in Compliance Law and that the monumental goal pursued by it is of a political nature and not only technical, Compliance being what sustains and not what replaces Politics , it is therefore necessary to assume the Ex Ante Responsibility carried by Compliance through the concept of Vigilance. This is taking place. What is yet to be devised is to improve the very definition of what Compliance Tools are ; for the moment, maybe they are too abrupt, too violent. In this, they must be conceived not as violence – however legitimate they may be, but as a "path", which the texts of energy "transition" show us. The company then becomes the supervisor of others to bring them from one state to another, as we can see about invest banking (C). Law as a "path" and not as a prescription, it is Kanak Law which shows us the example.  Sure that Montesquieu would appreciate it.   

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "What can Compliance Law build relying on the European Humanist Tradition", Working Paper, January 2019. - This working paper has served as a basis for an article published in French in the collective publication Pour une Europe de la Compliance in the serie Regulation & Compliance. -     Compliance is often presented as a complex, technical, almost incomprehensible set, in that it consists only of empty and moving procedures, mechanical corpus about which the goal would be a question that would not arise. The question of the purpose of these huge compliance devices might not even have to be asked. And this for two reasons. Firstly it would only be a matter of following "processes", that is, mechanical and endless procedures. This conception of compliance is often called "kafkaes". Closer to closer, one thinks first of all of the book written by Kafka's The trial l and Welles' adaptation to the cinema in which the charcters are surrounded by walls that are narrowing around them, but it is rather to his novel In the penal colony that must be thought, that is to say to a procedural system of isolation which we do not understand the foundation, which makes it without foundation and without end but also which takes mainly the form of a machine in which the person is placed and which mechanically writes the Law on and under the skin of his back. This internalization of the rule in the body of the condemned – that the French legal system before the French Revolution associated only with "enormous crimes" – being the ordinary way of actual and ordinary application of the rules can correspond to a certain vision of the Compliance, detached from any purpose. The question of the purpose of Compliance may also not have to arise for a second reason, almost the opposite: they would always be devices that are specific to particular sectors. Thus, the banking sector, the insurance sector, the drug sector, the agri-food sector, the telecommunications sector, the energy sector, etc. Then the opposite happens: too many goals! Since each of these sectors has specificities such that it includes purposes that are specific to each of them. For example continuity for energy, access information for telecommunications, control of systemic risk for banking and finance, protection and secret for private information, etc. Now, either these ends so diverse are indifferent to each other, or they can contradict each other. Therefore, to ask the question of the purpose of compliance mechanisms would be to move to the stitution of not even trying to understand "processes" to be exceeded by too many substantial purposes pursued at the same time and in contradictorily senses … . This is why the question of the purpose of the Compliance is not asked in a main way. Even less if it is superimposed with another goal that is the European construction …. But on the contrary, if we confront this question of the aims of the Compliance Mechanisms by crossing it with another issue, older but also under construction, namely the question of Europe, it is possible to make an alliance of these two difficulties to transform them as an asset. That one can help the other. Indeed, both Europe and Compliance in their current states are two constructs with uncertain goals or behaviors most often only "reactive" (I). If we do not want to mobilize all our strength to limit our weakness, which leads rather to feed it, we can go draw on the unity of this Europe so diverse but which finds it unity in the protection of the human being by the very idea of ​​"person". However, Compliance Law can have the same unity, despite the diversity of sectors, and thus fill the meaning of these multiple procedures, providing the balance between information and secrets, circulation of data and conservation of that they concern, common and dialectic purpose that this European Compliance Law. in the process of being constituted can give the world an example in relying on the European tradition  (II).