Publications

  🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance Law and Climate. To prevent Climate Risk and build Climate Balance, January 2022. - 🎤 In its French version, this Working Paper had been written for a speech  for  the colloquium held under the scientific direction of Marta Torre-Schaub, Béatrice Lormeteau, & Anne Stevignon, Les risques climatiques à l’épreuve du droit Comment le droit fait-il face aux nouveaux risques engendrés par la crise climatique ? , at the University Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), Amphithéâtre Liard, on March 17, 2022. - 📝it is also the basis of an article : "Droit de la compliance et climat. Pour prévenir le risque et construire l'équilibre climatiques" ("Compliance Law and climate. Prevent the climate risk and build the climate balance") - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is beginning to emerge in climate topic, through the expression  "Climate Compliance Law", but the climate issue itself is the most perfect example of why General Compliance Law is made for.  It is indeed a new branch of Law, a global Law claiming to provide Ex Ante solutions here and now for global issues, so that in the future systemic catastrophies will not occur, will not happen: it is these "Monumental Goals" that give meaning, coherence, and simplicity to Compliance Law. Compliance Law, linked to the Rule of Law principle, makes it possible to go beyond the choice often presented between the effectiveness of the protection of the planet and the renunciation of freedoms, in particular the freedom to do business and the freedom of individuals, especially the protection of their data. Climate is thus exemplary of the object of Monumental Goals of Compliance Law (I). The systemic risk that it now constitutes is analogous to Banking or Digital Systemic Risks and therefore calls for the application of identical legal Compliance Tools, formerly put in place for Banking Regulatory and Compliance Law, recently invented for Digital. Compliance Law, extending Regulation Law, itself from the precondition of the Sector and the Territory, is therefore the branch which makes it possible to put in place new legal solutions, either by force (judicial agreements, compliance programs, etc.), or by will (commitments, global charters, etc.). Therefore, an alliance can exist between political and public authorities, and crucial economic operators (II), that the rise in power of the "raison d'être" is the sight and whose technical challenge is the collection of information that must be put in correlation. Scientists pooling Information, this public good, provided by public and private entities. The courts are at the center of this articulation between Compliance Law and Climate, which object is the Future. -   🔓read the developments below⤵️ -

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Conceiving Power, Working Paper, December 2021 - 📝 This Working Paper serves as the basis for an article to be published in the collective book drawn up in tribute to Professor Emmanuel Gaillard.    - ► Working Paper summary: In 1985, Emmanuel Gaillard's central work came out under the title Le pouvoir en droit privé  (The Power in Private Law)📎¹Gaillard, E., Le pouvoir en droit privé, préf. Cornu. G., coll. ..., Economica, 1985., but when it was defended in 1981, his thesis directed by Dean Cornu was entitled La notion de pouvoir en droit privé (The notion of Power in Private Law) 📎²Gaillard, E., La notion de pouvoir en droit privé, thèse .... ; . Let's give full force to the original title of the thesis.   The deletion of the term notion perhaps implies that by defining something the essential is done, that there would be something of a pleonasm in aiming at The notion of Power and The Power, as Law likes to economise on words.   But it was indeed a renewed, simpler and more powerful conception of the notion of Power, containing the entire regime necessarily imputed, that this work imposed, henceforth illuminating positive Law. Emmanuel Gaillard's definition, on the other hand, goes beyond Private Law. We would gladly have argued in favour of retaining the heading for the term Notion, proposing instead to dispense with the reference to Private Law alone …. Perhaps it was because the concept is so vast that in this seminal thesis its scope was restricted to Private Law, since the author already had to account for the sheer multiplicity of manifestations in this part of the legal system; Or perhaps it was because the concept of 'Power' is so familiar in Public Law that it would have needed less definition in Public Law (which, moreover, is so diversely proposed in this more political area, which is already careful on principle to distinguish between powers, which must always be plural in order to be separated), and that it was therefore reasonable to want to arrive at a single concept of Power in Private Law, where the notion of subjective rights is more familiar.  However, Emmanuel Gaillard's definition of Power as a prerogative placed, by legal rule or contract, in the hands of the person invested with them for the benefit, at least in part, of others, covers both Public and Private Law. This even contributes to the solidity of this thesis and explains why it flourishes today in legal systems where the distinction between Private Law and Public Law is weakening. The power of this definition lies in its simplicity. Simple and brave minds are often the most fruitful. As Dean Gérard Cornu points out in his preface, the author, in particular because he bases himself more on positive law, for example that relating to the powers of corporate officers, does not get bogged down in discussions between authors only to end up preferring one over the other. He arrives at a definition that is close to our everyday experience: the one we experience when we collect an envelope on behalf of someone else and the agent asks us in what capacity we claim to be doing this on his behalf. We then show him our 'power', the legal power to do so for the benefit of the person to whom the letter is addressed, and can thus exercise the power to withdraw the letter, even though it is personal. When legal and common sense come together, it is a good omen, not only in terms of form, because everyone can understand it and the Law must remain comprehensible, but also in terms of substance, because everyone must be able to control the exercise of a power that is exercised for and over others. For this letter addressed to someone else, the person who has been able to take it by virtue of the power conferred on him/her, could just as easily open it and read it, then destroy it or give it to the worst enemy of the person to whom it was addressed. In Power, there is always might to do, and the danger to others that Power contains therefore.  This highly legal definition of Power not only distances the holder from his/her own interests, but also channels the Power thus granted to the person who benefits from it. In this respect, Emmanuel Gaillard not only distinguished between Power and subjective right, but also identified the right amount of power required for this power to effectively fulfill this 'Mission', through the notion of abuse of power, when the holder uses for other beneficiaries this power that was conferred on him/her for this sole purpose. What is more, this concept makes it possible to distinguish Power from discretionary force, because the holder of Power thereby exercises factual , by acting for others, deciding for others, deciding on others. Because Power is inseparable from might, but might must remain the means of power and no more, the Law shall produce the antibodies that are not only the theory of abuse of power but also an Ex Ante responsibility that accounts must always be rendered, either to the other for whom everything is done or to a third party. For this third party is often there from the outset, the guardianship judge for example: because the Power was put in place because of the beneficiary's weakness, both in himself/herself and because of the situation, an impartial and disinterested third party is needed to ensure proper execution from the outset, without there even being a dispute. In this respect, how useful this thesis is for thinking about what Supervision is today!   This thesis, so clear, so simple and so strong, goes beyond Private or Civil Law. It is both much more restrictive than the more factual and political definition of Oower, which would be the ability to do something, and much broader than the usual definitions, since it embraces and legitimises de jure all situations where a person acts legally for the benefit of another.  Dean Cornu shows, moreover, in two sentences that such a notion of power also captures the office of the judge, who has power over others only to serve them 📎³"En droit processuel, l'office du juge aurait donné à l'auteur un renfort. Pour le juge, il n'est point de pouvoir sans devoir. Au-delà de la distinction de ce qu'il a obligation de faire ou faculté d'apprécier, il y a toujours, au creux de ce qu'il peut, le sceau de ce qu'il doit, un devoir gardien - comme un âme - de l'exercice du pouvoir." (p.5).. The definition corresponds to the mission of one who has power only to fulfill his office. It suits so well the conception we have today of Administration, especially if it takes the form of independent authorities. Moreover, Power thus contains its own limit in its very definition, since others are present in it: the holder has power only to serve others. From then on, it is only a power because it is a kind of Charge. Emmanuel Gaillard immediately uses the term: "Un individu se voit confier une charge qu'il exerce dans un intérêt au moins partiellement distinct du sien propre"  ("An individual is entrusted with an office which he exercises in an interest at least partially distinct from his own") 📎⁴n°3, p.9. . Dean Carbonnier, who reformed the legislation in this area 📎⁵🕴️J. Carbonnier, 📗Essai sur les lois, 1992 (on the guardianship).,, emphasised that the guardian has a public duty because the State entrusts him/her with a child. In the same way parental authority is a charge on the parents for the benefit of the children. More generally, Power is a burden that the Law places on a person to satisfy the interests of another. This definition offered by Emmanuel Gaillard in 1981, anchored in Private Law only insofar as it is the entire legal system, is premonitory of the Regulatory and Compliance Law as it unfolds today. It would be enough to continue the Gaillard's sentences, as if they had been half-written, to finish them 40 years later and find in them the mechanisms of Supervision of companies by public authorities which are now in place not to reduce their power but to ensure that they exercise it for the benefit of others 📎⁶S. in a general way, 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017.. The whole evolution of Company Law and Financial Law is here. Between the lines of this thesis, which develops the notion of duty 📎⁷Cornu, préface précitée : "Tous les pouvoirs sont, à double face, des pouvoirs-devoirs" (p.5)., we can also see what positive Law is developing today, in particular through the 'duty of Vigilance', this personal responsibility for the benefit of others (I). The definition of Power thus conceived contains within itself its regime and enables us to anticipate it better today: because the holder exercises Power only for others, at least partially, he is consubstantially accountable for it, responsibility being only one form of this accountability; because this service must be effective and others must benefit fully from it, because unlike the subjective right which allows the holder freely not to use his might, Power has never been the 'most absolute' availability to use his/her might: it is even the opposite. It is the expression of a Power assigned to a purpose, compelling the holder to use his/her Power to that end.  But it is equally necessary for the holder to have all the might to do so, otherwise the very notion of 'Power' is meaningless. This is the definition that should be given to the principle of Proportionality: the person on whom the Power rests must have not more power than is necessary, but all the power necessary to achieve the Monumental Goals for which the Power has been entrusted to him/her, so that others may derive full benefit from it (II).  In today's positive Law, the definition of Power as a Duty is found not only in Private Law but also in Public Law, not least because pure might, i.e. those that do not account for the use of their might, are in decline while concern for others is on the increase. The days of discretionary powers are over, and the increased independence of those who exercise Power over others requires them to be accountable. Beyond this Accountability, the personal Responsibility of those who have the Power to serve others is being established. But, no doubt because the Law is slow to evolve, the correlative idea that the holder of Power must have all the powers required to carry out his/her mission is less entrenched:  As Emmanuel Gaillard has shown, the Law has only gone part of the way in sanctioning excesses of power, when the holder uses his/her power for other goals, but it has not yet clearly established that the holder – sometimes forced – of a Power is legitimate in using all the means required to achieve the result for which this Power, i.e. a charge and a duty, has been conferred on him/her.   No doubt we need to read Emmanuel Gaillard's thesis again in all its potential, to imagine the reading we could do today of what he could have written as if on blank pages that would write themselves, a magical thesis where everything is already there, a thesis so short (250 pages) and so beautiful, so dense that it already contains the Law of the Future. The Law of the Future 📎⁸On Compliance Law as a Law of the Future, s. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, in 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2023. On the consequences for Liability Law, which is now looking to the Future, s. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧Ex Ante Responsibility, 2021.  where there must be much more responsibility for the benefit of others📎⁹Sur la notion de "Responsabilité Ex Ante", v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., La responsabilité Ex Ante", in Archives de Philosophie du Droit, La responsabilité, 2022. and powers since this notion includes others who are the beneficiaries. Droit de l'Avenir where Emmanuel Gaillard will be present, in particular thanks to this work of doctrine offered in 1981.  So that, in practical terms, those who are entrusted with looking after others – for example, today all companies obliged by Compliance Law to look after others so that they are not destroyed by hatred in the digital space, by corruption in the economic system or by climate change in a projected future – do not find themselves challenged by the same Law for the means of exercising this power for the benefit of others, for example when this involves 'judging'. Dean Cornu himself emphasised the identity of the two offices. -                         Lire les développement ci-dessous⤵ - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche,  Support from Compliance Law for day-to-day management of Competition Law, Working Paper, Octobre 2021. - ► This working paper has been drawn up as a basis for a contribution to the Amicorum Liber for Professor Laurence Idot, published in 2022 - ► Working Paper Summary: Competition Law has become so huge and just "regulations" that one would give up trying to understand it as a whole, preferring to become a specialist in one of its parts. This would be to lose sight of the simple and strong reason which unites the whole and gives it its breath: Freedom. Freedom experienced by the person in his daily economic action, Freedom kept by Competition Law, always returning to its principle: Free Competition. This is why the European Union places a so great emphasis on Competition. To build it and keep it effective, "Competition Policy" is articulated with Competition Law, but if authorities and judges do not blame companies for their power, they do not rely on it. To do this, they must then be supported by Compliance Law, which strongly encourages companies to act for the effectiveness and the promotion of Competition principles. Competition Law thus slips from the Ex Post to the Ex Ante, with the commitments of companies leading them to stop being passive and punished in order to become convinced players and educators of the others. Something pleasant for a great professor of Competition Law, to whom tribute is paid here. - 🔓read the Working Paper below⤵ -  🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn  🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Duty of Vigilance, Whistleblowing and International Competitiveness, Working Paper, September 2021. -   🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference , in the colloquium Effectiveness of Compliance and International Competitiveness, co-organised  by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Center for Law and Economics of the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II),   November 4, 2021 - 📝this Working Paper is also the basis for an article. This article is to be published ⤵ in its French version in the book 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in the series 📚Régulations & Compliance  in its English version in the book 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in the series la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation - ► Working Paper Summary: The "Compliance Tools" are very diverse. If it has been chosen to study more particularly among these the obligation of vigilance and the whistleblower, these rather than others and to study them together, it is because they present in the perspective of the specific topic chosen, namely "international competitiveness", and for companies, and for economic zones considered, and for legal system inseparable from them, a uniqueness: these are mechanisms which release Information.  By order of the law, the company will not only stop ignoring what it covered with the handkerchief that Tartuffe held out to it or that a conception of Company Law legitimately allowed it to ignore. This article does not examine if this revolution made by Compliance Law expresses in the legal system is on the one hand legitimate and on the other hand effective: the article measures what is happening at the regard to "international competitiveness". Compliance Law is therefore be examined here through its instruments, and not in relation to its normativity. In fact, its instruments are intended to provide Information and to make this information available, in its presentation, in its intelligibility and in the hands of those who are able to use Information in perspective of the Compliance Monumental Goals, achieving them.  Regarding this central notion of Information, international competitiveness will be more particularly concerned because Compliance Law will oblige the company itself to seek out, then expose to everyone's eyes, in particular its competitors, its weaknesses, its projects, its alliances, its flaws. This does not pose a problem if its competitors themselves are often subject to this new branch of Law, which goes far beyond transparency, which is already a new mechanism because a company is not a transparent organization and Competition Law that governs ordinary businesses never required this. But if they are not subject to this incredibly special branch of Law that is Compliance Law, then there is a distortion of competitiveness by the very fact of the Law. It is possible to pretend that the markets like virtue, that they give it credit because they are themselves based on the idea of "promise", which is ultimately based on a moral concept, but this provision of Information to others, while others remain opaque, is a major problem of competitiveness, which the legal requirement of "loyal commercial practices" only very partially considers. Therefore, it is necessary to first examine what is the economic and financial power of the information captured by the company on itself thank to Compliance Law making available to all but firstly to the compagny itself through the whistblowing mechanism, organised by the laws, differently in the US and Europe (I). Compliance Law also obliges companies to be accountable not only for what they do but also for what others do for them. Through the obligation of Vigilance, objective Ex Ante obligation and duty, the company obtains a power of Information on others which could well resolve what is often presented as the dispute aporetic of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law, thus making accountable companies hitherto protected by their "preserved" legal system and thereby affected by the effectiveness of Compliance Law (II). - read below the developments

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, Working Paper, October 2021 and April 2022. - ► This working paper has served as the basis for an introductory speech 🎤L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques (The Hypothesis of the cateory of Systemic Cases), in a more general conference which I coordinated and moderated, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, which is part of a general cycle covering Penser l'office du juge, specific conference attending the 9th May 2002 into the Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation.   This Working Paper was drawn up in October 2021 to build the conference on the assumption that among the diversity of "cases" brought to the courts by litigants, some constitute a specific category: "systemic cases", justifying treatment that is both specific (in that they are systemic, calling in particular for procedural solutions common to all and distinguishable from the treatment of non-systemic cases) and common treatment beyond the diversity of judges who deal with them (judicial and administrative judges, criminal and non-criminal judges, French and non-French judges, judges of the member-States legal orders and European Union judges, etc.).  This working paper does not aim to deal with the whole subject, i.e. both to determine this category of "systemic causes" and the consequences that must be drawn from it for the judge's office, since that is the very purpose of the conference, which is built around several presentations: it aims to deal with the first part of the subject, i.e. the very existence of this new processual category, which is "systemic causes", leaving for other work the practical consequences to be drawn from it in the processual treatment that it calls for. - 📝This Working Paper is also the basis of a forthcoming article - ► Summary of the Working Paper: xx - Read below the developments⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.,  Le rôle du juge dans le Droit de la Compliance ("The role of the Judge in Compliance Law"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Dalloz, to be published. -   ► The summary below describe an article corresponding to a Working Papier prepared for an intervention in the colloquium Quels juges pour la Compliance ?  , coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et par le Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D). Ce colloque a été conçu par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel-Morager et Sophie Schiller,  codirectrices scientifiques, et s'est déroulé à Paris le 23 septembre 2021. Dans l'ouvrage, l'article sera publié dans le Titre IV. - ► Article Summary:  - 📕  read a general presentation of the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published. -    

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.,  Ne jamais se passer des juges et des avocats dans le Droit de la Compliance ("Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) & Dalloz, to be published. -   ► Le résumé ci-dessous décrit un article qui fait suite à une intervention dans le colloque Quels juges pour la Compliance ?  , coorganisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et par le Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D). Ce colloque a été conçu par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel-Morager et Sophie Schiller,  codirectrices scientifiques, et s'est déroulé à Paris le 23 septembre 2021. Dans l'ouvrage, l'article sera publié dans le Titre IV. - ► Article Summary: Before examining the issue of the role of the Judges in Compliance Law, it is necessary to ask the preliminary question : is it useful to tolerate the Judge and/or the Lawyers presence in Compliance Law ?  This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer. But It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Differed Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong. However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only  examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before inventing – after this enormous systemic disaster – the "general procedural law". - 📕  read a general presentation of the book Compliance Juridictionnalization in which this article is published. -    

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes pour une synthèse sur le vif pour le colloque "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : radioscopie d'une notion" (Notes for an on the fly synthesis for the Colloquium "The Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy for a Notion"), September 16, 2021.  -   ► Read the general programme of the Colloquium Compliance Law Monumental Goals ► Read the  presentation of the synthesis Report, notably its Summary.  - ► Methodology: The topic is not treated in a strictly personal point of view, as it will be in the book on The Compliance Monumental Goals, in an article devoted to "Defining Compliance Monumental Goals  and their branch of Law", more personal article. It will be even more clearly the expression of a personal vision of the definition of what is "Compliance" and what is "Compliance Law", with in particular the distinctions that should be done, in particular with "conformity" because these are these "Monumental Goals", a notion proposed in 2016  which makes it possible to distinguish the procedural notion of "conformity" (just obey) and the substantive notion of "Compliance Law". This article will include the multiple academic and technical references that should be done to do this.  But in the time allotted in a day's collloquium and because the purpose of a synthesis is to highlight on the spot what was common in the contributions heard, the document is based only on the different speechs made and is not enriched with technical references, nor does it refer to personal works. -   🔻read below the notes exhaustely taken

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Ex Ante Responsibility, Working Paper, December 2021. - 📝This Working Paper has been the basis for an article written in French, "La responsabilité Ex Ante", published in the Archives de Philosophie du droit (APD), in the book 📗La Responsabilité (2022). - ►  Working Paper Summary: Quel est le temps auquel s'articule la responsabilité ? La question est si classique que toutes les réponses ont été dessinées : si l'on est responsable plus aisément par rapport au temps, car l'on peut alors plus aisément faire un lien entre la situation appréhendée, sa réalisation dans le passé la rendant plus facilement connaissable, et le poids de "responsabilité" que l'on impute sur une personne, l'on peut articuler la responsabilité avec le futur. Si l'on brise le poids de cette responsabilité avec un évènement ou une situation, par exemple. Le Principe Responsabilité de Jonas ou l'Ethique de la Responsabilité font ainsi voyager la Responsabilité dans le temps, par un rapport entre le Droit et l'Ethique.  D'ailleurs l'on pourrait soutenir que le Droit peut faire ce qu'il veut et imputer une responsabilité à quiconque pour le temps qu'il désigne, par exemple désigne comme porteur d'une responsabilité, c'est-à-dire d'un poids, celui qu'il veut. Le "responsable" serait alors le titulaire d'une sorte de "poids pur", qui le charge parce que le Droit l'a voulu pour le temps qu'il veut, par exemple un devoir d'agir pour que le futur soit dessiné comme le veut le Droit, alors même que le Responsable n'a rien à se reprocher dans le passé.  Mais les Cours constitutionnelle défendent un rapport minimal entre la Responsabilité et le poids que celle-ci fait porter une personne, fut-t-elle morale, gardant ainsi le lien consubstantiel entre le Droit et la Morale, la technique juridique de la Responsabilité ne pouvant équivaloir à celle d'un prélèvement obligatoire. Ainsi l'idée d'une Responsabilité Ex Ante est simple dans son principe (I). Elle est celle d'un poids juridiquement posé sur une personne soit par elle-même (engagement), soit par la Loi ou par le Juge sur une personne de faire quelque chose pour que n'advienne pas quelque chose qui adviendrait ou pour qu'advienne quelque chose qui n'adviendrait pas si elle ne le faisait pas. Mais les conditions juridiques pour admettre un tel poids alors même que le lien avec une situation passée serait brisé est plus difficile (II). On continue certes continuer à voir dans le futur le passé, ce qui facilite le voyage dans le temps, et fonda par exemple le contrôle Ex Ante du contrôle des concentrations. Mais l'on peut se briser même de cette facilité et regarder non plus le rapport entre le passé et le futur, mais le présent et le futur : ce que l'on sait déjà aujourd'hui du futur, ce qui met en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et la Science ; ce que l'on observe de l'emprise de la personne présente sur le moment présent, c'est-à-dire le Pouvoir, ce qui fait en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et l'Economie politique. Dans cette dimension-là, la contrainte de la Responsabilité Ex Ante est alors maniée par le Juge, dont l'office lui-même devient un office Ex Ante. Les pouvoirs obligés Ex Ante par une telle responsabilité maniée par le Juge étaient les personnes en situation de pouvoir, sont non seulement les entreprises, mais encore les Etats, qui perdent le privilège – partagé avec les contractants – de disposer juridiquement du futur, et notamment en leur sein le Législateur.  Une telle révolution, qui se déroule sous nos yeux, s'explique parce qu'il faut agir maintenant pour que le futur ne soit pas catastrophique. La science nous informe qu'il le sera entéléchiquement. Il est donc juridiquement requis de désigner des responsables, non pas parce qu'ils auraient fait quelque chose, la dimension Ex Post n'étant pas le sujet, mais pour qu'ils fassent quelque chose, la Responsabilité Ex Ante étant un élément central de cette nouvelle branche du Droit qu'est le Droit de la Compliance.   

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur – rapport de synthèse – ( ("Competition Law: political choices for its future state – Conclusion") , in Claudel, E. (ed.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états ("Competition in all its states"), special issue, Gaz. Pal. , 15 Sept. 2021. This publication is in French, but the Working Paper which is the basis of this article is bilingual.  -   📅 this article follows the colloquium of the French Association Droit & Commerce in Deauville (France), the 25th  et 26th June 2021. -   ✏️ It is based on  the bilingual Working Paper built on the notes taken during the colloquium for establishing the conclusion which has been provided. -   Article English Summary: All of these contributions on the issue of the "Competition in all its states" highlighted the choices available for what could be this branch of Law tomorrow: choice of a political nature between various possible definitions of Competition Law.  In method, the main thing is that this definition be clear. For this, this definition must be based on a principle and that the goal pursued by competition law is simple, so that in a second step, competition law can be easily articulated on the one hand with other branches of law. (by the care of the judge, in particular), on the other hand with "policies", such as "competition policy", then other policies (by the care of political authorities, especially European). In essence, two conceptions of principle are opposed: either Competition Law will want to appropriate the goals of other branches, such as those of Regulatory and Compliance Law, or Competition Law will have the modesty to remain anchored in its definition as Market Law. This is the crossroads where we are.   -

An August 10, 2021 New York Times article chronicles the relationship presented as "tumultuous" between President Biden and Facebook, the president, in person or through his closest administration, blaming Mark Zuckerberg, in person or through his closest collaborators, for the Facebook insufficient action against vaccine misinformation: ➡️📝Inside the White House Facebook Rift Over Vaccine Misinformation.  The article insists on the opposition between the two entities: " Frustrations grew behind the scenes among top leaders on both sides, potentially hurting the government's efforts to overcome the pandemic ". And reports many facts for this conclusion. But is it not possible to propose  another reading of these events? A reading that would be more strategic and more optimistic with regard to what is the obligation of digital operators obliged by Compliance Law. -   In fact, if we come back to the subject itself, it is a question of fighting against disinformation, including that which is raging about vaccination against Covid (the causes of the spread of the virus, its modes of spread and the effects of different vaccines, in particular) is just one example. To stem the health crisis, public policies for economic issues do not encounter the same major difficulty as public policies for health care: disinformation. On this major question, see the presentation of the May 2021 colloquium organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculty of Law of Montpellier on ➡️📅 Public Norms and Compliance in time of Crisis: Monumental Goals put a test, the work being the basis of contributions in the book ➡️📘 Compliance Monumental Goals.  Faced with the spread of disinformation, especially during a health crisis, not only the jurisdictional Ex Post, certainly legitimate to sanction disinformation, is not enough in such a fight but the administrative action is not enough either. because the digital space has for characteristic not so much the novelty of these manipulations (which do not differ from the preceding methods) but their speed of propagation  and their dissemination which until now had never reached such dazzling and such dust. Faced with this, only a mechanism which entrusts, willingly or by force (the " free will" referring to the points of contact between Compliance Law and Corporate Social Responsibility, the "force" referring to the repression strongly present in the Compliance Law) to companies in a position to do something (what the banking sector referred to as "systemic firms" and which can be qualified more generally as "crucial companies" (➡️📝 Frisian- Roche, M.-A., "Proposition for a notion: the "Crucial Operator", 2006), the function of blocking or even destroying the crucible of disinformation is concretely possible (➡️📓 Frison-Roche, M.- A., The contribution of Compliance Law in the Governance of Interne, 2019). But many protest before such a mission which, under the pretext of "necessity" and under the guise of "weight" given to these companies, also gives them considerable powers over people: thus many have criticized the closure of Donald Trump's account as being an illegitimate political act and many saw the May 5, 2021 Facebook Oversight Board decision as an intolerable takeover of power, with the company allowing itself to become a complete legal system on its own : for one analysis of this very important decision, and commented on, often in a severe manner, but for a more approving approach because in the perspective of Compliance Law, the internalisation of repressive and jurisdictional functions is more of a principle: ➡️📧 " By its decision of May 5, 2021, the Oversight Board imposed a Compliance program on Facebook, May 2021; for a perspective that remains critical ➡️📝Heymann, J.," The Legal Nature of the "Supreme Court" of Facebook ", in➡️📘 Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022).   These criticisms are on several levels; they can be summarized as follows: a company maintaining a platform on which contents may be published by anyone and controlling these contents would exercise "censorship", which would be unacceptable with regard to the freedom of speech; a company controlling the contents carries out an activity of judgment, while only a judge or at least a public authority could do it, therefore it would be unacceptable; a company controlling contents would exercise control over what is socially admissible, which would be a political activity, and a company is not politically legitimate to govern us.   These arguments are solid, especially from a judicial perspective. Even if it is possible to articulate the fight against the disinformation which rages thanks to the digital novelty (), and the constitutional freedom of expression (Minow, M., "How the government can support a free press and cut disinformation ", 2021), the risk of a weakening by courts, whether American or other, for example in France where judges have criticized the companies powers, even in China where it is in the name of privacy that the new control on the technological sector is taking place …. If the federal government of the United States, because it wants to carry out its public health policy and has little influence on the policies of the states, some of which are hostile to vaccination or believe that all of this is there Everyone's business, wants Facebook to exercise its power to deactivate the accounts of those who practice disinformation, especially in vaccine matters, or even exercise it in political matters (Timothy Snyder having shown that the practice of disinformation in the matter put endangering the American political system itself: ➡️📧 "Listening to Timothy Snyder: the United States like Europe defend democracy, but Europe uses Compliance Law more for that", June 2021), then it is necessary but enough that the Government accuses Facebook of "killing people" by not doing it. So, the Government allows the company to do it. This is what President Biden has just done. This is to be compared with the position taken in May 2021 by the US federal administration allowing companies to require employees to both return to work on sites and be vaccinated. This was already a sign that it is indeed the federal administration which, in order to make its public vaccination policy "effective", relies on companies, with the necessary powers for them to play their role:  see the analysis of this communication from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of May 28, 2021 ➡️📧 "In Compliance Law, the political authority must clearly tell the company the extent of its power; fault from which the company will pass from the status of executor to that of Legislator ", June 2021.   It is therefore not an "opposition" but a strategic alliance.   Moreover, Facebook has just deactivated a series of accounts which systematically practice disinformation in matters of vaccination. The fact that the President of the United States characterized their inaction as "murder" makes it much easier for them when their action will be challenged in court. Because in front of a judge vis-a-vis whom it will be reproached for violating, by its too offensive action, the freedoms of the people the company will be able to take advantage of the fact that it was made accused of "murder" for not having had enough offensive action, and this by the Head of State. We are legally close to the hypothesis of "the order given by the legitimate authority". This reinforces an opinion expressed in March 2020 according to which Facebook, when it refers people to public information centers for the fight against the virus, is not acting either as a publisher or as part of its social responsibility but executes purely and simply its obligations arising from Compliance Law: ➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Facebook, Facebook, le coronavirus et la Compliance", March 2020. In addition, as in any Compliance Law mechanism, such execution of their Compliance obligation by Facebook and all others who follow the exchanges between the crucial digital company and the Federal Executive, is supervised by the Regulatory Authorities, administrative authorities before which the operator can be prosecuted for failure, for example for not only for having done too much but also for having not done enough. This is particularly true in France, where the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel – CSA French Superior Audiovisual Council) supervises digital operators in their obligations to limit the spread of infox, specifically questioning operators on the due diligence carried out and the results obtained, a specific annual report being published each year (see the report published on July 30, 2020 on the "application and effectiveness" of the fight against disinformation to be carried out by the platforms, in its English version).   -   ► s'inscrire à la Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®