Resources

► Full Reference: F. Ancel, "Le principe processuel de compliance, un nouveau principe directeur du procès ?" (The procedural principle of compliance, a new trial leading principle?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 225-230.  - 📕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): Through this article, the author formulates a proposal: elevating the principle of compliance to the rank of leading principle of the trial. To support this, the author firstly emphasizes the convergence of the aims of compliance and the purpose of the trial. Indeed, emphasizing that Compliance Law does not oust either the State or the judge, as soon as compliance means that the person must keep their commitments and that the trial is also based on this principle that the parties must conform to the principles and to their own "speech", compliance thus becomes a trial leading principle. In a second part of the article, the author illustrates his point in a very concrete way. First, the protocols of procedure which are drawn up by the courts and the bars are commitments which should justify a form of constraint which, if it should not have the same form and nature as that of the law, must all the same even have consequences when a party fails to do so. Secondly, relying on French case law which sanctions a party which had accepted the principle of an arbitration and then systematically hinders its implementation, the author suggests that under the principle of compliance can be grouped the notions for the instant scattered of loyalty, consistency (estoppel) and efficiency. Thus, this "open practice" echoing the "open way" of a procedural principle of compliance brings out this one. -

► Full reference: "EHPAD : la Défenseure des droits tire la sonnette d'alarme", Journal Spécial des Sociétés, january 2023. - ► Summary of the article:    -

► Full Reference: Parquet national financier – PNF (National Financial Prosecutor's Office), Lignes directrices sur la mise en oeuvre de la convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (Guidelines on the implementation of the judicial public interest agreement (CJIP)), 16 January 2023. - ► Read the guidelines (in French) ► Read a free translation of the original French document for information purposes -  

► Full reference: Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 14 december 2022, amending Regulation (EU) n° 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (called "CSRD" (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive)). - ► Read the text  -

► Full reference: N. Cayrol, "L'amicus curiae, mesure d'instruction ordinaire", Chronique de Procédure civile, D. 2022, pp. 2181-2183. - ► Summary of the article (done by the author, in French) : Les mesures d'instruction sont généralement présentées comme des mesures tendant uniquement à l'administration de la « preuve de faits dont dépend la solution du litige ». À cette conception stricte, on préfère une conception large, englobant toutes les mesures tendant à instruire le tribunal. Cela présente l'intérêt de donner un cadre procédural connu à la désignation d'un amicus curiae par les juges, aidant ainsi à lever les ambiguïtés qui entourent encore ce procédé. -

► Full reference: M. Eeckoudt, "Le règlement de blocage : un tigre de papier ?", Dalloz, RTD Eur., october-december 2022, p. 679. - ► Summary of the article (done by the author, in French): Peu appliqué jusqu'à présent, le règlement européen de blocage n'est pas toujours pris en compte par les entreprises basées dans l'Union européenne lors de l'élaboration de leurs politiques de conformité aux sanctions. Il y a quelques mois, le texte a fait l'objet d'une actualité inédite. À l'occasion d'une question préjudicielle, la CJUE a eu l'opportunité d'en préciser, pour la première fois, le champ d'application et les sanctions encourues. Si, à première vue, le texte sort renforcé par cet arrêt, son application est largement laissée à l'interprétation des juridictions nationales. Poussée à la sévérité par l'avocat général, la Cour ne franchit pas le cap. Bien qu'elle apporte des précisions utiles, elle laisse un certain nombre de questions en suspens et invite à une révision d'ensemble du texte. -

► Full reference : ECHR, 4th sect., 6th of december 2022, Spasov c/ Roumanie, n° 27122/14. - ► Read the decision (in french) -

► Full Reference: F. Ancel, "Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial?", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", to be published.   - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Through this article, the author formulates a proposal: elevating the principle of compliance to the rank of leading principle of the trial. To support this, the author firstly emphasizes the convergence of the aims of compliance and the purpose of the trial. Indeed, emphasizing that Compliance Law does not oust either the State or the judge, as soon as compliance means that the person must keep their commitments and that the trial is also based on this principle that the parties must conform to the principles and to their own "speech", compliance thus becomes a trial leading principle. In a second part of the article, the author illustrates his point in a very concrete way. First, the protocols of procedure which are drawn up by the courts and the bars are commitments which should justify a form of constraint which, if it should not have the same form and nature as that of the law, must all the same even have consequences when a party fails to do so. Secondly, relying on French case law which sanctions a party which had accepted the principle of an arbitration and then systematically hinders its implementation, the author suggests that under the principle of compliance can be grouped the notions for the instant scattered of loyalty, consistency (estoppel) and efficiency. Thus, this "open practice" echoing the "open way" of a procedural principle of compliance brings out this one. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: F.-X. Train, "Arbitration and parallel proceedings exercised in Compliance Procedure", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.  - ► the summary below describes the article that follows an intervention in the scientific manifestation Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). This conference was designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine, scientific co-directors, and took place in Paris II University on March 31, 2021.  In the book, the article will be published in the Chapter III, devoted to: Compliance et Arbitrage international. - ► Article Summary:  Firstly, the article insists on the principle of the autonomy of the international arbitration procedure, in relation to which parallel procedures remain watertight, whether they are criminal or done under Compliance Law. In the arbitral proceedings taking place independently, the arbitrators before whom the facts also referred to in these parallel proceedings, in particular the facts of corruption, are alleged before them as facts through their unlawful nature: it is at this title that they can and must apprehend them, using the standard of proof which is the bundle of clues. Secondly, the article highlights the limits of the autonomy of international arbitration. These may be de facto limits because in the search for evidence by arbitrators, red flags are often insufficiently consistent evidence to establish a sentence, especially since this sentence may be subject to control by the judge of its conformity to international public order, the annulment by the judge being able to be based on external elements, even after the arbitration procedure. It may then be wise for the arbitrators, who are not forced to do so, to suspend their proceedings to wait the results of the parallel proceedings initiated under Compliance Law, so that the procedures and their results could be harmonious. - 📘 read the general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published -

► Full Reference: Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority), Décision relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de la société McKesson Europe par le groupe Phoenix (Decision on the acquisition of sole control of McKesson Europe by the Phoenix Group), 30 September 2022, n° 22-DCC-186. - 🏛️read the decision (in French) -

► Full reference: Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 14 September 2022, on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act). - ► Read the text -

► Full reference: André, Ch., Souveraineté étatique, souveraineté populaire : quel contrat social pour la compliance ? (" State sovereignty, popular sovereignty: what social contract for compliance? "), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): The “Compliance Monumental Goals” serve as vectors for “common” social values: the proposal is simple, but it seems both familiar and strange to a criminal lawyer. Familiar, because even if compliance transcends the borders of academic disciplines, it shares with criminal law a logic sanctioning attacks on social interests. Strange, because Monumental Goals convey social values by sweeping away all the learned discussions that have been going on since Beccaria about the foundations and axiological functions of punishment. Indeed, the social values promoted by Monumental Goals are “common” in every sense of the word. First, they are shared and internalized by the largest enterprises in the Western world, without the need for an international treaty on protected values. The question of sovereignty is overshadowed. Second, they are common in that they are commonplace, ordinary, approved of by most Western consumer-citizens: probity, equality, respect for the environment, who would not be in favour of respecting them? Hence it is in companies’ interest to communicate and diffuse, urbi and orbi, how they respect these Monumental Goals. The question of citizens’ consensus on values is sidestepped, as they are supposed to be derived from the obvious (even if the goals could be achieved by different means, or even contradict each other). Third, these values are common because they now enlist a multitude of communicants (the “compliance officer”, among others) who, more or less gracefully – the meticulous liturgy of compliance can put off some officiants and incite buffoonery – seek to spread the cult of these values at all levels of business. Since these values are respected, they are necessarily respectable: businesses become moralized by the multitude who respect them. Existence precedes essence, and the values conveyed contribute to the businesses’ raison d’être, beyond the pursuit of profit. The question of effectiveness vanishes, since these values are already there, regularly monitored, both internally and by public authorities. Sovereignty, citizenship, effectiveness: the logic of Compliance supplants the academic debates of criminal lawyers with practical solutions. Perhaps this is how the goals are “monumental”: vast, global, overwhelming. Compliance may not be the best of all worlds, but it is most certainly another world. -

► Full Reference: A.-V. Le Fur, "Intérêt et raison d’être de l’entreprise : quelle articulation avec les buts monumentaux de la compliance ?" ("Interest and “raison d’être” of the company: how do they fit with the Compliance Monumental Goals?"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, p. 55-67. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): Companies would have a soul. The legislator thinks so, since the French law called "loi Pacte"  of 22 May 2019 obliges managers to act in the Corporate Interest and allows companies to formulate themselves a « raison d'être ». Compliance Law does the same, relying on companies to save the world from corruption, slavery, terrorism and global warming, thus achieving Monumental goals. At first glance, the contours of Corporate Interest and « raison d’être » of the company are not far removed from the notion of Compliance Monumental Goals. This is not surprising, since the objective that presided over their introduction into the French Civil Code is the same as that underlying Compliance Law : to rethink the place of the company in the global Society, by affirming long-term values or concerns. This is a reason to use these corporate law concepts in the context of an X-ray of the concept of Monumental Goals. However, a comparative approach is disappointing. The divergences between corporate notions and compliance lead to the conclusion that company law is not intended to impose anything other than a corporate public order. Notions that are more philosophical than legal, Corporate Interest and « raison d'être » are assigned functions that limit their scope. The imperative nature of corporate rules, and this is a consequence of the above, cannot be compared with that of compliance: uncertain, it is also relative when compared with the "violence" of compliance rules. The impact of the notions of Interest and « raison d'être » remains thus mainly internal to the company. According to a second approach, it cannot be ruled out that Corporate Interest and « raison d'être » allow for a better understanding of higher and universal values by Company Law. Corporate Interest may incorporate Compliance Monumental Goals while the « raison d'être » may constitute a perspective for the realization of these goals. The stakes are high : when the interest of the company, as a legal person and autonomous economic agent, joins the Monumental Goals, the means of achieving the latter are multiplied by internalizing them in all companies, not just the largest ones. However, despite all good intentions, a company is only governable if the compass does not become an elusive and indecisive vane; in other words, if legal certainty is respected. This is why a legal ordering of the concepts is necessary, which ultimately leads to a suggestion of their domain, content and scope.  -

► Full Reference: B. Petit, "Les buts monumentaux du droit (européen) des relations de travail : un système mouvant aux équilibres à consolider" ("The Monumental Goals of (European) Labour Law: a changing system with balances to be consolidated"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, pp. 135-156. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): Labor Law has been built on the pursuit of "monumental goals", many of which are now enshrined in international, european and national standards (social justice, the right to work, gender equality, the fight against discrimination, the fight against harassment, health and hygiene, etc.). The first step will be to shed light on the organization and articulation of these monumental goals, as reflected in positive international and european labor law. We then realize that from a "cardinal monumental goal" – the guarantee of the dignity of the person at work – there are distinct categories of "secondary monumental goals", depending on whether they develop a concern relating to the quality of work, its economic and financial sustainability, or the guarantee at work of civil and political rights recognized upstream to every person. On this diversity of monumental goals, forces emanating from the concerned actors (companies, trade unions, and States) are exerted and promote certain goals rather than others; one vision of labor relationships rather than others. We observe that the different categories of "monumental goals" thus highlighted are driven by different rationalities, sometimes contradictory to each other, which requires the establishment of permanent balances, allowed by a serious reflection on the cardinal monumental goal of guaranteeing the dignity of the person at work. Unfortunately, in practice, this essential approach escapes the normative actors of labour relations law. The result is "conflicts" of monumental goals that manifest themselves in particular during social dialogue, at the time of collective bargaining and the functioning of employee representative bodies. It will therefore be necessary, in a second step, to question the way in which these conflicts can be arbitrated, bearing in mind that international and European social law is plural (ILO, Council of Europe, European Union) and that the coordination links between the legal systems concerned are fluid. -

 ► Full Reference: R. Bismuth, "Compliance et souveraineté : relations ambigües" ("Compliance and sovereignty: ambiguous relationships"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, pp. 439-452. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): At first glance, the notion of Sovereignty is difficult to combine with Compliance. Indeed, Sovereignty is part of Public International Law in a logic of essentially territorial distribution of competences, while Compliance has developed and disseminated in companies with tools and methods which largely ignore borders. A closer look reveals more fundamentally three types of ambiguous interactions between the two. Compliance can first of all be understood as a tool allowing States, by relying on companies, to circumvent the obstacles and limits posed by a Sovereignty conceived in territorial terms and therefore to extend it. Such an approach can nevertheless lead to friction or even conflicts between Compliance and Sovereignty, the norms conveyed by the first not necessarily being in line with those imposed by the second. This is particularly true when the Compliance "Monumental Goals" are not unilaterally defined or are not intended to be. Finally, by infusing companies with instruments and methods that are reminiscent of sovereign functions, compliance can also allow us to imagine an emerging movement tending to gradually establish Corporate Sovereignty beyond that of States. -