Resources

► Full Reference: S. Schiller, "A single judge in the event of an international breach of compliance obligations?", 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 Author, translated by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Given the very international nature of the topic apprehended, the actors involved and therefore the compliance disputes, it is essential to know if a person can be implicated before several judges, attached to different states or even if he can be condemned by several jurisdictions. The answer is given by the non bis in idem principle, which is the subject of a abondant case law on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol n°7 of the ECHR, clearly inapplicable for jurisdictions emanating from different States. To assess whether breaches of compliance obligations may be subject to multiple sanctions in different states, it will first be necessary to ascertain whether there is a textual basis to be invoked. At European level, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights now allows the principle of ne bis in idem to be invoked. Applicable to all areas of compliance, it provides very strong protection which covers not only sanctions, but also prosecutions. Like its effects, the scope of Article 50 is very broad. The procedures concerned are those which have a repressive nature, beyond those pronounced by criminal courts in the strict sense, which makes it possible to cover the convictions pronounced by one of the many regulatory authorities competent in matters of compliance. Internationally, the situation is less clear. Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be invoked, if several obstacles are overcome, including the decision of 2 November 1987 of the Human Rights Committee which restricted it to the internal framework, requiring a double conviction by the same State. Even if these principles are applicable, two specificities of compliance situations risk hampering their application, the first related to the applicable procedural rules, in particular the rules of jurisdiction, the second related to the specificities of the situation. The application of the non bis in idem rule is only formally accepted with regard to universal jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, that is to say extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is only part of the jurisdiction. . The Cour de cassation (French Judiciary Supreme Court) confirmed this in the famous so-called “Oil for food” judgment of March 14, 2018. The refusal to recognize this principle as universal, regardless of the jurisdiction rule in question, deprives French companies of a defense. Moreover, the repression of breaches of compliance rules is more and more often resolved through transactional mechanisms. The latter will not always fall within the scope of European and international rules laying down the non bis in idem principle, for lack of being sometimes qualified as "final judgment" under the terms of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This results from prescriptions the starting point of which is delayed at the last event and a facilitated jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Judicial Convention of Public Interest (CJIP) of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this. Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This causes delays in the starting point of prescriptions, starting point delayed at the last event, and this facilitates judicial jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public -CJIP (French Judicial Convention of Public Interest)  of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

Référence complète : Ordonnance de la vice-présidente de la Cour, République tchèque/Pologne,  C-121/21 R..

► Full Reference complète : Beaussonie, G., Do Criminal Law and Compliance form a system?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary:  By nature, Criminal Law is a system that is not intended to develop, principles which limit it being internal to it. Nevertheless if Proportionality is respected, its extension may be legitimate to preserve “fundamental social values” because Criminal Law is the branch of Law concerning what is grave, grave in consequences as in causes. Not always being concerned by Efficiency, the temptation is important to supplement Criminal Law with other repressive mechanisms , not only Administrative Repression but today Compliance which pursues concordant objectives and aims by the "Goals Monumental ”to what would be most important and therefore for which Efficiency would be required, in particular because victory (for example against corruption) should be global. Efficiency is obtained by the internalisation in powerful companies, but this efficiency comes at a price and Criminal Law should not impose too many obligations to do maintaining only a potential link with the commission of a "real offense ”. Its association with Compliance can therefore also only be exceptional and must not lead to forget  that Freedom must always remain the principle. -     📝 Read the  general presentation of the book in which this article is published.   -

► Full Reference:  André, Ch., State sovereignty, popular sovereignty: what social contract for compliance?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. -   ► Article Summary (done par 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. -   📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published -    

► Full Reference: Le Fur, A.-V., Ch.,  "Interest and “raison d’être” of the company: how do they fit with the Compliance Monumental Goals?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary (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. These notions being more philosophical than legal, Corporate Interest and « raison d'être » are assigned functions that limit their scope. Consequence of the previous description, the imperative nature of corporate rules cannot be compared with the nature of compliance: uncertain, they are also relative 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.  -     📝 go to the general presentation of the book, 📘 Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published.   -

► Full Reference:  Petit, B., The Arrangement of the Monumental Goals of European Labour Law: a changing system with balances to be consolidated, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. -   ► Article Summary (done par the Author):   Starting from the premise that Law has the irreducible purpose of guaranteeing, in all circumstances, the Dignity of the person, it is possible to present the monumental goals assigned to labour law as a system based on a cardinal monumental goal (the guarantee of Dignity at work) from which a multitude of secondary monumental aims (fundamental rights at work) arise. This system is crossed by internal and external dynamics that force the equilibrium equations between the secondary monumental goals to constantly reinvent themselves. In Europe, two systems of Law coexist, each proposing its own equation: the Council of Europe and the European Union which, although they are working along to bring their systems into coherence, remain attached to their differences of approach.   -   📘 read the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published -  

► Full reference: Bismuth, R., Compliance and Sovereignty: ambiguous relationships, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary (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. - 📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published

► Full Reference: R.-O. Maistre,  "What monumental goals for the Regulator in a rapidly changing audiovisual and digital landscape?", ​in M.-A Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2023, p. - ► Article Summary (done by the JoRC editor):  In France, since the law of 1982 which put an end to the State monopoly on the audio-visual area, the landscape has profoundly evolved and diversified. In view of the multitude of players who are now established there, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel – CSA (French High Audiovisual Council) must ensure the economic balance of the sector and the respect for pluralism, in the interest of all audiences. The growing societal responsibilities of audiovisual media and new digital players have multiplied the "monumental goals" on which the Arcom is watching. Its competences have gradually been extended to the digital space and the successive laws concerning its missions aim at new objectives, in particular in terms of protection of minors, fight against online hate or against disinformation. The emergence of a new European model of Regulation makes it possible to give substance to these additional goals, the Regulator adopting a systemic perspective and calling on soft law tools to fulfill its new missions. -   📘see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published -

► Full Reference: Vaquieri, J.-F.,  The "Monumental Goals" perceived by the company. The example of Enedis, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.),Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary: The article aims to show how a particular company in that it is charged by the State to effectively distribute electricity to everyone in France participates in the Monumental Goals, makes them concrete and integrates them into its functioning itself. The firm Enedis, a French monopolistic State company, operator of the distribution network participates directly in these Goals under the express application of the French Energy Code.  Under the control of the Regulator, the company is responsible for the continuity of the electricity supply and responds to the challenges of energy transition, Enedis ensuring equal treatment at national and local level, Compliance thus extending Regulatory system to which this firm responds and which it internalizes. The management of personal data, energy being at the heart of the digital revolution, implies a particularly strong internal framework of Compliance. This articulation between this new Compliance in terms of personal information and this classic Compliance as a continuation of the Regulation to serve the citizen, both converging for the benefit of people, explains that Enedis has put Compliance at the heart of its commitments, particularly expressed in its code of conduct, its industrial and human project (Projet industriel et humain – PIH) and its environmental actions. The Compliance which is specific to Enedis is disseminated by it to various entities, in particular via concession contracts, giving these an original framework. This importance of Compliance for Enedis leads the company through the "Monumental Goals" which unite it to design and maintain balances between the diversity of these so that the values carried by the companies continue to decline, especially locally. -     📝 see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published -    

► Full Reference: Malaurie, M., Monumental goals of Market Law. Reflection on the method in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published - ► Article Summary (done par the JoRC editor):  The analysis done by this article is about Competition Law, and the methodology needed to be adopted for the technical functioning of this branch of Law. Taking up the various economic and legal theories on this subject, conceptions which have succeeded and clashed, the author develops that the monumental goal of Market Law is to develop an economic environment favorable to businesses and consumers, then asks the question if it could integrate an ethical dimension and more broadly non-economic considerations, in particular humanistic ones. -   📘 see the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published -  

► Full Reference: Cl. Debourg, "La compliance au stade du contrôle des sentences arbitrales" ("Compliance at the arbitral award review stage"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 369-405.  - 📕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): -  

Full reference: AFA, Commission des sanctions (sanctions commission), Société I. SA, Decision n°19-2, July 7, 2021 Read the decision (in French)

► Full Reference: Sudres, N., Gel hydroalcoolique, Covid-19 et Compliance :  des insuffisances de la démarche de conformité à l’émergence d’îlots de compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. -   ► Article Summary (done par the author):  During the Covid-19 Crisis, managing the manufacture, prices, and availability of hydro-alcoholic gel, a key product in the fight against Covid-19 transmission, provides an issue to measure both the limits and resources of Compliance Law. While the Culture of "conformity" with the Antitrust Law was insufficient to counter the surge in the issue of the prices of   hydro-alcoholic gels and masks, implying the use of tools that seem the opposite of Compliance by State (such as price fixation and requisitioning), mechanisms inspired by them have been put in place to deal with other problems linked to the availability of Essential Goods in times of Health Crisis. It remains in question whether these mechanisms should inspire the conception of stable Compliance Standards in the future. -   📘 read the the general presentation of the book in which the article is published