Resources

► Full Reference : E. Netter, "Les technologies de conformité pour satisfaire les exigences du droit de la compliance. Exemple du numérique" (Conformity technologies to meet the requirements of Compliance Caw. Digital example), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 355-367. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published. - ► English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance) :The author distinguishes between Compliance, which refers to Monumental Goals, and conformity, which are the concrete means that the company uses to tend towards them, through processes, check-lists in the monitoring of which the operator is accountable (art. 5.2. GRPD). Technology enables the operator to meet this requirement, as the changing nature of technology fits in well with the very general nature of the goals pursued, which leave plenty of room for businesses and public authorities to produce soft law. The contribution focuses firstly on existing technologies. Through Compliance, Law can prohibit a technology or restrict its use because it runs counter to the goal pursued, for example the technology of fully automated decisions producing legal effects on individuals. Because it is a perilous exercise to dictate by law what is good and what is bad in this area, the method is rather one of explicability, i.e. control through knowledge by others. Regulators are nevertheless developing numerous requirements stemming from the Monumental Goals of Compliance. Operators must update their technology or abandon obsolete technology in the light of new risks or to enable effective competition that does not lock users into a closed system. But technological power must not become too intrusive, as the privacy and freedom of the individuals concerned must be respected, which leads to the principles of necessity and proportionality. The author stresses that operators must comply with the regulations by using certain technologies if these technologies are available, or even to counteract them if they are contrary to the goals of the regulations, but this obligation of conformity is applied only if these technologies are available. The notion of "available technology" therefore becomes the criterion of the obligation, which means that its content varies with circumstances and time, particularly in the area of cybersecurity. In the second part of this contribution, the author examines technologies that are only potential, those that Law, and in particular the courts, might require companies to invent in order to fulfill their conformity obligation. This is quite understandable when we are talking about technologies that are in the making, but which will come to fruition, for example in the area of personal data transfer to satisfy the right to portability (GRPD), or where companies must be encouraged to develop technologies that are of less immediate benefit to them, or in the area of secure payment to ensure strong authentication (SPD 2). This is more difficult for technologies whose feasibility is not even certain, such as online age verification or the interoperability of secure messaging systems, two requirements which appear to be technologically contradictory in their terms, and which therefore still come under the heading of "imaginary technology". But Compliance is putting so much pressure on companies, particularly digital technology companies, that considerable investment is required to achieve it. The author concludes that this is the very ambition of Compliance and that the future will show how successful it will be.          - 🦉This article is available in full texte for persons following Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching. -

► Full Reference: J.-Ch. Roda "La preuve de la bonne exécution de la Vigilance au regard du système probatoire de Compliance (Proof that Vigilance has been properly carried out with regard to the Compliance evidence system)", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Éditions Lefebvre – Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 679-689.   - 📕read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published  - ► English summary of this contribution : Taking the Duty of Vigilance as an illustration, the first part of the article examines the question of who must prove about that and in what order. There are no rules in the legal dispositions specific to the Vigilance Duty duty that expressly reverse the burden of proof, to the extent of placing it on the company that should demonstrate that it has correctly fulfilled its obligation. Instead, it is needed to return to general law, which makes the burden of proof vary according to the nature of the obligations incumbent on the company as a result of its Duty of Vigilance, in particular between simplly drawing up a plan and drawing it up such that its effectiveness can be expected to give rise to an obligation on those who dispute it to demonstrate its ineffectiveness. In any event, the 2 litigant parties immediately seek to fuel the debate with elements in their favour, whatever their position in the process. This brings us to the second part of the article, devoted to the question of what constitutes proof of proper performance of the Vigilance Duty. Requiring proof of a positive fact and the constitution of a self-evidence of conformity would both be excessive and would distance the company from the Monumental Goals that are its compass. Instead, it is pertinent to distinguish between Compliance Structures, for which the proof requirements must be high, and Expected Compliance Actions, for which proof of efforts is sufficient, the obligation being only of means. In fact, companies will be wise to provide proof of their efforts as early as possible. The third part therefore deals logically with the means of proof available to the parties. Claimants act on the principle of freedom of evidence and benefit from numerous sources of information, but the most serious difficulties arise when the facts to be proven are located outside the European Union. The company can establish that the plan has been implemented using various types of evidence, but it would appear that the standard of proof is high, even if the Vigilance Plan were to be regarded as an act of management. - 🦉This article is available in full texte for people who follow  Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching

► Full Reference: J.-B. Racine, "L’arbitre, juge, superviseur, accompagnateur ?" (The arbitrator, judge, supervisor, coach?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 489-502. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► English Summary of this article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : From the outset, the author sets out what is at stake in these terms:  "Quel rôle peut ou pourrait jouer l’arbitre dans les dispositifs de compliance ? Selon le rôle qu’il est amené à jouer, il peut ou pourrait venir en renfort de l’obligation de compliance. Poser cette question, c’est poser la question des pouvoirs de l’arbitre et de son office. C’est aussi, d’une certaine manière, renvoyer à la notion même d’arbitrage." (What role can or could the arbitrator play in compliance systems? Depending on the role he/she is called upon to play, he/she can or could reinforce the compliance obligation. Asking this question raises the question of the powers of the arbitrator and his/her office. In a way, it also goes back to the very notion of arbitration).  In practice, arbitrators deal with compliance issues in their office as judges. This is illustrated by disputes involving allegations of corruption, where the arbitrators' ruling obviously cannot give effect to a corrupt practice unless they violate themselves international public order. But in this, the arbitrator is only applying a legal standard, the main issue being then the question of evidence, with compliance tools often serving as indicators of the corruption itself. Leaving behind the strict legal source and coming to the standards issued by the ICC about the fight against corruption, we really enter into the "compliance obligation", in the strict sense, when a contract appears. International business practices standards are emerging, not only in the area of probity but also in the protection of human rights, for which arbitrators can now act as guarantors. Arbitrators can do this, in particular, through the emerging litigation relating to vigilance obligation, either directly when vigilance plans are at issue,, even if a legal rule gives a specific competence to a State court (as the French 2017 law does) or if we imagine that a plan itself includes a system for recourse to arbitration, which would imply a change in culture, or if we consider that soft law is in the process of emerging from the practices of international trade laying down a duty of vigilance that arbitrators could take up. In the second part of his contribution, the author takes a second, bolder approach, namely that of an arbitrator who understands Compliance Law in that he/she would be more than a Judge, i.e. he/she would do more than settle a dispute by applying the law. This would be conceivable given the tendency to consider that the arbitrator could modify contracts and if example is taken from the technique of arbitration practised for concentration disputes in merger law. To give arbitration the required regulatory dimension, this third party would have to be able to exercise a supervisory function, which the notion of "dispute" hardly lends itself to, especially as an arbitrator is only set up to be a judge, and if he/she ceases to be one it is difficult for him/her to remain an arbitrator…. However, it is conceivable that in Ex Post the arbitrator could perform the monitoring function often required in Compliance Law. The technique of disputes boards is inspiring in this respect. The two fields, Arbitration and Compliance, are thus destined to move closer together, as the two traditional limits, arbitrability and litigation, are in the process of evolving so that they no longer stand in the way of such rapprochements. The author can therefore conclude: "C’est aux différents acteurs de la compliance de penser à l’arbitrage, et à la souplesse, la plasticité et la liberté qu’il offre, pour éventuellement le configurer spécialement au service des buts de la compliance." (It is up to the various players in Compliance to think about Arbitration, and the flexibility, plasticity and freedom it offers, in order to configure it specifically to serve the goals of Compliance Law). -

► Full Reference: L. Rapp, "Compliance, Chaines de valeur et Économie servicielle",  ", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 153-172. - 📕read the general contribution of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published - ► English summary of this contribution  (done par its author) :  Based on an analysis of the value chains of companies in the space sector and their recent evolution, this contribution examine the role, place and current transformations of compliance policies and strategies in the context of an industrial transformation that has become essential: the transition from an industrial economy to a service economy. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full reference : Th. Goujon-Bethan, "Les enjeux présents à venir de l’articulation des principes de procédure civile et commerciale avec la logique de compliance (Current and future challenges for articulating civil and commercial procedural principles with Compliance Logic)", in  M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 693-719. - 📕Read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published. - ► Summary of this article (by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author shows that the French Code of Civil Procedure, because it is exceptionally well designed and managed, can respond to the scale of transformation brought about by Compliance Law. Compliance Law is normatively anchored in its Monumental Goals: these are brought as such before the judge in 'Systemic Cases'. However, the French Code of Civil Procedure distinguishes between litigation and conflict, as demonstrated by the work of the academic authors of the Code, who were very famous legal scholars. Indeed, in a "Systemic Case" such as Compliance Law, which necessarily takes precedence (climate, protection of internet users, effective equality of human beings, sustainability of banking systems, etc.), it is the parties who are in dispute, while the conflict encompasses the systems themselves and other entities. The procedure must incorporate not only the dispute but also the conflict. This means, in particular, that we must deal not only with the dispute, but also with the conflict, which does not necessarily end with the dispute and does not find the same solutions as those sought by the dispute. It is particularly in this latter perspective, essentially in a "Systemic Compliance Case" procedure, that the techniques of mediation, amicus curiae, with a judge who takes an ex ante position, etc., are required. They are available through legal dispositions of this French Code of Civil Procedure: judges who understand what "Systemic Compliance Cases" are need only apply them. - 🦉this  article is available in full text for people who follow the professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's teaching  -

► Full Reference: , J.-B. Barbièri, "Les juges du droit des entreprises en difficulté et les obligations de compliance (Judges of Insolvency Law and Compliance Obligations), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Éditions Lefebvre – Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 313-323. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published  - ► English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): Describing at first sight the intersection of Compliance and Insolvency procedures as the "marriage of the carp and the rabbit", the Author shows that the logic is in many ways the same, particularly in terms of the role played by the Judge, since it is always a question of the State delegating Monumental Goals, with Insolvency procedures giving concrete expression to the desire to save a company, jobs, an industry, a region, etc., in what is always a "public interest".  In his/her office, the insolvency judge is confronted with compliance clauses, relating to commitments, or information, or organising monitoring. The author begins by examining the cases in which the insolvency judge is confronted with the principle of primacy of the insolvency proceedings over this compliance contractual organisation, either under current contracts, which may contain compliance obligations, in particular because audits and controls will have been strengthened or automatic termination will be provided for (which would then be deactivated?), or because the nullity of the suspect period comes into play, because the compliance clauses are often unbalanced. The second part examines the hypothesis that compliance techniques will support insolvency proceedings themselves and the purpose they serve. Indeed, because they are preventive in nature, contractual compliance mechanisms can also prevent failures, by means of audit and monitoring clauses and the introduction of reporting, if necessary under the supervision of the Judge, associated with conciliation mechanisms. What is more, they should be used to restructure companies in difficulty. The plan, which can be imposed on creditors, must open up the range of instruments, and could perhaps be articulated at this class of parties, which would only be made up of creditors benefiting from compliance clauses, if we consider that they constitute a "sufficient community of economic interest". They could then also be delegated the task of monitoring the survival of the company, which is the main goal served by the plan. In the case of a disposal plan, an offer including compliance undertakings should not be favoured, since the law expressly states that the sole purpose of such a plan is to ensure the maintenance of activities and to clear the past. But time will tell whether the judge will go beyond this. - 🦉This article is available for people who follow the Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching

► Full reference : Ch. Lapp, "L’usage de l’arbitrage international pour renforcer l’obligation de Compliance : l’exemple du secteur de la construction" (The use of International Arbitration to strengthen Compliance oObligations: the example of the construction sector)", in  M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Regulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 471-487. - 📕Read a general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published. - ► English summary of this article (by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author emphasises that Arbitration is a particularly significant method of dispute resolution in the construction sector, not only because operators make extensive use of it, but also because this activity gives rise to difficulties that lend themselves to arbitration and at the same time concern compliance issues. In order to provide the necessary legal security and focusing on the Vigilance Plan especially in French and European Law, the author examines how disputes may arise in relation to it and what they may concern. In light of this, the author examines, on the one hand, the cases in which arbitration may be organised alongside the jurisdiction legally assigned to the Paris Court of Appel and, on the other hand, how Arbitrators will resolve the issues submitted to them. - 🦉This article is available in full text for those following the Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses. -

► Full Reference: R. Gauvain & B. Balian, "Opposition et convergence des systèmes juridiques américains et européens dans les règles et cultures de compliance" ("Opposition and Convergence of American and European Legal Systems in Compliance Rules and Cultures"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Editions Lefebvre – Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2025, pp. 401-417. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► English Summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The authors approach Compliance Law through its tools, mainly compliance programmes through which companies comply with regulations and investigations conducted by companies at the request of public authorities to identify risks and new modes of defence consisting of entering into agreements with prosecuting authorities.  The article highlights the American inspiration behind this movement, whereby the State, primarily for the sake of efficiency, transfers the responsibility for pursuing "Monumental Goals" to businesses. Based on this, the article first shows how American mechanisms have been imported into Europe, particularly France, with the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, taking on many of the characteristics of the DPA, even if some specific features remain, for example in the alert mechanisms.   Secondly, the convergence between the two systems is shown, because through the compliance obligations that form the core of these compliance tools, it is always Western values that are expressed, values that are common to American Law and European Law and European countries. It has enabled this importation, and we can now see that these values are more strongly upheld by Europe, particularly through the Vigilance duty and the DSA.  - 🦉This article is available in full text  (in French) to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: J.-B. Blanc, "La loi, source de l’Obligation de Compliance" ("The Law, source of the Compliance Obligation"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, "Régulations & Compliance" Serie, 2025, pp. 393-400. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is publish - ► Summary of this contribution  (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: M. Séjean, "La définition de l’obligation de compliance confrontée au droit de la cybersécurité (The definition of the Compliance Obligation in Cybersecurity Law)", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, pp. 109-117. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published. - ► English Summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The contribution compares the general definition given by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche with the specific nature of the world of cybersecurity, its legal organisation and the principles that govern it.  Taking up all the elements of this general definition, according to which the Compliance Obligation consists in "building a compliance structure producing credible effects in the perspective of the Monumental Goals targeted by the Legislator", the author shows that beyond the specificities of cybersecurity rules,  this corresponds in practice and in each of the elements of this definition, confronted with the various elements that constitute what is required in terms of cybersecurity, to what is technically required of the entities and persons concerned in terms of cybersecurity, which is actually thought out in these terms. - 🦉This article is available for people who follow the Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche teaching

► Full Reference: Fr. Ancel, "Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : une compétence à partager ?" (Duty of Vigilance  and commercial disputes: a jurisdictional competence shared ?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2025, 727-740. - 📕read the general presentation of the book, L'Obligation de Compliance, in which this contribution is published - ► English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author considers the procedural issues raised by the duty of vigilance as the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law.  After recalling the obligations imposed by the French 2017 law  so-called "Vigilance Law" with regard to the Vigilance Plan, he emphasises the 2 types of action instituted by the law to ensure compliance with the duty of vigilance: the preventive action to put an end to the unlawful act, initiated after the formal notice has been served, and the civil liability action that can be brought under the conditions of general tort law, once the damage has occurred. It is the French 2021 law so-called "Confidence Law" that has targeted the Paris Judicial Court of First Instance, in a jurisdiction that can be described as 'special' rather than exclusive. The author looks in detail at the disputes that this law both puts an end to and yet triggers in its turn, going back over the case law of the French Cour de cassation, which referred to the very nature of the Vigilance Plan and the subject matter of the dispute. It is therefore clear that the dispute may concern only the validity of the plan, in which case the Paris Court of first instance has jurisdiction, or it may concern a dispute, for example, between the company that drew up the plan and one of its partners, in which case jurisdiction is shared. The article details all the procedural situations involving disputes in which the Vigilance Plan is more or less at the centre, which more or less implies either a lack of jurisdiction, or a stay of proceedings, or knowledge of the entire dispute by a court other than the Paris Court àf first instance, with the author proposing methods each time to develop case law so that the Duty of Vigilance does not emerge fragmented, at the same time as other jurisdictions, for example the commercial courts, will be dealing with the duty of vigilance insofar as it interferes with actions relating to commercial companies, the Plan having a direct link with the management of these companies, with the new definition of the corporate purpose of companies and with the exercise of the power of management of companies. According to the author, this "judicial syncretism", expressed in the case law of the Cour de cassation, is part of Compliance Law, which goes beyond the distinction between the traditional branches of law. To give concrete form to this general view, the author states that when the subject of the action is the legality or validity of the plan, it therefore falls within the jurisdiction specially conferred by law on the Paris Court of First Instance. However, when the plan is only mentioned in an ancillary manner, and/or the duty of vigilance is mentioned in another capacity, the natural jurisdiction of the case law remains, for example if the nullity of a contractual stipulation is alleged. It is possible that this type of dispute is more frequent and more important than actions based primarily on the illegality of the Vigilance Plan. This contractual dispute could also arise from the fact that the company contractually imposes compliance with its own Vigilance Obligation on its employees and partners as part of the "adapted actions". Judges, for example commercial judges, are then justified in interpreting and applying Vigilance  obligations in the spirit of the law, particularly with regard to the aims pursued. It will be important for a common approach to emerge.         - 🦉this article is fully available  for people enrolled in courses taught by Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche  -

► Full reference: L. Dubin, “Tensions et contradictions entre les instruments relatifs à la vigilance raisonnable des entreprises. D’un processus de vigilance à la consécration d’un standard de responsabilité” (Tensions and contradictions between the instruments relating to the reasonable due diligence of companies. From a due diligence process to the recognition of a standard of liability), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” series, 2025, pp. 617-634. - 📕read a general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author focuses on the notion of “due diligence of multinational enterprises” as it emerges from texts of Public International Law, namely the UN and OECD Guiding Principles. She considers that one must start from this notion of “due diligence”, which imposes a conduct not only on States but also on companies that “take responsibility upon themselves”, a movement expressed through a “reasonable vigilance so as not to harm others”. There is therefore a standard of conduct, the one that forbids harming others, since there is a duty to take care of others, which “reveals itself” in concreto in the various legal orders. The author holds that it is the role of civil liability (and therefore of the judges) to carry out this revelation by attaching secondary obligations to it. For the author, by this measure “compliance” is only a doxa that increases the domination of companies, and one should rather adopt the aforementioned perspective of Public International Law, which must be taken up directly by domestic laws, the European directive and the new case law developed by judges. The author is all the more hostile to Compliance and to its link with Vigilance in that it allows exemptions from a liability that should on the contrary be increased, since liability must be articulated with the accountability of the moral duty (duty of care) incumbent on multinational enterprises. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those enrolled in Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -