Control of the judge

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Considérer la géographie juridique africaine pour y réussir l'obligation de vigilance" (Taking into account the legal landscape in Africa to fulfil the Vigilance Obligation), in E. Da Allada (ed.), Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? (The Vigilance Duty: what African perspectives?), Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Thèmes et Commentaires” series, 2026, pp. 235-235. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - 🎤read the presentation of the conference  which summarised this topic - ► Summary of the article: The French ‘Vigilance’ Act of 2017 incorporated the technical provisions and the spirit of the ‘Sapin 2’ Act of 2016. They share a common ambition. They have been, and remain, a source of both controversy and fervour. At their heart lies the establishment of a “compliance obligation”, for which vigilance techniques form the “vanguard” in serving a grand ambition: to protect systems from present and future risks in order to safeguard the people involved in them. The passion that continues to surround the Vigilance Act – which gave rise to the CS3D Directive – is not a good thing, because the law and passion are never allies. Some are passionately committed to the triumph of vigilance by forcing companies to perform miracles, whilst others are passionately committed to the destruction of all the legislation that has established the very concept of this compliance law, built upon these monumental humanist goals. But let us recognise that in these debates on the Duty of Care, which is being legally implemented across value chains,  Africa is often cited as an example in a general discussion. It is not often considered as a distinct case in its own right. No account is taken of its strengths or its own legal mechanisms, even though value chains – particularly industrial ones – so often lead to it, both now and in the future. Through analyses of the duty of care, Africa is perceived as a place of retribution or of a new form of paternalism, and when its future is considered, prospects seem to be lacking, even though the very purpose of compliance – and therefore of due diligence – is the future.  If we take a less confrontational view and focus more on the ‘legal geography’ of African countries and their social and inter-state structures  social and inter-state structures, we can see that concern for others – both present and future – which ultimately constitutes the Monumental Aim of Compliance Law and thus of the Duty of Vigilance – is more prevalent in Africa than it is in Europe, which is now built upon legal individualism. This concern for others is reflected in legal mechanisms akin to mediation and various legal structures that our own institutions would do well to take on board – our legislators before adopting legislation, and our judges, who could listen to them as amici curiae before always reaching a decision. If we turn our attention to the African continent, where a segment of the value chains operates, and to the way work is organised, it becomes clear that here too, legislation and sanctions are not the whole story. Compliance techniques that make use of soft law and the contractual arrangements underpinning the chains themselves can remove the element of abstraction that is, by its very nature, inherent in general legislation. Making progress through contracts, under the scrutiny and with the support of the courts, is an approach that could prove more fruitful than well-intentioned legislation – which served as a catalyst – given the prominent role of Contract Law within OHADA. This serves to enhance the judge’s importance. The judicialisation of compliance is also linked to the growing connection between compliance and contracts. However, it appears that not only can European judges specialising in due diligence thus rule on matters concerning Africa – a continent they can only know from a distance (though it is the lot of every judge to be an outsider) – but African and inter-state courts, notably through OHADA, can address the duty of care because value chains are constituted by contracts. By developing it not as a foreign concept to be assimilated, but as something that expresses the very heart of the law in Africa: concern for others, solidarity, and the search for compromises and solutions to ensure that the social and environmental – that is to say, human – system continues to thrive tomorrow. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art Newsletter

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche,  « L'invention du "droit à l'enfant". Les conséquences de la pratique contractuelle comme source d'engendrement de l'enfant (The invention of the "right to a child". The consequences of the contractual practice as a source of childbearing)", in Special Issue Nouvelles filiations (New Filiations), AJ Famille, Lefebvre Dalloz, Nov. 2025, pp. 568-571.    - 📗read the table of content of the special issue in which this article is published (in French) - 📝read this article (in French) - 🚧Read the underlying bilingual working document, which includes additional technical developments, technical references and hyperlinks. - ► English summary of this article: Every legal system is built on concepts that form its pillars. Filiation is one such concept. A cas-law solution, presented as pragmatic and casuistic, can overturn this concept. Whether one agrees with it or not, it must first be acknowledged and assessed. Through a series of rulings on surrogacy, notably a ruling by its First Civil Chamber granting exequatur to a judgment recognising the filiation established by surrogacy between a child and persons with no biological link to the child and without recourse to adoption, the French Cour de Cassation has introduced the possibility of creating parentage by contract. This not only changes the concept of filiation but also changes the very structure of the French legal system, which is based on the distinction between persons and things. One may agree or disagree with this, but it must be said. Since the judge gives force to such a contract establishing filiation, with the foreign judge simply recognising it and the French judge ensuring only that the contract is balanced, the prospect opens up of a society in which individuals will be able to contractually create institutions at their disposal, within the private normative space of the contract, with the State's only function being to give effect to their right to legal recognition of their unique "project". Parentage is only a first example. Thus constructed on what was "inconceivable", i.e. a "right to a child", thanks to the contractual power to which the State should lend its force a posteriori, the judge makes parentage resulting .the judge technically declares a parentage arising from a contract to be "admissible". Is opening a society in institutions were contractually governed.  - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to theNewsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche,  ""Ordonner la Compliance : pourquoi le faire et comment le faire ? (Organising Compliance: why do it and how to do it?)", interview Focus on… conducted for Dalloz Actu Étudiants, 13 November 2025 - ► read the interview : 💬 Read the interview (in French) - 🌐read the interview presentation on LinkedIn (in French) 🌐read the interview presentation through the MAFR Newsletter Law, Compliance, Regulation, (in English) - ► presentation  of the interview by Dalloz Actu-Étudiants  : Compliance can be defined as a new branch of law that mobilises major economic players and their stakeholders to ensure that the large systems in which we live do not collapse, but remain solid and sustainable. Sanctions, contracts, ethical principles, court decisions and corporate cultures all converge to achieve this. The ambition is great, some contest it, many want to escape it. It is still difficult to define compliance, which seems to be going in all directions. Who? What? Why? How? These are all questions addressed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of law and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the Régulations & Compliance series under her scientific direction. Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the "Regulations & Compliance" collection under her scientific direction, sheds light on with her imaginative power combined with her legal precision. - Q.Why do the fundamental objectives of compliance unify all legal compliance techniques? Summary of MAFR's response: because all these regulatory frameworks, which large companies are required to enforce effectively and which appear disparate, creating as many specific requirements as there are regulatory compliance blocks, find their unity when we consider the following reality: whatever the body of regulations in question (Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, IAA, etc.), the aim is always to identify and prevent systemic risks so that these systems do not collapse.   Q. How can we define the obligation of compliance? Summary of MAFR response: the company concerned is therefore obliged to put in place "compliance structures", such as mapping, plans, alert structures and programmes (obligation of result), but of course, and this is the key point, to achieve this goal, namely to ensure that the system in question (banking, financial, climate, digital, algorithmic, etc.) does not collapse. This is an obligation of means. This is the exact, simple definition that unifies all the regulations of the Compliance Obligation for which subject companies are responsible.   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance standards and their implementation?  Summary of MAFR's response: It must remain a matter of law. However, many argue that because it is only a matter of "compliance" and "ticking all the boxes", algorithms (which do not think or know anything) will do this, eliminating the need for lawyers and the law. This must be avoided. Furthermore, given the immense ambition of safeguarding systems, political and public authorities, businesses and stakeholders must join forces. They must not fight to bring each other down.   Q. What are the complexities of compliance law?  Summary of MAFR's response: I would not say "complexity", because although the regulations are complicated, compliance law is fairly simple and unified around its monumental goals of safeguarding systems, ensuring their future sustainability and protecting the people involved in them. However, it is a new branch of law that is still poorly understood and therefore sometimes poorly mastered. It therefore needs to be organised.   Q. What is your proposal for ordering it?  Summary of MAFR's response: Teaching more about compliance law will facilitate its organisation. The courts, to which all regulations converge through litigation, will participate in this organisation, which is necessary to ensure that regulations do not remain in silos and do not contradict each other when they have the same purpose, which constitutes their legal normativity. This new branch of law must also be articulated with all other branches of law. This is notably what the recently published book, L'obligation de compliance (The Obligation of Compliance), does. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Scientific coprdination and co-hosting of the colloquia series Compliance and Contract, organised on the initiative of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its academic partners - - ► The Symposium Series in a nutshell : As a direct continuation of the previous symposium series co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance and its partner universities on "Compliance Obligation", which served as the basis for the publication of the book 📘Compliance Obligation,  The series, some elements of which began in 2024 and others are already present in this book, explored in depth the specific theme of the links between compliance law and contracts. Indeed, compliance law is often analysed as the construction of laws and regulations to achieve "📘 Monumental Goals " of a political nature desired by States and public authorities, to the achievement of which systemic economic operations contribute through 📘Compliance Tools that are now well documented. Contracts are still relatively little studied, or even developed, in compliance systems that are often perceived through the orders issued, the technologies put in place and the 📘sanctions to be avoided or endured. On the contrary, the future of compliance law, particularly in its European conception, which places human beings at the centre of concerns for the sustainability of systems and the use of contracts, is the new conception that we must adopt. Contracts then appear to be both the means by which the subject company fulfils its legal obligations, forges relationships with other actors and deploys the necessary innovations. Contract law is both used and renewed as a result. The series of symposiums will examine various aspects of this general issue. It will result in the publication of a 📘book Compliance and Contrat. - ► Presentation of symposiums in development :  29 May 2026🧮THE JUDGE CONFRONTED WITH CONTRACTS OF COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE CLAUSES: read the presentation   12 June 2026🧮THE "CONTRACT OF COMPLIANCE" : read the presentation   25  Septembre 2026🧮COMPLIANCE: CLAUSE BY CLAUSE: read the presentation   2 October 2026🧮COMPLIANCE AND COMMON CONTRACT LAW : read the presentation   September 2026🧮COMPLIANCE, VALUE CHAINS AND CONTRACT: read the presentation   2 November 2026 🧮COMPLIANCE AND THE STRATEGIC CONTRACTUAL ORGANISATION OF CHAINS VALUE BY ENTERPRISES: read the presentation  -

► Full Reference: F. Ancel &  M.-A. Frison-Roche, Droit de la compliance (Compliance Law), École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary), in collaboration with the École de Formation professionnelle des Barreaux du ressort de la cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), Paris, February 1 and 2, 2024 This teaching is given in French. - 🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech - ► Presentation of the Teaching: The aim of this two-day conference is to enable judges and lawyers to grasp the issues, objectives and methods that define Compliance Law as it is practised in companies. The speakers will illustrate the growing trend towards litigation, which is difficult to reconcile with the supranational dimension, or even indifference to territories, for example when disputes concern systemic climate or digital issues: the result is a renewal of the role of the judge and the role of lawyers. This must be set against the renewal of the role and operation of companies themselves. This is analysed from the perspective of Civil Law, in particular Contract Law and Liability Law. Company Law and Criminal Law are also addressed, as well as the way in which the legal system now integrates governance, regulation, climate and digital issues and the smooth operation of financial markets through Compliance techniques. - ► Organisation of the Teaching: This conference is divided into two parts. The first day is designed as a presentation of the major themes through which Compliance Law crosses the branches of traditional Law. The speakers will be professors of Law who will successively summarise the branches of Law and put into perspective the way in which Compliance imperatives give rise to new situations, new difficulties and new solutions. This enables the second day to focus on practical and topical issues and to debate controversial questions between people of different sensibilities. The participants tend to be judges, members of regulatory authorities, lawyers, members of associations and so on. - ► Enrolment procedure: The course is open to all judicial and consular magistrates, as well as lawyers. Registrations can be made directly with the ENM or with the EFB. - ► Speakers :   🎤François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation)  🎤Thomas Baudesson, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Clifford Chance 🎤Guillaume Beaussonie, Full Professor at Toulouse 1 Capitole University 🎤Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤Marie Caffin-Moi, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤Malik Chapuis, Judge at the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) 🎤Lucie Chatelain, Advocacy and Litigation Manager – Civil Liability of Parent Companies, Sherpa 🎤Jean-Benoît Devauges, Directeur Juridique, Ethique et Gouvernance des entreprises (Legal, Ethics and enterprises governance Director), MEDEF 🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🎤Arnaud Gossement, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Gossement Avocats 🎤Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Full Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Christophe Ingrain, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier 🎤Isabelle Jegouzo, Director of the Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anti-Corruption Agency)  🎤Anne-Valérie Le Fur, Full Professor at Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University 🎤Charlotte Michon, Attorney at the Paris Bar, partner at Charlotte Michon Avocat 🎤Jean-Baptiste Racine, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤 Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Jérôme Simon, 1er Vice-Procureur Financier (First Financial Vice-Prosecutor) - 🧮read below the programme put together and organised by François Ancel and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, as well as the reports of each presentation⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

The cost issue of regulation is a recurring issue. One can complain specifically, when companies are protesting about the "cost of regulation" or when the topic is taken as an object of study, through the cost / benefit calculation. A practical question of importance is whether there is a "legal question" or not. The "juridicity" of a question is defined by the fact that discussing about this question has an effect on the outcome of a case before a judge. This concrete definition, leaving the judge's power, binding nature of the rule (here the balance between cost and benefit) the effectiveness of its decision before the judge, its consideration by him in the decision he makes, has been proposed in France by Carbonnier. It is opposed to a definition of Law by the source, the author of the rule, which identifies law for example through Parliament Acts, because the text is adopted by the legislator, listed source of law. The first definition, more sociological, more flexible, giving the spotlight on judge better corresponds to a legal system which gives more room for ex post and for the judge. It is logical that we find more demonstrations of this conception in the common law systems. However, the issue of cost / benefit is being debated before the Supreme Court of the United States, about the latest environmental regulations, adopted by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). It is a question of law. It is under the empire of the judge. For it is in this light that President Barack Obama in November 2014 asked a very costly regulation, and it was under his leadership that the Environmental Protection Agency has developed texts. Indeed, pollution of certain plants are the cause of asthma and laid in public health imperative to fight a regulation that results in a direct cost on firms. Indeed, some plants pollution is the cause of asthma and President Obama has asked public health imperative to combat by a regulation that results in a direct cost on the industry. The regulations adopted in 2012 they cost a $ 9 million, some claiming that future ones could result in billions of costs directly related to business The President emphasized by stating that the health of children was priceless. By challenging those of 2012 before the Supreme Court, in the case Michigan v. EPA, this is the other texts that conservative states and companies have in mind because it is the principle that is posed: : does A regulator have the right to take regulations very "expensive" when the advantage, however legitimate it is, is small-scale in terms of costs? The Supreme Court, having chosen to handle the case, listened to March 25, 2015, the arguments of each other and discussed the case. The question is the integration or not into the constitutional notion of "necessity of the law" of the "cost / benefit" calculation. This is a crucial point because the concept of "necessity of the law" is a common notion to the constitutions of many countries. However, not only the so-called judges "conservatives" as Justice Antonio Scalia, took position felt it was crazy not "consider" the cost of new regulations from the expected health benefits, but also Justice Stephen Breyer called "progressive," said "irrational" the environmental regulator has not taken in consideration such an imbalance between cost and benefit. It is true that Justice Breyer was formerly professor of competition law at Harvard. Judgment will be given in June.