🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The role of will in the Compliance Obligation: Obligation upon Obligation is valid and useful, Working Paper, June 2023.

____

🎤  This working paper was originally drawn up as a basis for the talk, Obligation on Obligation is worth, on the first day of the conference I co-organised:🧮Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (Compliance: Obligation, duty, power, culture), on 13 June 2023.

____

It was subsequently used as the basis for a forthcoming article:

📝La part de la volonté dans l’obligation de compliance : Obligation sur Obligation vaut".

in📕L'obligation de compliance, in the collection 📚Régulations & Compliance

📝The role of will in the Compliance Obligation: Obligation upon Obligation is valid and useful,

in📘Compliance Obligation, in the collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The demonstration of the part played by the entreprises' Will in the Compliance Obligation incumbent on them is carried out in 3 stages.

The first stage of the demonstration consists in finding the part played by the free will of companies in their Compliance Obligation by putting an end to two confusions: the first which, within the Law of Contract and Tort itself but also within Compliance Law, splits and confuses "free will" and "consent", which would no longer require freely expressed acceptance; the second, specific to Compliance Law, which confuses "Compliance" and "conformity", reducing the former to mechanical obedience which could exclude any free Will.

Having clarified this, the rest of the study focuses on the 2 ways in which a company subject to a Compliance Obligation by compulsory regulations expresses a part of its free Will, which the study expresses in this proposed adage: Obligation upon Obligation is valid, since the legal obligation to which the company responds by the obedience owed by all those subject to the regulations may be superimposed by its free Will, which will then oblige it.

The first case of Obligation upon Obligation, studied in a second part, concerns the means by which the compulsory Compliance Obligation is implemented, the company subject to the Monumental Goals set by the Legislator remaining free to choose the means by which the company will contribute to achieving them. Its free Will will thus be exercised over the choice and implementation of the means. This can take two legal forms: Contracts on the one hand and "Commitments" on the other.

In the third part, the second case of Obligation upon Obligation, which is more radical, is that in which, in addition to Compliance's legal compulsory Obligation, the company draws on its free Will to repeat the terms of its legal Obligation (because it is prohibited from contradicting it), a repetition which can be far-reaching, because the legal nature (and therefore the legal regime) is changed. The judgment handed down by the The Hague Court of Appeal on 12 November 2024, in the so-called Shell case, illustrates this. What is more, the company's free Will can play its part in the Compliance Obligation by increasing the legal Obligation. This is where the alliance is strongest. The interpretation of the specific and diverses obligations that result must remain that of the Monumental Goals in a teleological application that gives coherence to the whole.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb / Overhang

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Vigilance, the cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, November 2023

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis of the article, "La Vigilance, pointe avancée et part totale de l'Obligation de Compliance" (Vigilance, the cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation), published  in 📕L'Obligation de Compliance

____

► Summary of this Working Paper:  The "duty of vigilance" unleashes all the more radical and passionate positions, sometimes among Law professors, because it has not been precisely defined. One word is used for another, either inadvertently or deliberately, deliberately if it can attract this or that element from one legal corpus and import it into another.  The very exercise of definition is therefore required in practice. There are specific obligations of vigilance that come under such and such a body of regulations and are imposed on such and such a category of operators to fulfill such and such a function. These are precise circles which are not confused and must not be confused. This is superimposed on what the French 2017 law so-called "Vigilance law", which is much more encompassing since it applies to all large companies in the operation of the value chains they have set up. The European 2024 directive is in the same way. But there is no general duty or obligation of Vigilance. Such a claim would be based on confusing or shifting each of these 3 levels, which must be avoided because no positive law does support this (I).

If the duty of vigilance is attracting so much attention, whether or not the European CS3D is fully effective, it is because Vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Obligation (II). Vigilance requires companies, by consideration of their power and without reproaching them for it or demanding that it be reduced, to detect risks of damage to the environment and climate, but also to human rights, because they are in a position to do so in order to prevent them from turning into disasters. In this respect, the  Vigilance duty makes clearer the exact legal nature of the Compliance Obligation.

Moreover, Vigilance appears as the Total Part of the Compliance Obligation (III). Indeed, although it is restricted to one area, the value chain, and to two types of risk, deterioration of the environment and deterioration of human rights, it expresses the totality of the Compliance Obligation by means of tools that the 2017 French "Vigilance law" had itself duplicated from the 2016 so-called "Sapin 2 law": to preserve systems today, but above all tomorrow, in order they do not collapse (Negative Monumental Goals), or even consolidate them (Positive Monumental Goals), so that the human beings who are willingly or unwillingly involved in them are not crushed by them but benefit from them. This is why large companies are subject to the Obligation of Compliance and Vigilance, particularly in the humanist conception that Europe is developing.

The result is a new type of Litigation, of a systemic nature, for which the Courts have spontaneously become specialised, and for which the procedures will have to be adapted and the office  of the Judge shall have to evolve.

_____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La clé de la proportionnalité pour établir l’équilibre des obligations, pouvoirs et droits -  Exemple de l’inclusion technique  assurée par les  opérateurs des noms  de domaine" (The key to proportionality in balancing obligations, powers and rights - Example of technical inclusion by domain name operators), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space). Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique, 21 février 2025, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance et l'Institut de la Recherche en Droit de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRDJS), 12 place du Panthéon, Paris.

____

🧮see the full programme of this colloquium (in French)

____

► Summary of this conference:  The domain name operators operate in a liberal system and have internalised the tasks being technically inherent in the very architecture of the Internet, while the Public Authorities, because they recognise this nature, ensure in Ex Ante that there are no global failures.

This translates into a system of obligations. All the more so since domain name operators not only bear multiple obligations but also, by order of the laws and regulations, impose them on others, for example on their co-contractors and users.

It is from this perspective that  the Principle of Proportionality, which is central here, must be considered. It is another expression of the legal Principle of Necessity, which must be conceived in terms of goals: what is proportionate is what is necessary to achieve the objective with regard to which the duties and prerogatives are entrusted and/or exercised. This is why it is first necessary to recall and explain what the Principle of Proportionality is with regard to the operators obligations covered by Compliance Law, which goes beyond jurisdictional powers such as sanctions or dispute resolution, to explain the teleological control of obligations and powers (I). 

From this practical framework, the most relevant example is the technical obligation of inclusion (II) In the technical sense, Inclusion means that anyone who wants to enter the digital space must be able to do so and must be able to reach those who are there and be reached by others. This gives everyone the right to reach and be reached.

Is it possible to go  further and ask for comfort for everyone and equality in this comfort and advantages to rebalance this accessibility? For instance, to know everything about everyone beyond this simple digital adresse? To ask domains names operators to help everyone to develop his/her personality in the digital space, compensating his/her lack of initial chance?  This is social and political inclusion. It is not the same thing. It does not have the same sources. It does not follow the same paths. Not the same forces. The Sustainability that is then projected can be cumulative. A distinction has to be made on the one hand, and a link made on the other. Moreover, in the name of mistreated social inclusion, can we mistreat technical inclusion, i.e. exclude a person from the digital space?  (III).

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine. Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS), Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 21 Fabruary 2025

____

► General presentation of this symposium: The digital space has been built on and as a system. Its primary interest is of a negative nature: it consists of to be preserved against the prospect of systemic failure, of not collapsing. Like all other systems, this 'Monumental Goal' specific to the digital system justifies resources that incorporate this concern for the future. As with all systems, it integrates and relies on the specific technical nature of this system.

The digital space is largely based on the invention, technology and architecture of domain names. Domain names, as an addressing system, enable users to enter the digital space and find other Internet users. The uniqueness and solidity of the domain name system, entrusted to a single root and decentralisation, makes this community possible for those who use the digital space and ensures the technical durability required, without which the digital space would be compromised.

The architecture, operation, operators and what they do under the control of legislators, regulators, judges and legal subjects are therefore examined from a dual technical and legal perspective, in the light of the imperative of sustainability.

This allows to progress in 4 stages.

Firstly, to examine the permanence in time and space of the domain name system, insofar as it is the foundation of the Internet and the digital system. This technical construction gives rise to legal qualifications, not only for the present but also for the future, since the Web3 offers new technical solutions.

Secondly, this technical sustainability is an imperative that is built into the operators of the domain names themselves, which are inter-linked not only at national level but also at global level, this cross-linking being necessary for the security of the system. The State is present through public law techniques that enable surveillance, control and possible recovery.

Thirdly, it imposes constraints on the operators subject to them in order to serve this monumental goal of technical sustainability, and these constraints themselves generate as many powers as they need to usefully achieve this mission. This proportionality must be at the heart of the method and the requirements. The relationship between constraints and powers also stems from it.

Fourthly, this imperative of technical sustainability, which is global in nature, gives way to imperatives of societal sustainability, more localised in space and time, when domain name operators are called upon by the legitimate authors of binding standards, legislators in the first instance, to express concerns such as the protection of people involved in the digital space and whose rights are compromised or who are in danger.

This second type of sustainability, which is more localised and less inherent in the architecture of the Internet, is justified by the available power of the operators concerned and their adherence to social imperatives. The resulting constraints and powers are therefore not the same.

The 2 sustainabilities must then be articulated in a conception that is both teleological and pragmatic.

____

____

► Speakers (they will speak in French, but the book to be published will be in English): 

🎤Pierre Bonis, Chief Executive Officer of the Association française pour le nommage Internet en coopération (Afnic)

🎤Lucien Castex, Adviser of the Afnic Chief Executive Officer for Research internet and society and Internet governance

🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Full Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎤Claire Leveneur, Senior Lecturer at Paris-Est Créteil University

🎤Grégoire Loiseau, Full Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

🎤Samir Merabet, Full Professor at the University of West Indies

🎤Antoine Oumedjkane, Senior Lecturer at Lille University

🎤Frédéric Sardain, attorney at law, Jeantet law firm

____

read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, La qualification juridique du système de noms de domaine comme infrastructure et ses conséquences juridiques ("The legal status of the domain name system as an infrastructure and its legal consequence"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche et G. Loiseau (dir.), Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of the operators of the domain name system. Compliance and regulation of the digital space). Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique, 21 février 2025, organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance et l'Institut de la Recherche en Droit de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRDJS), 12 place du Panthéon, Paris.

____

🧮see the full programme of this colloquium (in French)

____

► Summary of this conference:  "Domain names" are a technical reality. This technical reality has come to the fore, seeming to have been both little "thought out" and little "conceived" in Law and, perhaps because it is little coveted, Competition Law, which neutralises the concreteness of things and services in order to focus on exchange, hardly qualifies them. It is rather from the 'Competition Policy' perspective that 'domain names' are apprehended. However, Competition Policy expresses wishes and perspectives, while Competition aw must make way for the perspective of Regulatory Law inside the liberal economic system.

Looking at the technicalities of the domain name system, we can proceed in 3 stages.

Firstly, if a domain name is taken in isolation, it may appear as property and/or a projection of a person, and has rightly been described as such by the courts. But domain names only exist in relation to each other, the addressing system on which the Internet itself and the digital space that enables everyone to spread, reach and be reached were built. In this way, they constitute an Infrastructure in their plurality, in a uniqueness (I). The legal system must take account of this technological reality through the concept of Essential Infrastructure, which is well known in Regulatory legal perspective(I).

Secondly, the legal consequences of this legal qualification of Infrastructure must be detailed (II). Regulatory Law does not necessarily imply institutions, a regulatory authority being an indication rather than a criterion. Rather, it requires specific charges, powers and controls to ensure that the Infrastructure is established and operates to fulfill, now and in the future, the function that is crucially expected of it. Because the digital space was born of the Internet, an a-sectional and a-territorial space, Compliance Law, which is an extension of Regulatory Law, outside the sectors and internalised in the crucial operators, is essential as it is appropriate without diminishing the public dimension of the organisation.

Thirdly, the evidential dimension should be emphasised (III). Indeed, because we need to ensure that the Domain Names Infrastructure is always solid and reliable, so as not to risk a systemic failure of the Internet, and therefore of the digital space, we must not remain with the traditional system of burden of proof that rests on the person making the complaint. Because there is a Compliance Obligation, it is up to the crucial operators to credibly show their ability to ensure the technical sustainability of this infrastructure on which the digital space in which we live is based.

It shall be different if the issue is one of non-technical Sustainability, for example that which is linked to a particular societal project, in which the operators of the domain name system are not at the origin and are required on an ad hoc basis because they are in a good position to help the Authorities or because they wish to do so.

_____

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Vide Newsletter MAFR Hangover

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The legal status of the domain name system as an infrastructure and its legal consequences, Working paper, February 2025

____

🎥 This working paper is the basis of the contribution to the symposium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS),  Durabilité de l'Internet : le rôle des opérateurs du système des noms de domaine. Compliance et régulation de l'espace numérique (Sustainability of the Internet: the role of domain name system operators. Compliance and Regulatory Law in the Digital Space).

____

📝 It will also form the basis of the forthcoming📕.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: Les "noms de domaine" sont une réalité technique. Cette réalité technique s'est imposée, semblant avoir été à la fois peu "pensée" et peu "conçue" en Droit et, peut-être parce qu'elle fait peu l'objet de convoitise, le Droit de la concurrence qui neutralise la concrétude des choses et prestations pour se concentrer sur l'échange, ne les qualifie guère. C'est plutôt dans une perspective de "politique de concurrence" que les noms de domaine" sont appréhendés. Or, la politique de la concurrence exprime des souhaits et des perspectives, tandis que le Droit de la concurrence doit faire place au sein du système économique libéral à la perspective de Régulation.

► Summary of this Working Paper: "Domain names" are a technical reality. This technical reality has come to the fore, seeming to have been both little "thought out" and little "conceived" in Law and, perhaps because it is little coveted, Competition Law, which neutralises the concreteness of things and services in order to focus on exchange, hardly qualifies them. It is rather from the 'Competition Policy' perspective that 'domain names' are apprehended. However, Competition Policy expresses wishes and perspectives, while Competition aw must make way for the perspective of Regulatory Law inside the liberal economic system.

Looking at the technicalities of the domain name system, we can proceed in 3 stages.

Firstly, if a domain name is taken in isolation, it may appear as property and/or a projection of a person, and has rightly been described as such by the courts. But domain names only exist in relation to each other, the addressing system on which the Internet itself and the digital space that enables everyone to spread, reach and be reached were built. In this way, they constitute an Infrastructure in their plurality, in a uniqueness (I). The legal system must take account of this technological reality through the concept of Essential Infrastructure, which is well known in Regulatory legal perspective(I).

Secondly, the legal consequences of this legal qualification of Infrastructure must be detailed (II). Regulatory Law does not necessarily imply institutions, a regulatory authority being an indication rather than a criterion. Rather, it requires specific charges, powers and controls to ensure that the Infrastructure is established and operates to fulfill, now and in the future, the function that is crucially expected of it. Because the digital space was born of the Internet, an a-sectional and a-territorial space, Compliance Law, which is an extension of Regulatory Law, outside the sectors and internalised in the crucial operators, is essential as it is appropriate without diminishing the public dimension of the organisation.

Thirdly, the evidential dimension should be emphasised (III). Indeed, because we need to ensure that the Domain Names Infrastructure is always solid and reliable, so as not to risk a systemic failure of the Internet, and therefore of the digital space, we must not remain with the traditional system of burden of proof that rests on the person making the complaint. Because there is a Compliance Obligation, it is up to the crucial operators to credibly show their ability to ensure the technical sustainability of this infrastructure on which the digital space in which we live is based.

It shall be different if the issue is one of non-technical Sustainability, for example that which is linked to a particular societal project, in which the operators of the domain name system are not at the origin and are required on an ad hoc basis because they are in a good position to help the Authorities or because they wish to do so.

_____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The future of Compliance Obligation in practice - from the prohibition of bribery to the hypothesis of the "right to bribe": what about an "obligation to bribe"?, February 2025.

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis for the contribution "The future of Compliance Obligation in practice - from the prohibition of bribery to the hypothesis of the "right to bribe", in📘Compliance Obligation.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The 

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

.🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, 2023-2024.

____

🎤 This working paper was drawn up as a basis for the presentation "Droit de la Compliance et Droit processuel" ("Compliance Law and General Procedural Law") at the colloquium on 13 June 2023, , and then completed for publication.

____

📝It is therefore also the basis for the written contribution, "The General Procedural Obligation, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in the book to be published Compliance Obligation

____

► Working Paper summary: Thoughts are beginning to be available to describe the relationships to be built between General Procedural Law and Compliance Obligation, if only to explain the Emerging Systemic Litigation in compliance matters, Compliance Law becoming jurisdictionalised. But this does not tell us anything specific, because everything that is caught up in a lawsuit is therefore mixed up with General Procedural Law.

It would even appear that, at first sight, Compliance Law does not give rise to any procedural obligations, since it is designed to be developed on an Ex-Ante basis, avoiding the judge for the enterprise, compliance by design being intended to perfect this alleviation, the presence of judicial proceedings being a failure in itself and because of the delays and uncertainties which are inherently associated with them. It is often in the hope of being protected from legal action that enterprises claim to be able to 'be conform' with all regulations, at all times, in all places, through all the people for whom they are responsible. This is obviously impossible. If it were, enterprises would be condemned in advance in all possible legal proceedings, their sanctions being demanded by everyone, public prosecutor or private prosecutor. But this is to make a grave confusion between Compliance Law with 'conformity', which is merely a tool of this new branch of the Law. 

Nor is it enough to say that the rights of the defence and access to the courts must be respected, which no one denies or should not deny.

The purpose of this study is more to measure how Litigation relating to Compliance Law, i.e. the Obligation on large enterprises to participate in the achievement of Monumental Goals in alliance with the state authorities, of which the duty of vigilance is the most advanced, is transformed, creating not only new procedural obligations but also a new type of Obligation on the part of both parties.

But for the moment we reluctantly accept the procedural logic, notably the presence of judges and not just prosecuting bodies (public prosecutors and colleges of regulatory and supervisory authorities), and lawyers in defence and not just in negotiation, in order to respect the Rule of Law principle, as a sort of tribute paid, a dose of inefficiency in efficacy system. This sets the disciplines against each other, in this case Law on the one hand, Economics and Management on the other. More often than not, we leave it at that, either to admit it and strike a balance, or to regret it and wait to see which logic will prevail, between procedural rights and obligations on the one hand and compliance rights and obligations on the other.

On the contrary, we must reject this logic of communicating vessels.

Indeed, Compliance Law is an extension of Regulation Law; Regulatory Law, which extends beyond sectors and borders, and whose normativity is anchored in the Monumental Goals set by political and public authorities, which aim to ensure that in the future systems do not collapse, or even improve, so that the human beings who depend on them are not crushed by them but, on the contrary, benefit from them.

The result is "Systemic Compliance Litigation", which gives rise to specific procedural principles. First of all, it is important to clarify what a "Systemic Case" is, a concept proposed in 2021, and to which the cases that are now being brought before the courts correspond. The specific nature of these Emerging Systemic Compliance Litigation, disputes which are objective disputes, similar to administrative cases, which fully justifies the presence of the public prosecutor and raises the question of whether there would be a 'natural judge' for these systemic compliance disputes, have major procedural consequences, in particular on procedural rights and obligations: in particular the right to be a party to the proceedings, even if you are a party to the dispute, which is the case for the stakeholders.

The result is a new alliance between Compliance Obligation and General Procedural Law, which gives rise to a Compliance Obligations of a procedural nature within Compliance Law itself. It is no longer necessary to divide Ex-Ante and Ex-Post, but to borrow compliance principles and insert them into jurisdictional procedures, as envisaged by Justice François Ancel (moving from Ex Ante to Ex Post), while it is necessary to insert procedural principles into Compliance Obligations within enterprises (moving from Ex-Post to Ex-Ante), as shown in the book on Compliance Jurisdictionalisation. This is particularly illustrated in relation to the Duty of Vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence.

This is particularly relevant in relation to three general procedural obligations which must henceforth structure the compliance obligations in the behaviour of the enterprises and parties concerned, even independently of any legal proceedings requirements, since the judge may be called upon to verify their fulfillment on both sides and to encourage them, which gives rise to an Ex-Ante office of the judge: the obligation to discuss (adversarial principle), the obligation to provide information (evidentiary system) and the obligation to demonstrate (principle of the motivation).

In this development, not only is the procedural obligation to provide access, to organise remedies, to listen to the other party - a procedural obligation which can be reciprocal, especially when it involves listening to the other party and taking into account what they say, a trace of which must be found in the reasons given (for example for the vigilance programs) - the procedural obligation then finds its profound nature: to be the prototype of the Obligation of Compliance.

This alliance changes both Compliance Law and General Procedural Law, since it more broadly changes the office of the judge, who must ensure the effectiveness of these procedural obligations in a continuum between Ex-Post and Ex-Ante. But this question of the office of the judge is the subject of a separate contribution in this book.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Qui est en charge de rendre effectif le dispositif de Compliance ? Plutôt l'entreprise ou plutôt l'Autorité publique ? Exemple des données : CE, 27 janvier 2025, B. c/ CNIL", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 8 févroer 2025

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cette vidéo a été élaborée

____

► Résumé de ce Surplomb : Dans sa décision du 27 janvier 2025, le Conseil d'État eut à apporter une solution à un cas que les règles de Compliance applicable en matière de données n'avaient pas expressément prévu. Une personne qui estime qu'une autre a méconnu ses obligations imposées par le RGPD peut-elle saisir la CNIL et non pas le responsable de traitement ?

Le Conseil d'Etat estime que la question est claire, qu'il n'est pas utile de poser une question préjudicielle à la CJUE. En effet, les textes imposent à celui qui allègue la méconnaissance de son droit de se tourner d'abord vers le responsable du traitement pour que l'information soit effacée avant de saisir dans un second temps la CNIL. En outre, il s'agissait en l'espèce d'informations personnelles insérées par des médecins dans un rapport d'expertise versé dans une instance judiciaire. Le Conseil d'Etat approuve la CNIL d'avoir estimé qu'elle n'a pas à contrôler et à apprécier les éléments de preuve, ce qui relève de l'office du juge judiciaire.

L'on mesure ici que, si par ailleurs sur la base du droit d'alerte la saisine d'autorités administratives peut être directe, ici le spécifique l'emporte sur le général, l'esprit de la loi confiant la préservation directe des droits au responsable du traitement, la CNIL ne devant venir dans son office de supervision et de hashtag#sanction que dans un second stade. Cela illustre ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance d'une façon plus générale, qui repose en premier lieu sur les opérateurs eux-mêmes. En outre, creuset de droits subjectifs divers, ici droit à l'hashtag#effacement mais aussi droit de verser des preuves aux débats, le Conseil d'Etat souligne que c'est ici l'office du juge judiciaire de veiller à la loyauté des débats.

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomb, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb/Overhang

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance" et "conformité" : les distinguer/mieux les articuler afin que le DPO trouve sa juste place" ("Compliance Law" and "conformity" : distinguish between them/better articulate them so that the DPO finds their rightful place"), , in  Association française des correspondants à la protection des données à caractère personnel (AFCDP),  19ème Université AFCDP des DPO - La gouvernance des données ("Data Governance"), Maison de la Chimie, Paris, 7 February 2025 , 10h-10h45.

____

🧮 see this manifestation full program (in French)

____

⬜ see les slides on which this conference is done (in French) 

____

► English Presentation of this conference: 'Compliance' and 'conformité' are often considered to be synonymous, notably in French in which the term "Compliance" is so often used to express only the "conformity" (conformité). This is a misunderstanding and a reduction, particularly of the role of professionals, notably DPOs. In fact, 'conformity' consists solely of ensuring that regulations are respected. Of course, an"active" conformity and "proven" conformity with these regulations, in particular the European GDPR. That and only that.

If that's the case, then on the one hand this task impossible, because no one can comply with all the regulations, and it's the obsession with avoiding or reducing penalties that actually replaces the desire to do the right thing. On the other hand, algorithms are going to replace the DPO, a human being, because algorithms will identify 'non-conformity', then conformity, then write it down by "smart" contracts.

But Compliance Law is more than conformity, which is only one of its tools. Compliance Law aim is to protect the human beings involved in the systems. Data protection is one of the best examples of this, and it underpins all the other areas of Compliance Law. Companies are asked to do less (obligation of means) and more: to help protect, by distinguishing between what must be revealed and what must be kept secret, sometimes to resolve conflicts between the 2 prescriptions, to educate, to make alliances.

To built a real "governance". In this human and humanist mission that anchors Europe, the algorithm is flat. We are waiting for the DPO. In this human and humanist mission that anchors Europe, the algorithm is flat. We are waiting for the DPO. There is the role of guardian of the spirit of the texts, of strategic aid for the data controller, of adjuster of complementary or contradictory subjective rights, of adjustment of the texts in the European puzzle of a Regulatory Europe, which is being put in place in the humanist tradition which is its own to preserve the durability of the systems to protect the people who are forcibly or voluntarily involved in them.

________

► Référence complète : Défenseur des droits, Décision-cadre n°2025-019 de la Défenseure des droits relative à des recommandations générales destinées aux employeurs publics et privés concernant les enquêtes internes réalisées à la suite de signalement pour discrimination, 5 février 2025.

____

📝Lire la décision-cadre

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR. Overhang / Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Monumental Goals, normative anchoring of Compliance Law", in Series of videos Overhang / Surplomb, 1st February 2025

____

🌐watch on LinkedIn this video of the Series Surplomb/Overhang

____

🌐watch on LinkedIn this video of the Serie Surplomb/Overhang, published in the Newsletter Surplomb/Overhang, by MAFR

____

🎬watch below this video of the Serie Surplomb/Overhang⤵️

____

Surplomb/Overhang, by mafr

the Serie of videos dedicated to Regulation, Compliance and Vigilance

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and the time saved: the Areva and Orano CJIP of 2 December 2024, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 25 January 2025 : click HERE (in French)

____

🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category.

►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: On 2 December 2024, Areva/Orano signed a Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP) with the French National Financial Prosecutor's Office, validated by the order of 9 December 2024 of the President of the Paris Judicial Court. The case concerns the bribery of a foreign public official in Mongolia through the use of an intermediary.

This perfectly illustrates the primary advantage of this Compliance Tool, which consists of closing a situation that could deprive a company of the means to act in the future. Even if neither the CJIP nor the validation order constitutes an admission of guilt or a conviction, the acts of bribery of a foreign public official can no longer give rise to prosecution.

However, the future has been taken care of, because as soon as Tracfin passed the first information to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the company cooperated and set up a programme to actively fight corruption ("compliance programme"). The CJIP extends this by a compliance programme supervised by the French Anticorruption Agency.

One month after the CJIP, the Mongolian government and the company, in the presence of the French government, announced on 17 January 2025 the signing of a contract to operate a uranium mine, the same industrial coopération that had given rise to these reprehensible acts. The CJIP made it possible to move forward in time.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche,  « La compliance est avant tout une affaire humaine» (Compliance is first and foremost a human issue), interview conducted by Olivia Dufour for Actu-juridique, Lextenso, 23 January 2025.

___

► read the interview: 💬in French)

____

🏛️🏛️🏛️🏛️this interview was organised following a number of official opening hearings of Parisian courts, in particular that of the Paris Judicial Court on 21 January 2025, at which the presidents of these courts explained the role now played by systemic litigation and compliance and/or vigilance law, in particular in the internal organisation of their courts.

____

► presentation of this interview: 

Q. (translated): At the start of the new session of the official opening hearings of Paris Court of First Instance on 21 January, President Stéphane Noël spoke at length about the creation of a 34th chamber dedicated to handling cases relating to companies' obligation of vigilance. What are the advantages of this new specialisation?

MAFR Answer Summary: It corresponds to the jurisdiction given to the Paris Court of First Instance by the French 2020 so-called Confidence Act, which extends the French 2017 so-called Vigilance Act. It reflects the importance of Compliance Law, of which Vigilance is the leading edge.

Q. (translated): The court president points out that this new litigation raises questions about the role of the courts, which is to "concilier le respect des buts fondamentaux pour la protection de l’humanité avec la possibilité pour les entreprises d’apprécier la maitrise des risques et leur éventuelle responsabilité" ("reconcile respect for the monumental goals of protecting humanity with the ability of companies to assess the control of risks and their potential liability"). What do you think?

MAFR Answer Summary: the role of the judge has been renewed, as they take charge of the future of the systems and participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law. Companies are subject by law to a new compliance obligation and must demonstrate their diligence. They may be held liable under the general ordinary legal regime, as set out in the French 2017 Act on Vigilance duty, if the claimant demonstrates the existence of fault or negligence, damage and a causal link between the 2.

Q. (translated): All this comes under the heading of compliance, a concept you've been working on for 10 years and which is still not fully understood and is too often confused with conformity....

MAFR Answer Summary: The 2 aforementioned concepts ("conformity" and "compliance") were identified in the article I published in 2016 entitled Le droit de la compliance"Compliance law". This notion has taken a long time to mature because, on the one hand, it is a radically new branch of law that has an impact on the other branches. On the other hand, indeed,  there is confusion between 'compliance' and 'conformity'. Conformity is the obedience to applicable regulations; compliance is the active participation in the achievement of monumental goals to preserve or save systems in which humans are involved. Conformity is, and is only, a tool of Compliance Law.

Q. (translated):  The Nanterre Court has just created a chamber for Emerging Systemic and Regulatory Litigation. Does this confirm the interest of the courts in this fundamental development?

MAFR Answer Summary: This statement by the President of the Nanterre Court of Appeal at his hearing on 20 January 2025 illustrates the Regulation - Compliance - Vigilance continuum. He involves training for judges and dialogue between judges. Training and dialogue are being put in place.

Q. (translated):  Y a-t-il d’autres initiatives en ce sens ?

MAFR Answer Summary:Le président du Tribunal de commerce Paris à son audience du 15 janvier 2025 a annoncé la création d'une chambre des contentieux complexe. Les contentieux systémiques émergents, que le Droit de la Compliance peut engendrer, ont vocation à y être présentés. Là  aussi, formation et dialogue se mettent en place.

Q. (translated):  Que manque-t-il encore ?

MAFR Answer Summary: puisque le Droit de la compliance se contractualise de plus en plus, notamment dans les chaines de valeur concernées par les techniques de vigilance, l'arbitrage international est concerné. Des arbitres internationaux intégrant le droit de la compliance, et pas seulement attaché à telle et telle réglementation sectorielle, sont un enjeu d'attractivité de la Place de Paris. Cela va émerger, notamment par le dynamisme de la Cour internationale d'arbitrage, dont le siège est à Paris.

_________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Statut et rôle de la "trajectoire" dans le Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 18 janvier 2025

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The puzzle of Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law: the example of the European Regulations of 31 May 2024 on AMLA and enterprises compliance obligations​, Working Paper, January 2025.

____

🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 11 January 2024 :

____

🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category.

►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is built on 2 legs, Institutions on the one hand and substantive rules on the other. For example in the United States, the 1934 Act established at the same time the prohibition and prevention of financial market abuse and the SEC. In Europe, in 2013, the Banking Union established institutions to build this Union and increased the obligations on banks.

This is perfectly illustrated by the 2 European Regulations of 31 May 2024, one creating the AMLA and the other reinforcing the compliance obligations of crucial economic operators, one text referring to the other.

Indeed, Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law are like 2 articulated legs. You have to know both and make them work together.

This is part of the "European puzzle", a positive expression which implies that, when assessing and interpreting a text, we should always bear in mind that it is only one element of a general picture, which is coloured by its Monumental Goal: in this case to obtain a European area where money laundering is efficiently prevented thanks to the action of the companies themselves under the supervision and support of a Supervisory Authority which coordinates the actions of the States.

If we consider only one element, we find everything 'complicated', whereas the overall picture is simple, because the Goal is simple and in Compliance Law, a branch of Teleological Law, everything is in the Monumental Goal.

____

🔓read the developments below ⤵️

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, " Le puzzle du Droit institutionnel de la Compliance et du Droit substantiel de la Compliance : exemple des règlements et la directive du 31 mai 2024 sur l'AMLA et les obligations de compliance des entreprises  ", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 11 janvier 2025

____

► Résumé de ce Surplomb : Le Droit de la Compliance se construit sur 2 jambes, les institutions d'une part, les règles substantielles d'autre part. Aux Etats-Unis comme en Europe. Ainsi le 31 mai 2024 furent adoptés en même temps un Règlement institutionnel pour créer l'Autorité européenne de lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent (AMLA) et un Règlement substantiel modifiant les obligations de compliance des entreprises assujetties pour contribuer à cette lutte. En effet, il faut penser et connaître ensemble institutionnel, procédural (voire procès) et règles substantielles de compliance (gouvernance, contrôle, gouvernance).

N'en connaître qu'un de ces deux aspects, c'est en pratique moins bien manier les techniques de Compliance. Articuler les 2 c'est mieux les maîtriser et les comprendre puisque règles institutionnelles et substantielles se déduisent toutes d'un même "But Monumental" : ici éliminer le blanchiment d'argent des systèmes financier, économique et sociaux. But monumental, mais but simple, qui rend la Compliance facile à comprendre et à manier.

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sous-jacent à cette vidéo

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous ce Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomb, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation: a necessity for organizing it​ , Working Paper, December 2024.

____

🎤This working paper was drawn up to serve as the basis for the speech that opened the colloquium L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent, in the cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent," which was held in French on 16 December 2024 at the Paris Court of Appeal.

____

📝It will also constitute the basis of the first contribution to the book to be published in French in 2025, Le contentieux systémique émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation).

____

► Summary of this Working Paper : Systemic Litigation is for the moment a practice that has not been clearly identified. This is a handicap in practice, firstly because it can be confused with other things, such as the "systemic method" that this category of Litigation calls for and to which it cannot be reduced and which this method exceeds, and secondly because if this practice is not conceptualised, secondly, because if this practice is not conceptualised, even if only by a shared definition, it is difficult for the courts to organise themselves and for the potential parties to the dispute and to the proceedings to anticipate the procedural and substantive solutions that will be adopted tomorrow. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that not all emerging disputes are Systemic and not all systemic disputes are emerging. For example, banking regulation litigation and litigation concerning the operation of competitive markets or sectoral regulation are systemic disputes that are not emerging. But it so happens that technological developments have given rise to new systemic litigation, which the courts, judges and parties have had to adapt to because the systems themselves are entering the courthouses.

A series of conferences has been organised to report on this practice, focusing on technology, legislation, management, court organisation, procedure and the role of the judge.

They have thus made it possible to build up common, cross-disciplinary knowledge so that innovations can be developed and expressed in the organisation of the courts, in procedures, particularly in the relationship between judges and lawyers, and in the openness of proceedings, in the conception of the judge's office, which must be singular when the case, because a systemic is implied, is systemic. This specificity leads to judges who are less hierarchical among themselves and more specialised, leading to procedural forms that place dialogue and adversarial proceedings no longer as a desire and support but as the primary guiding principle.

____

🔓read the developments of this Working Paper below⤵️

🌐 suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐 s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’Obligation de Compliance :  nouvelle Obligation, manifestation d'une nouvelle branche du Droit", in M.A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", à paraître.

____

► Cet article constitue la conclusion de l'ouvrage ; il est en accès libre.

____ 

📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'Obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : Cet article est construit en deux parties.

La première partie explique la façon dont cette "Obligation de Compliance", qui est nouvelle, est elle-même la manifestation de cette branche du Droit nouvelle qu'est le Droit de la Compliance.

En appui de cela, l'article reprend dans sa seconde partie, en reprenant la structuration même de l'ouvrage que j'avais conçue chacune des contributions et la résumant et en la resituant dans la démonstration d'ensemble. 

Cet article est en accès libre⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Coordination of the cycle of conference-debates Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

____

► This Cycle in few words: Duty of vigilance, supervision of platforms, non-financial information (CSRD), etc.: as many new texts that bring new types of disputes before the courts.

Despite their diversity, the cases brought before the most diverse judges present a unity: through the dispute that pits the parties against each other, it is a system that is at stake, for example the climate system, digital system, energy system, financial system, etc.
New regulations are just the illustration of this "Emerging Systemic Litigation"; the conference-debates aiming at showing the new fields, new techniques, new standards, etc., in relation to the scale and diversity of stakeholders' expectations. This cycle is designed to encourage cross-fertilisation, so as to provide judges with food for thought ahead of the litigation they will be called upon to deal with.

Les réglementations nouvelles ne sont que l’illustration de ce « contentieux systémique émergent » dont la formation a pour objet de montrer les nouveaux champs, les nouvelles techniques, les nouvelles normes, etc., en lien avec l’ampleur et la diversité des attentes des parties prenantes. Le cycle vise à favoriser les échanges croisés, afin d’alimenter la réflexion des magistrats en amont des litiges qui leurs seront soumis.

____

🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com

🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/ 

⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal).

____

► General Presentation of the Cycle: In 2024, the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) created a new specialised chamber: chamber 5-12 Contentieux émergent – Devoir de vigilance et responsabilité écologique (Emerging litigation - Duty of vigilance and environmental liability). Vigilance litigation is an example of what is emerging more generally: Systemic Litigation, often linked to technologies. This calls for a new way of judging, organising procedures and relations between professionals. A series of conference-debates on Emerging Systemic Litigation (ESL) is being organised jointly by the Paris Court of Appeal, the Versailles Court of Appeal, the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific responsibility of Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.

In this context, a series of conference-debates involving professionals from a wide range of backgrounds is being proposed on the following themes:

• 🧮the very notion of "Emerging Systemic Litigation" and the role of the judiciary in it (29 March 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮vigilance, insofar as it gives rise to Systemic Litigation, notably because it takes legal form in numerous contracts, for example in employment relationships (26 April 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮the inclusion in Emerging Systemic Litigation of information reliability techniques, particularly with regard to content available on platforms (27 May 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮the way in which artificial intelligence is generating Systemic Litigation and the influence of new specific texts (24 June 2024): read the report of this event

• 🧮sustainability, a principle of systems found in reports and transitively in disputes concerning their development, their standards and even their control (9 September 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮new evidentiary techniques required by Emerging Systemic Litigation, to account for systemic needs, e.g. climate and digital systems, and how firms respond to them (14 October 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮Vigilance General Procedural Law, in that it incorporates the Systemic dimension of Vigilance Litigation (18 November 2024): read the programme of this event

• 🧮institutional and case law feedback from courts on Emerging Systemic Litigation (16 December 2024): read the programme of this event

____

🧮read below the full programme of this cycle of conference-debates⤵️

► Référence complète : G. Beaumier & A. Newman, "When Serving the Public Interest Generates Private Gains: Private Actor Governance and Two-Sided Digital Markets, Cambridge Université Press, 2024.

____

📝lire l'article : cliquer ICI

____

► Résumé de l'article ( fait par les auteurs) :  "From speech to privacy, broad public interests are increasingly governed online by policy decisions taken by private companies. We examine when and how firms make such decisions. In contrast to the shadow of hierarchy and functionalist explanations of private authority, we build an analytical framework based on business power and the economics literature concerned with two-sided markets. We argue that companies operating as digital platforms may use private actor governance to consolidate their influence. More precisely, public-interest regulation on one side of the market (e.g., protecting the privacy of end-users) may increase the dependence of firms on the other side of the market (e.g., increasing the price paid for information by advertisers). We probe our argument by looking at the privacy policy implemented by Apple in 2021. Our findings demonstrate the growing role played by digital companies in global regulatory debates and call attention to how market structures can simultaneously incentivize public-interest regulation and become a source of business power.".

____

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifier et anticiper la pratique du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation) ; Presentation of L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Courts Experience in Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 16 December 2024, 2pm.-6pm., Cour d'appel de Paris, Première Chambre (First Chamber).

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

⚙️This event has been conceived as a part of the cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

____

► English Summary of the conference: 

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, La chaîne de valeur, nouvel espace de Régulation par la Compliance, document de travail, décembre 2024

____

📝 Ce document de travail est la base de l'article, "La chaîne de valeur, nouvel espace de régulation par la compliance", in 📕L'Obligation de Compliance

____

► Résumé du document de travail :

_____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche., "Description d'un risque systémique : Description d'un risque systémique : 🎬𝑲𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒍 - 𝒖𝒏 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓 - 𝟓𝟎 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔", billet décembre 2024.

🎞️voir le film-annonce 

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Régulation et Compliance", in série de vidéos Surplomb, 6 décembre 2024

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb

____

🌐visionner sur LinkedIn cette vidéo de la série Surplomb, publiée dans la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

____

🎬visionner ci-dessous cette vidéo de la série Surplomb⤵️

____

Surplomp, par mafr

la série de vidéos dédiée à la Régulation, la Compliance et la Vigilance