Europe

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Juge modeste" ou "check and balance" :alternative aux Etats-Unis, alternative en France" ("modest judge" or "check and balance": alternative in the United States, alternative in France), Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 6 October 2025.. - 📧Read by free subscription other news from the MAFR Newsletter – Law, Compliance, Regulation - ► Summary of this article: Recent, if not forthcoming, decisions by the US Supreme Court show that the American political system that was based on the unwritten principle of Check and Balance, requiring the Justices to constitute one Power facing the other two could be replaced by a political system based on the principle of a "modest Justice" enforcing decisions made by the Federal Executive. They would then have a new Constitution. In Western Europe and especially in France, it is possible that the letter of the Constitution, which states that judges are not an autonomous power vis-à-vis the other two powers, will be abandoned and that, in the name of an unwritten principle, the Rule of Law, its transformation into an autonomous Power facing the executive in its own right will be adopted. The path would be exactly the opposite. We would then have changed the Constitution. That's conceivable, and there are many arguments in favour of it. We have to say so. And draw all the consequences. - 📧read below the article published the 6 October dans the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation ⤵️ - 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 Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► 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 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 - ► This article is written in French. 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 to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Régulation" (Regulatory Law), in J.-Fr. Kerléo et E. Lemaire (dir.), Dictionnaire de l'éthique publique, LexisNexis, 2025, pp.  - 📗read the general presentation of the Dictionary. - 📝read the article  (in French) - ► English Summary of this article defining Regulation: To define Regulation (Regulatory Law), the article begins with its origins, which were a source of misunderstanding, since the term Regulation might refer to simple regulations, thus masking the real branch of Law which is the Law of Regulation. But this confusion with simple and formal regulations has diminished Regulatory Law its importance, its novelty and its originality, and, by placing it within Public Law, equated Regulation on the one hand with the transition from public monopolies to a competitive organisation, and on the other hand privileged the legal study of what fell within the remit of the Administrative Courts, i.e. telecommunications, transport and energy, leaving out the Regulatory Law of banking and financial sector . As a result, the unity and strength of Regulatory Law is still difficult to perceive and manage today, while its relationship with competition and Europe remains difficult. Regulatory Law is all the more difficult to define because it is still common to oppose, as was the case in the 1980s, "Economic Regulatory Law", which would aim to set economic efficiency objectives within the State, and "Public Liberties Regulatory Law", which would be alternatives to each other, preventing the audiovisual, media and digital sectors in particular from being legally perceived as an industry. We are still paying for this initial conception. All the more so since Regulatory Law is the second pillar on which Europe is built, along with Competition, with which it is linked. It can be identified by the existence of a regulated 'sector', most often through the establishment of a regulatory authority, generally in the form of an Independent Administrative Body. But it is defined by the prevalence of the technical and political goals pursued, which are not spontaneously achieved and which aim to favour the human beings involved in economic organisations. While the function of Competition Authorities is to maintain the dynamism of competitive markets and to punish behaviour that hinders them without creating that dynamism, Regulatory Law, through its own rules, principles, institutions, procedures and decisions, will create non-spontaneous équilibra and maintain them over time.  To do this, it will inject non-spontaneous procedures, such as transparency, or generate obligations and powers because these are necessary for this balance to be achieved. This can take the form of exclusive rights, which can go as far as the creation of monopolies, particularly on transport infrastructures, or the form of pricing and tarification, which can go as far as free access. Access rights are essential, whether technical or political (access to networks, access to healthcare). The political dimension of Regulatory Law is very much in evidence, as Europe is developing its own form of Regulation compared with the USA or China, demonstrating the link between Regulation and Sovereignty, the criterion? of the technical sector becoming less significant. This is illustrated by the clash over algorithmic systems (AI).  In this way, regulation is not a technical reaction to a "market failure", but the manifestation of a zone's political power both internally and externally. The DSA (2022) is an example of this, imposing this same logic extraterritoriality in the digital space through the Digital Services Act (DSA) adopted in 2022. - 📝read the presentation of the other article written by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for this Dictionary: "Compliance" - 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 Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: G. Wright & L. Chetcuti, US Extraterritoriality: The Trump Card, Institut Montaigne, Explainer, December 2024, 62 p. - 📓read the Explainer - 📓read the English Summary of the Explainer - 📓read the presentation of this Explainer made on the Institut Montaigne's website - ► English Summary of the Explainer (done by the Authors): "Extraterritoriality — the application of national laws abroad — has grown exponentially over the last two decades. In a world characterized by strategic competition and weak international organizations, many countries are turning to law to secure their interests. None more than the United States. There are good and bad uses of US extraterritoriality. It has become a key tool to uphold international law and to safeguard the US’ interests. It has helped to sanction hostile states and combat corruption, money laundering, organized crime and terrorism. It has helped to reduce excessive risk-taking by companies and has been used to manage US-China systemic rivalry. However, the US has also been accused of using it as a way to assert market dominance. Could extraterritoriality be the next Trump Card the United States plays? During his first term, President Trump tightened export controls and expanded US laws to combat human rights abuses. At the same time, he rolled back banking regulations and asked his team to review US laws that created unnecessary red tape. Recently, he warned that he would remove any sanctions that weakened the dollar’s dominant position. The extent to which extraterritoriality is used to exert political pressure on EU countries is unclear. The EU must be better prepared. Companies that fail to comply with US rules risk huge fines, handover of sensitive data and exclusion from the US market. European companies often prefer to comply with US rules, rather than abide by European measures designed to block their application. This poses a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the EU and its member states. Institut Montaigne’s latest issue paper provides a framework for understanding all dimensions of US extraterritoriality and offers decision-makers and businesses a roadmap for an informed response. Understanding the implications of US extraterritoriality is crucial for governments and businesses, and should be integral to the EU's approach to economic security.". -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Naissance d'une branche du Droit : le Droit de la Compliance" ("Birth of a branch of Law: Compliance Law"), in Mélanges offerts à Louis Vogel. La vie du droit, LexisNexis – Dalloz – LawLex – LGDJ, 2024, pp. 177-188. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► English Summary of the article:  The study focuses on the various movements that have given rise to Compliance Law, with particular emphasis on Competition Law. After a preliminary reflection on the construction of the legal system into branches of Law, their classification in relation to each other, the difficulty encountered in this respect by Economic Law, and the various movements that give rise to one of them, the diversity of which the branch subsequently keeps track of, the study is constructed in 4 parts. To find out what gave rise to Compliance Law, the first part invites everyone to reject the narrow perspective of a definition that is content to define it by the fact of "complying" with the applicable regulations in the sens to obey them automatically. This has the effect of increasing the effectiveness of the regulations, but it does not produce a branch of Law, being only an efficiency tool like any other. The second part of the study aims to shed light on what appears to be an "enigma", because it is often claimed that this is the result of a flexible method through the "soft law", or of an American regulation (for instance FCPA), or of as many regulations as there are occasions to make. Instead, it appears that in the United States, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent another atrocious collapse of the system, while in Europe, in 1978, in memory of the use of files about Jews, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent an atrocious attack on human rights. A common element that aims for the future ("never again"), but not the same object of preventive rejection. This difference between the two births explains the uniqueness and diversity of the two Compliance Law, the tensions that can exist between the two, and the impossibility of obtaining a global Compliance Law. The third part analyses the way in which Competition Law has given rise to conformity mechanisms: they had only constituted a secondary branch which is a guarantee of conformity with competition regulations. Developed in particular through the soft law issued by the competition authorities, the result is a kind of "soft obedience", a well-understood collaboration of a procedural type through which the company educates, monitors and even sanctions, without going outside Competition Law, of which compliance  (in the sens of conformity) is the appendix. The distance between a conformity culture and Compliance Law can be measured here. The fourth part aims to show that Competition Law and Compliance Law are two autonomous and articulated branches of Law. Since Compliance Law is a autonomous and strong branch of Law built around Monumental Goals, in particular the sustainability of systems and the preservation of the human beings involved so that they are not crushed by these systems  but benefit from them : the current challenge of European integration is to build the pillar of Compliance Law alongside the competitive pillar. Jurisdictions are in the process of doing this and articulating them. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Participation in the panel "Une Gouvernance responsable : vers un mieux vivre ensemble ?" ("Responsible governance: towards a better way of living together"), in Grenelle du Droit 5. L'avenir de la filière juridique, Association française des juristes d'entreprise ("The future of the legal profession"), AFJE), Cercle Montesquieu and Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Campus Port-Royal Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1 rue de la Glacière, 75013 Paris, June 12, 2024 - 🧮See the full programme of this event (in French) - watch the interview made just after this round-table discussion (in French) - 🪑🪑🪑🪑🪑 will also be taking part in this round-table discussion: 🕴️Yves Garagnon, Chairman of Dilitrust, 🕴️Pierrick Le Goff, lawyer, partner at De Gaulle Fleurance, 🕴️Sabine Lochmann, Chairman of Ascend, 🕴️Vincent Vigneau, President of the Commercial, Economic and Financial Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French Judicial Supreme Court) - ► English presentation of my intervention in this event's opening plenary  round-table: In this plenary round table which opens the event, devoted to the theme of 'responsible corporate governance', for my interventions based on my work I will have the opportunity to address more particularly these different perspectives: How the new Compliance Law, which gives concrete expression to the responsibility of enterprises in a new relationship with States and with civil society, constitutes a 'legal revolution 💡for the record, mafr,📝Compliance Law, 2016 ; (ed.) 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022   how the judgment handed down by the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) on 28 February 2023 (Total Ouganda case) is remarkable and already constitutes a turning point in case law 💡for the record, mafr, 🎤audition as amica curiae, hearing of 26 October 2022 before the first instance Paris Court; (ed)📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024   how the relationship between States and enterprises is being renewed by this profound legal movement expressed by Compliance Law 💡for the record, mafr et M. Boissavy (ed.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense – Enquêtes internes, CJIP, CRPC, mafr (dir.), 📘 Compliance Obligation, 2025   how internal lawyers have a decisive and central role to play in this movement, particularly in the mechanism of vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence, the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, 💡for the record, mafr, 📝Contract of Compliance, Compliance stipulations, 2023 ; (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2025   what is meant by the "Ex Ante responsibility" of enterprises, which does not necessarily entail their Ex Post liability, a distinction which lawyers are the guardians of 💡for the record, mafr, 📝La responsabilité Ex Ante, pilier du Droit de la Compliance ("Ex-Ante Responsability, Compliance Law Pillar"), 2021   how European Compliance Law is profoundly humanist, an identity that distinguishes European Compliance from American Compliance and, above all, from Chinese Compliance. 💡for the record, mafr (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance ("For the Europe of the Compliance"), 2017 - read the  article about this round table written by Delphine Bauer in Actu-Juridique (in French) - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "The deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law in the European project", in G. Hardy & F. Picod, Compliance Regulation from a European Perspective, Law and European Affairs (L.E.A.), 2023/2, pp. 345-352. - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks  - ► English Summary of the article: Compliance Law is neither a method of obeying regulations, nor a simple neutral method of ensuring the effectiveness of norms, nor a means of enforcement displaced from Ex Post to Ex Ante. It is an extension of Regulatory Law and goes beyond it. Like it, it aims to build spaces according to a political project specific to an area, such as Europe. Branch of Law looking to the future as Regulatory Law does, it constructs and maintains, in a systemic way, sustainable, albeit unstable, balances to achieve the ‘Monumental Goals’ in which its normativity resides: security, sustainability, probity, truth, and dignity. By internalising these Monumental Goals in the companies that are in a position to achieve them, the “crucial companies”, Compliance Law preserves the logic of Regulatory Law, offering it a prodigious expansion since it frees it from the condi- tion of a sector and territorial borders, which seemed tautological, by associating private powers and public will, which remains primary. In this way, Compliance can regulate the digital space and climate issue through political choices made by a sovereign Europe. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La vigilance, pièce d'un puzzle européen" ("Vigilance, a piece of the European puzzle"), in I.Grossi (ed.), La société vigilante, JCP E, No. 31-35, 3 août 2023, pp. 57-58. - 📙this article is the conclusion of this special issue. It is linked to the introductory article of this special issue: 📝Penser et manier la vigilance par ses buts monumentaux de compliance (Thinking and using Vigilance through its Compliance Monumental Goals) - 🧮the 2 articles follow on from the introductory and concluding speeches in the colloquium La Société vigilante, held at the University of Aix Marseille on 24 March 2023 - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► Summary of the article: The contributions form a contrasted whole. It should not be concluded that some of them are correct and others false: through the reading that each one makes of the so-called French 2017 "Vigilance law," it is a vision of the world as it should be that each author proposes. Because Compliance Law, which Vigilance is a part, claims to draw the future, it is normal that each author should draw the present Law with a hand that bends in one direction or the other, following their conception of the future world. The whole contributions must be seen as a dialogue. A lively dialogue, with this French 2017 law receiving a lot of "glory" and a lot of "indignity" on both sides, from which it is necessary to emerge in order to find solutions, because it is a fundamental movement of which this law is only a gateway (I).  Whatever one thinks of it, it is all the branches of law that are used, affected, and transformed by Vigilance (II). To master this profound transformation, we must turn to Europe, to the great puzzle of texts recently adopted or in the process of being adopted in the European Union, of which Vigilance is the hallmark (III). - 📝read the article (in French) -

follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn subscribe to the  Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law in the European project, Working Paper, July 2023. - 📝this Working Paper is the basis for the article "Le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation par le Droit de la Compliance dans le projet européen" ("The deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law in the European project"), which is part of the special issue La régulation par la compliance, perspective européenne, published in French by the Revue des affaires européennes (Law and European Affairs). - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is neither a method of obeying regulations, nor a simple neutral method of ensuring the effectiveness of norms, nor a means of enforcement displaced from Ex Post to Ex Ante.  It is an extension of Regulatory Law and goes beyond it. Like it, it aims to build spaces according to a political project specific to an area, such as Europe. Branch of Law looking to the future as Regulatory Law does, it constructs and maintains, in a systemic way, sustainable, albeit unstable, balances to achieve the 'Monumental Goals' in which its normativity resides: : security, sustainability, probity, truth, and dignity. By internalising these Monumental Goals in the companies in a position to achieve them, the "crucial companies", Compliance Law preserves the logic of Regulatory Law, offering it a prodigious expansion since it frees it from the condition of a sector and territorial borders, which seemed tautological, by associating private powers and public will, which remains primary. In this way, Compliance can regulate the digital space and climate issue through political choices made by a sovereign Europe. -   🔓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, Thinking and using Vigilance through its Compliance Monumental Goals, Working Paper, March 2023. - 🎤 This Working Paper has been done as basis for the  introduction of the colloquia La société vigilante ("Vigilant Company") at the Aix-Marseille University on March 24, 2023 (conference given in French)  - 📝It is also the basis of the article that introduces a special issue on La société vigilante - ► Summary of the Working Paper: The concept of "Vigilance" is difficult to define. Probably because even as it is becoming a standard, it has just entered the legal systems. And what a splash it is! To understand it, it must not be isolated. Neither in the only French law attracting all the attention, all the fears, all the hopes, the so-called Loi Vigilance ("Vigilance Law"), nor in the only technical mechanisms that make Vigilance a reality. Vigilance is itself only a part of a deeper movement, of which it is the advanced point, allowing us to anticipate the evolution of the whole: Compliance Law. In this light and for not getting lost in it, because the stakes are so high that one quickly loses the measure of things, with each party lashing out at the others, so Vigilance, the key element of Compliance, requires above all alliances,  that we can first examine the entry of Vigilance into the legal system and then understand it through the Monumental Goals which give the measure of it, i.e. both the scope and the limit, each one having to act within the margins that are theirs, States, companies, stakeholders, and judges. A Will for tomorrow can then emerge today, carried by Europe. - 🔓read the Working Paper⤵️

► Full Reference: S. Pottier, “Pour une compliance européenne, vecteur d’affirmation économique et politique” (“For European compliance, a vector of economic and political affirmation”), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, pp. 475-482. - read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (donne by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Today’s monumental goals, particularly environmental and climatic ones, are of a financial magnitude that we had not imagined but the essential stake is rather in the way of using these funds, that is to determine the rules which, to be effective and fair, should be global. The challenge is therefore to design these rules and organize the necessary alliance between States and companies. It is no longer disputed today that the concern for these monumental goals and the concern for profitability of investments go hand in hand, the most conservative financiers admitting, moreover, that concern for others and for the future must be taken into account, the ESG rating and the “green bonds” expressing it. Companies are increasingly made more responsible, in particular by the reputational pressure exerted by the request made to actively participate in the achievement of these goals, this insertion in the very heart of the management of the company showing the link between compliance and the trust of which companies need, CSR also being based on this relationship, the whole placing the company upstream, to prevent criticism, even if they are unjustified. All governance is therefore impacted by compliance requirements, in particular transparency. Despite the global nature of the topic and the techniques, Europe has a great specificity, where its sovereignty is at stake and which Europe must defend and develop, as a tool for risk management and the development of its industry. Less mechanical than the tick the box, Europe makes the spirit of Compliance prevail, where the competitiveness of companies is deployed in a link with States to achieve substantial goals. For this, it is imperative to strengthen the European conception of compliance standards and to use the model. The European model of compliance arouses a lot of interest. The duty of vigilance is a very good example. It is of primary interest to explain it, develop it and promote it beyond Europe. -

This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Arnaud van Waeyenberge. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre Perelman of Brussels University. This event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.     The different interventions will be then transformed into contributions in the books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  and Compliance Juridictionnalization  which will be published in the Regulation & Compliance serie, jointly published by the JoRC and Dalloz for the book in French and by JoRC and Bruylant for the book in English.  This colloquium will take place in Brussels in October 2021.   Presentation of the theme:    Notably  will speak: Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor at Sciences Po – Paris Arnaud van Waeyenberge, professor at HEC Paris and researcher at Centre Perelman   Read a detailed presentation of the colloquium below:   

► Law is slow, but firm. By its judgment of June 15, 2021, Facebook , the European Union Court of Justice widely interprets the powers of National Authorities, since they serve the people protection in the digital space (➡️📝(CJEU, June 15, 2021, Facebook).    Law is slow. The reproach is so often made. But the bottom line is that, in the noise of changing regulations, it establishes clear and firm principles, letting everyone know what to stand for. The more the world is changing, the more Law is required. When Law degenerates into regulations, then it is up to the Judge to make Law. "Supreme Courts" appear, de jure as in the United States, de facto as in the European Union by the Court of Justice of the European Union which lays down the principles, before everyone else, as it did for the "right to be forgotten" in 2014 (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2014), and then with the impossibility of transferring data to third countries without the consent of the people concerned (➡️📝CJEU, Schrems, October 6, 2015). Facebook litigation is kind of a novel. The company knows that it is above all to the Courts that it speaks. In Europe, it is doing it behind the walls of the Irish legal space, from which it would like to be able not to leave before better dominating the global digital space, while national regulatory authorities want to take it to protect citizens. There is therefore a technical question of "jurisdictional competence". The texts have provided for this, but Law is clumsy because it was designed for a world still anchored in the ground: the GDPR of 2016 therefore organizes cooperation between national regulatory authorities through a "one-stop-shop", forcing the authorities to relinquish jurisdiction so that the case is only handled by the "lead" National Authority. This avoids splintering and contradiction. But before the adoption of the GDPR, the Belgian data protection regulator had opened a procedure against Facebook concerning cookies. The "one-stop-shop" mechanism, introduced in 2016, is therefore only mentioned before the Brussels Court of Appeal, which is asked to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Irish Regulatory Authority, since the company has in Europe its head office in this country. The Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. By its judgment of June 15, 2021 (➡️📝CJUE, Facebook, June 15, 2021), it follows the conclusions of its Advocate General and maintains the jurisdiction of the Belgian National Regulator because, even after the GDPR, the case still undergoes national treatment. In this decision, the most important is its reasoning and the principle adopted. The Court notes that the "one-stop-shop" rule is not absolute and that the national regulatory authority has the power to maintain its jurisdiction, in particular if cooperation between national authorities is difficult. Even more, will it not one day have to adjust Law more radically? We need to consider the fact that the digital space is not bound by borders and that the ambition of "cross-border cooperation" is ill-suited. It is of course on this observation of inefficiency, consubstantial with the digital space, that the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) was designed and set up, which is not a cooperation, nor a "one-stop shop", but a body of the Union, acting locally for the Union, directly linked to Compliance concerns (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A. "The European Public Prosecutor's Office is a considerable contribution to Compliance Law", 2021 and ., European Public Prosecutor's Office comes on stage: the company having itself become a private prosecutor, are we going towards an alliance of all prosecutors ?, 2021). So that's what we should be inspired by.

► Do Compliance and Democracy have a relationship? China replies: no. Europe responds and must respond: they are intimate. The definition of Compliance Law is therefore essential. In an interview of great clarity  given in French to the Newspaper Les Echos on June 2, 2021, about Brexit, China and Russia (➡️📝 "Brexit, Chine, Russie : les confidences de la diplomate Sylvie Bermann"), Sylvie Bermann reminds the evolution of China. She sums up the situation as follows: « La Chine ne veut pas dominer le monde, elle veut être la première et surtout qu'on ne puisse pas lui imposer un système, la démocratie » ("China does not want to dominate the world, it wants to be the first and above all that no one can impose on it a system, Democracy,"). This is reflected in China's conception of Compliance Law. If one defines Compliance Law only as a "method" for the effectiveness of rules, consisting of a kind of "Ex Ante enforcement process" leading to 100% effectiveness of regulations by subjects who must show to everyone the respect they have for these regulations and who are rewarded by this proof thus given, then China, in its current use of Law, illustrates exactly this definition: subjects, individuals and companies, prove their "obedience" to rules – whatever the rules" substantial content -, which is evaluated ("rating") and rewarded, in a mechanical reign of the Ex Ante, served by technologies. Democratic mechanisms are not required; they are even disturbed, because they interfere with the efficiency of the system. The technological and purely technocratic conception of Compliance ("Regulation by data", for example) uses the same definition of Compliance Law, which leads to choose algorithms’ efficiency. Europe must keep going to make another choice: European Compliance was born out of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law, in the 2014 judgment, Google Spain (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2021), to protect the person by inventing a subjective right: the right to be forgotten, in a digital space with infinite memory. Based on the Rule of Law, Compliance Law is then defined by its Monumental Goals, which are the protection of people and puts the judge at the center. It is the reverse of Chinese mechanics. Therefore, they are definitions that lead the world: about the definition of Compliance Law by "Monumental Goals", see ➡️📅 the 2021 cycle of colloquia co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its university partners on Monumental Goals; on the technical influence of this definition on "Compliance tools" ➡️📕see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal Approach to Compliance Tools: Building by Law the unity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals", 2021.   ►subscribe to the MaFR ComplianceTech® Newsletter