Judge

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐 subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La loi, la compliance, le contrat et le juge : places et alliances" ("Regulations, Compliance, Contracts, and Judges: places and alliances"), Chronique of Compliance Law, D. 2023, pp. 906-908. - 📝read the article (in French) - ► English summary of this article: Compliance Law brings together the forces of regulations, contracts, and judges' decisions to achieve monumental goals so that in the future human beings will not be crushed by systems but will instead benefit from them. In this teleological and systemic branch of Law, legislators, regulators, companies, stakeholders, and judges must find their place. This can lead to bonds of obedience, a vision of 'conformity'. But conformity is only a tool of compliance, whose vigilance is the advanced point of this new branch of Law in which the alliance makes it possible to find solutions, the contract being then a usual mode of elaborating means under the control of the judge. - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📚read the other articles published in this chronique of Compliance Law published in the Recueil Dalloz -

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐 subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Dans les causes systémiques : "délibérer" plutôt que "se disputer"" ("In systemic causes: 'deliberate' rather than 'argue'"), Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, 17 April 2023. - 📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation - 🔴To deal with "systemic causes", including systemic cases of compliance, move from "argument" to "deliberation" from the start Compliance Law involves systems, for example banking, financial, digital, health, etc. When a dispute is brought before a judge, this dimension remains, whether before a judge of the Law or a judge of the merits, whether before a civil, criminal, commercial, administrative or European judge, etc. The judge's office must be adapted accordingly. And this is in the process of being done. - 📧read the article ⤵️ 

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy, "Avocat et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée" ("Attorneys and rights of the defence in internal investigations and negociated justice"), interview with Marina Brillié-Champaux, Dalloz Actu Étudiant, 6 April 2023. - 💬read the interview (in French) - ► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French): "Futurs avocats, c’est à vous que s’adresse cette interview de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, agrégée des Facultés de Droit, directrice du Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et de Matthieu Boissavy, avocat aux barreaux de Paris et de New York, médiateur, membre du Conseil National des Barreaux, vice-président de la commission Libertés et droits de l’Homme. Les 20 et 21 avril 2023 le Conseil national des barreaux, sous l’impulsion de ses commissions Libertés et droits de l’Homme et Droit et Entreprise, organise un colloque sur le thème « Avocat et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée ». Si vous êtes déjà dans la profession, il se peut que leurs réponses vous intéressent pour le respect du droit à la justice !" - ► Questions asked (in French):  En quoi consistent les enquêtes internes ?   Qu’appelle-t-on la justice négociée ?   Qu’attendez-vous de ce colloque ?   Le questionnaire de Désiré Dalloz Quel est votre meilleur souvenir d’étudiant ? Quels sont votre héros et votre héroïne de fiction préférés ? Quel est votre droit de l’Homme préféré ? -

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐 subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Face aux clauses de Compliance : le Juge (colloque du 7 avril 2023)" ("Facing Compliance clauses: the Judge (symposium of 7 April 2023)"), Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, 4 April 2023. - 📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation - Compliance Law is starting to be known; mainly through two blocks: Firstly the spectacular sanctions by which it made as its entry in Europe by the "BNPP sanction" of 2014. 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le Droit de la Compliance, 2016 Secondly, the accumulation of tools, legal and non-legal, with which companies have equipped themselves: plans to detect and prevent breaches, internal investigations, mapping, ad hoc training, etc. 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021   But what is the "compliance obligation" in the name of which these fearful and heavy sanctions are pronounced and these new and multiple tools are put in place? We do not have a very clear idea. That is why the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities have chosen to focus on the topic of the Compliance Obligation in a series of symposiums held in 2023. 🔴JoRC, 🏗️L'obligation de compliance, 2023   It could be said that the company is "obliged" by Compliance because it is obliged by the Law, as Compliance would only mean obeying "regulations" (a term used to describe everything that is obligatory, from the Constitution to ethical charters, etc.). The English vocabulary "comply with" suggests this, as does the Chinese practice of Compliance. The difference would then only be the fact that the company shows its "stakeholders" that it does in fact respect all these texts that commit it.   But the practice and the jurist remember that what is sometimes considered as the heart of the Law, since Roman Law, is Obligations Law, having as its object Contract Law and Tort Law.   Yet, in practice, companies have put contracts concerning compliance everywhere, and they are relatively little studied. 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Contrat de compliance, clauses de compliance, 2023 These may be entire contracts whose very purpose is to entrust another with the task of fulfilling all or part of the compliance obligation incumbent on the company, with regard to personal data. These may be clauses inserted in contracts with another purpose, for instance sales contracts in a value chain, where the company stipulates that the other company will also ensure compliance obligations for itself or for the other company, e.g. detect and prevent corruption, be vigilant, etc. Contract Law has already taken on compliance in practice, especially in long-term economic transactions with an international dimension. The judge has always been present in Obligation Law.   How is the triangle articulated: Judge – Compliance – Obligation?   The Judge has been present from the outset in the development of the Compliance Obligation through criminal liability, administrative liability and the obligation for the company to become a judge of itself, particularly through internal investigations. 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023   The Judge is also present through Obligation Law stricto sensu, first of all through liability, which is transformed under the effect of the compliance system, which operates more in the logic of "accountability" and generates legal mechanisms of "ex ante liability". 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝La responsabilité Ex Ante, pilier du Droit de la Compliance, 2022   In contractual matters, the Judge will intervene, in particular with regard to the stipulations which, in the contracts which form the architecture of the value chains, ensure the efficacy (and no longer only the effectiveness) of the duty of vigilance. The Judge will then intervene under the French law of 2017, known as the "Vigilance Law", 🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧Vigilance, Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance et "Société vigilante", 2023 but also, because the Judge is the "judge of the contract", he will intervene as such.   To identify the Obligation of Compliance,  🔴M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2024 it is therefore necessary to analyse the way in which the Judge apprehends or should in the future apprehend contracts and compliance clauses.   That's why, in the above-mentioned cycle of symposiums, a symposium is being held on 7 April 2023. It is co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Law Faculty of Perpignan, and has been designed under the scientific direction of Walid Chaiehloudj and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. 🧮Le juge face aux clauses et aux contrats de compliance (The Judge facing clauses and contrats of compliance) -

🌐 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⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  - ► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, , F. Ancel, N. Roret, "Les juges vont être de plus en plus présents dans le droit de la compliance" ("Judges will be more and more involved in Compliance Law"), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-Juridique, 1st March 2023. - 💬read the interview (in French) - ► Presentation of the interview by the journal (in French) : "À l’instigation du professeur Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, l’École nationale de la magistrature (ENM) a proposé pour la première fois début février une formation en compliance à destination des magistrats et des avocats. François Ancel, conseiller la Cour de cassation, Nathalie Roret, avocate et directrice de l’ENM et Marie-Anne Frison-Roche plaident d’une seule voix pour le renforcement du rôle des acteurs judiciaires dans la compliance." - ► Questions asked (in French):  D’où est venue l’idée d’aborder ce droit en cours d’émergence qui semble encore très confidentiel ? En effet, on croit souvent savoir ce qu’est la compliance, en la confondant avec la conformité, pouvez-vous expliquer ce qui les distingue ?​​ On constate, en lisant le programme de la formation, que toutes les branches du droit sont concernées par la compliance depuis le droit des sociétés jusqu’au pénal en passant par les contrats et la responsabilité. Pouvez-vous nous donner des exemples ?​ Comment se redistribuent les rôles entre les avocats, les juges et les entreprises dans cette nouvelle configuration qu’est la compliance ?​ En quoi est-ce important pour les magistrats d’appréhender ce nouvel univers ?​ Ces transformations sont-elles cantonnées à la compliance ou peuvent-elles sortir de son champ ?​ Par exemple qu’en est-il de la question très controversée du rôle de l’avocat à l’égard du juge ?​ Avez-vous constaté lors de cette formation une amélioration du dialogue entre les différents acteurs ?​ Cette formation va-t-elle être instituée de manière permanente dans la formation des magistrats et des avocats ? Une autre manifestation est-elle prévue ? -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, série “Régulations & Compliance“, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, 490 p.  - ► This book in few words: Sanctions, controls, appeals, deals: judges and lawyers are everywhere in the Compliance mechanisms, creating unprecedented situations, sometimes without a solution yet available.  Even though Compliance was designed to avoid the judge and produce security by avoiding conflict. This jurisdictionalisation is therefore new. Forcing companies to prosecute and judge, a constrained role, perhaps against their nature. Leading to the adaptation of major procedural principles, with difficulty. Confronting arbitration with new perspectives. Putting the judge at heart, in mechanisms designed so that he is not there. How in practice to organize these opposites and anticipate the solutions? This is the challenge taken up by this book. - 📘 In parallel, the English version of this book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, is published in the series co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.  - 📅  This book comes after a  cycle of colloquia organised in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Academic Partners. -   This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection. ► Read the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, 2024 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L’Obligation de Compliance, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Compliance et Contrat, forthcoming 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), 📕Compliance et vigilance bancaire, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Le système juridique de l’adressage de l’Internet. Une structure multi-acteurs, gage de durabilité (The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Internet, espace d’interrégulation, 2016 📕 Read the presentations of the other titles of the collection. - ► General presentation of the book: There have always been Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law, because this branch of Law is an extension of Regulatory Law in which they have a core place. This results from the fact that the decisions taken in respect of Compliance are contestable in Court, including Arbitration, those issued by the Company, such as those of States or Authorities, the Judge in turn becoming what Compliance Law is effective. The novelty lies more in the phenomenon of “jurisdictionalisation”, that is the trial model penetrates all Compliance Law, and not only the Ex-Post part that it includes. Moreover, it seems that this jurisdictionalisation influences the non-legal dimension of Compliance. This movement has effects that must be measured and causes that must be understood. Advantages and disadvantages that must be balanced. If only to form an opinion vis-à-vis Companies that have become Prosecutors and Judges of themselves and others …: encourage this “Jurisdictionalisation of Compliance”, fight it, perhaps influence it? In any case, understand it! - 🏗️ General construction of this book: The book begins by a double Introduction, the first (in free access) summarizing the book, the second, substantial, relating to the need to reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose the Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law.  The first Part is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law. of Compliance: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, even of others. The second Part relates to Compliance general procedural Law, the procedure being the way between the dispute and the judgement.  The third Part continues this journey to the judge and aims to measure the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in dispute resolution methods where it was not, with some exceptions, present, but where it has a great future: Arbitration. Because trial and judicial decision are inseparable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law should not be divided but compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon of their dissociation, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding the latter must not be dissociated, because therefore Compliance mechanisms and the Rule of Law must be thought out and practiced then, the rise in power of one must be the sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the ‘weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Part relates to the Judges in the Compliance mechanisms and culture.  -   DOUBLE INTRODUCTION 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Lignes de force de l’ouvrage La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance free access to the full text  🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Conforter le rôle du Juge et de l’Avocat pour imposer la Compliance comme caractéristique de l’État de Droit   I. L’ENTREPRISE INSTITUÉE PROCUREUR ET JUGE D’ELLE-MEME ET D’AUTRUI PAR LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (“THE COMPANY ESTABLISHED PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE OF ITSELF AND OTHERS BY COMPLIANCE LAW”) 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche,📝 Le “jugeant-jugé”. Articuler les mots et les choses face à l’éprouvant conflit d’intérêts  🕴️C. Granier, 📝Réflexions sur l’existence d’une jurisprudence des entreprises 🕴️L.-M. Augagneur, 📝La juridictionnalisation de la réputation par les plateformes 🕴️A. Bruneau, 📝L’entreprise juge d’elle-même : la fonction compliance dans la banque 🕴️J.-M. Coulon, 📝Le Droit de la Compliance dans le secteur d’activité de la construction et les contradictions, impossibilités et impasses auxquelles les entreprises sont confrontées 🕴️Lapp, Ch., 📝La compliance dans l’entreprise : les statuts du process 🕴️J. Heymann, 📝La nature juridique de la “Cour suprême” de Facebook 🕴️D. Latour, 📝Les enquêtes internes au sein des entreprises 🕴️A. Bavitot,  📝Le façonnage de l’entreprise par les accords de justice pénale négociée 🕴️S. Merabet, 📝La vigilance, être juge et ne pas juger   II. LE DROIT PROCESSUEL À L’OEUVRE DANS LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE  (“GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW IN COMPLIANCE LAW”) 🕴️N. Cayrol, 📝Des principes processuels en Droit de la Compliance 🕴️F. Ancel,📝Le principe processuel de compliance, un nouveau principe directeur du procès ? 🕴️B. Sillaman, 📝Secret professionnel et coopération : les leçons de procédure tirées de l’expérience américaine pour une application universelle 🕴️A. Linden, 📝Motivation et publicité des décisions de la formation restreinte de la Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) dans une perspective de compliance 🕴️S. Scemla,🕴️D. Paillot, 📝La difficile appréhension des droits de la défense par les autorités de contrôle en matière de compliance 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Ajuster par la nature des choses du Droit processuel au Droit de la Compliance   III. L’ARTICULATION DE LA COMPLIANCE ET DE L’ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL (“ARTICULATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE LAW AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION”) 🕴️J.-B. Racine, 📝Compliance et Arbitrage. Essai de problématisation 🕴️E. Silva-Romero,🕴️R. Legru, 📝Quelle place pour la Compliance dans l’arbitrage d’investissement ? 🕴️C. Kessedjian, 📝L’arbitrage au service de la lutte contre la violation des droits de la personne humaine par les entreprises  🕴️M. Audit, 📝La position de l’arbitre en matière de compliance 🕴️J. Jourdan-Marques, 📝L’arbitre, juge ex ante de la compliance ? 🕴️E. Kleiman, 📝Les objectifs de la compliance confrontés aux acteurs de l’arbitrage 🕴️F.-X. Train, 📝Arbitrage et procédure parallèles exercées au titre de la compliance 🕴️Cl. Debourg, 📝La compliance au stade du contrôle des sentences arbitrales   IV. LE JUGE DANS LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE (“THE JUDGE IN COMPLIANCE LAW”) 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le juge, l’obligation de compliance et l’entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance 🕴️J. Morel-Maroger, 📝La réception des normes de la compliance par les juges de l’Union européenne 🕴️S. Schiller, 📝Un juge unique en cas de manquement international à des obligations de compliance ? 🕴️O. Douvreleur, 📝Compliance et juge du droit 🕴️F. Raynaud, 📝Le juge administratif et la compliance 🕴️E. Wennerström, 📝Quelques réflexions sur la Compliance et la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme - 🌐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

► Full Reference: O. Douvreleur, "Compliance et juge du droit" ("Compliance and Judge ruling only on points of Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 465-471.  - 📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Compliance maintains with the judge complex relations, and even more with the judge ruling only on points of Law  (in France, the Court de Cassation in the judicial order, the one who, in principle, does not know the facts that he leaves to the sovereign appreciation of the judges ruling on the substance of the disputes. At first glance, compliance is a technique internalised in companies and the place occupied by negotiated justice techniques leave little room for intervention by the judge ruling only on points of Law However, his role is intended to develop, in particular with regard to the duty of vigilance or in the articulation between the different branches of Law when compliance meets Labor Law, or even in the adjustment between American Law and the other legal systems, especially French legal system. The way in which the principle of Proportionality will take place in Compliance Law is also a major issue for the judge ruling only on points of Law. -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juge, l'obligation de compliance et l'entreprise. Le système probatoire de la Compliance" ("The judge, the compliance obligation, and the company. The Compliance probationary system"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p 409-442. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks  - 📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): the article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork.  To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the "probatory square" in a "probatory system" that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance. The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof. The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the "round of the burden of proof". But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a "compliance contract" or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law.  Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof.  In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with.  In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools.  If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law. - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, 490 p.  - ► Presentation of this book: Sanctions, controls, appeals, deals: judges and lawyers are everywhere in the Compliance mechanisms, creating unprecedented situations, sometimes without a solution yet available.  Even though Compliance was designed to avoid the judge and produce security by avoiding conflict. This jurisdictionalisation is therefore new. Forcing companies to prosecute and judge, a constrained role, perhaps against their nature. Leading to the adaptation of major procedural principles, with difficulty. Confronting arbitration with new perspectives. Putting the judge at heart, in mechanisms designed so that he is not there. How in practice to organize these opposites and anticipate the solutions? This is the challenge taken up by this book. - 📘 In parallel, the English version of this book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, is published in the series co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.  - 🧮 This book comes after a cycle of colloquia organised in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Academic Partners. - This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in the collection "Régulations & Compliance", founded and managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz. - 🏗️ General construction of this book: The book begins by a double Introduction, the first (in free access) summarizing the book, the second, substantial, relating to the need to reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose the Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law.  The first Part is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law. of Compliance: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, even of others. The second Part relates to Compliance general procedural Law, the procedure being the way between the dispute and the judgement.  The third Part continues this journey to the judge and aims to measure the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in dispute resolution methods where it was not, with some exceptions, present, but where it has a great future: Arbitration. Because trial and judicial decision are inseparable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law should not be divided but compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon of their dissociation, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding the latter must not be dissociated, because therefore Compliance mechanisms and the Rule of Law must be thought out and practiced then, the rise in power of one must be the sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the 'weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Part relates to the Judges in the Compliance mechanisms and culture.  - ► Read in free access the article: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Lignes de force de l'ouvrage La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance" (Lines of Forces of the book La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance). - ►Read below the summaries of each contribution of the book⤵️ - 🌐 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, co-organisation de la formation ENM Droit de la Compliance, co-organisé entre l'École nationale de la magistrature et le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), les 2 et 3 février 2023.  - ► General presentation of the course: The two-day session is designed for magistrates and practicing lawyers who are not necessarily specialized, to enable them, based on concrete cases, to understand the issues, objectives, and methods of compliance mechanisms in companies, including the increasing judicialization and the supranational dimension strengthen, modifying the office of the judge and the role of lawyers. The analysis is made from the angle of Civil Law (contract, tort), Company Law, Labor Law and Criminal Law, but also governance, financial markets, regulatory, climate and digital issues. - ► Brief bibliography:  M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023. ​M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Monumental Goals, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022. M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Tools, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021. N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin, J.-Ch. Roda (dir), Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, coll. Régulations & Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2018. M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2019. M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, coll. "Régulations", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2017. - ► Will speak:  🎤François Ancel, Judge at the Première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation ( First civil chamber of the Court of Cassation) 🎤Guillaume Beaussonie, Professor at Toulouse 1 Capitole University  🎤Jean-François Bohnert, Procureur national financier  🎤Gilles Briatta, Group General Secretary of the Groupe Société Générale  🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🎤Cécile Granier, senior lecturer at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University  🎤Jean-Michel Hayat, Premier Président honoraire de la Cour d'appel de Paris 🎤Christophe Ingrain, Avocat à la Cour  🎤Anne-Valérie Le Fur, Professor at Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University  🎤Stanislas Pottier, Senior Advisor to the General Management of Amundi 🎤Jean-Baptiste Racine, Professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) 🎤Juliette Thery, Membre du Collège de l'Arcom - Lire une présentation détaillée de la manifestation ci-dessous⤵️

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., coordination and moderation of the conference L'office du juge et les causes systémiques (""The Office of the Judge and systemic causes"), in Cycle of Conferences, Penser l'office du juge ("Thinking the Office of the Judge"), Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation, Paris, May 9, 2021, 17h-19h. The conference is held in French. - ► General presentation of the conference: the conference is based on the intervention of three judges, Christophe Soulard, Fabien Raynaud, and François Ancel, who think and debate among themselves on a hypothesis: the existence of "systemic causes". The hypothesis is that beyond and through the diversity of disputes and cases that are submitted to the most diverse judges, there is a category of cases that are systemic, which means containing in what is submitted to the judge for resolution a system.  If such a category exists, which also raises the question of the diversity of systems and the difficulty arising from their submission to rules that are not legal (for example economic, biological, financial "laws", etc.) , then the judge should take this into account, both in the procedure and in the judgment they make on the case and in the way they formulate et restitute this judgment. - 📝read the presentation of this conference by the Cour de cassation (in French) 📝read the program of the cycle of conferences 2022 (in French) -  🎥see the conference video (in French)  🎥 see the synthesis video of the conference, made in situ by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche (in French)   - ​✏️read the notes taken during the conference to make the synthesis (in French) 📝read the article of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche restituting this conference, published in the Recueil Dalloz (in French) - ►read the works, basis of the two interventions of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche 🚧 L'hypothèse de la "cause systémique (made before the conference to prepare it), available en English 📝Synthese of the conference (made during the conference) -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Hypothesis of the category of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, Working Paper, October 2021 and April 2022. - ► This working paper has served as the basis for an introductory speech 🎤L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques (The Hypothesis of the cateory of Systemic Cases), in a more general conference which I coordinated and moderated, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, which is part of a general cycle covering Penser l'office du juge, specific conference attending the 9th May 2002 into the Grand Chamber of the Cour de cassation.   This Working Paper was drawn up in October 2021 to build the conference on the assumption that among the diversity of "cases" brought to the courts by litigants, some constitute a specific category: "systemic cases", justifying treatment that is both specific (in that they are systemic, calling in particular for procedural solutions common to all and distinguishable from the treatment of non-systemic cases) and common treatment beyond the diversity of judges who deal with them (judicial and administrative judges, criminal and non-criminal judges, French and non-French judges, judges of the member-States legal orders and European Union judges, etc.).  This working paper does not aim to deal with the whole subject, i.e. both to determine this category of "systemic causes" and the consequences that must be drawn from it for the judge's office, since that is the very purpose of the conference, which is built around several presentations: it aims to deal with the first part of the subject, i.e. the very existence of this new processual category, which is "systemic causes", leaving for other work the practical consequences to be drawn from it in the processual treatment that it calls for. - 📝This Working Paper is also the basis of a forthcoming article - ► Summary of the Working Paper: xx - Read below the developments⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: J. Morel-Maroger, "The application of compliance standards by European Union judges", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant,coll. "Compliance & Regulation", to be published.  - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author): Compliance rules are intended to pursue objectives of public interest – or monumental goals – and thereby in principle modify and guide the behaviour of economic operators. In order to achieve these objectives, the full spectrum of norms are used in compliance matters. What is and what should be the role of the judges of the European Union in the development of compliance rules ? As in domestic law, the legality of compliance standards developed by regulatory authorities has been challenged. It will first be necessary to analyse what control the judges of the European Union have over these rules. The question arises essentially as regards the rules of soft law, the challenge of which can be considered in two ways : by way of an action for annulment and by exception by way of a preliminary ruling. But beyond the control of the legality of compliance rules exercised by European judges, they also contribute to their application. The effectiveness of compliance rules depend above all on them being followed by those to whom they are addressed, and economic operators are undoubtedly the first actors of its success. But the judges of the European Union, competent to settle disputes concerning the application of European Union law between the Member States, the European institutions, and individual applicants, may be also be involved in ensuring the effectiveness of European compliance rules and in interpreting them. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

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

►This scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel Maroger and Sophie Schiller. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre de recherche en Droit (CR2D) of Paris Dauphine-PSL University.  This event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.       ►The interventions will be then transformed into a chapter in the books: contributions in the 📕 La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  , to be published the Regulation & Compliance series ries, jointly published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoR)C and Dalloz  📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation,    to be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and  Bruylant. -   This colloquium will take place in Paris Dauphine-PSL University in September 2021.   Presentation of the topic :   Judges, regulatory and supervisory authorities, or even authorities specially instituted by Compliance Law, such as the Agence Française Anticorruption (French Anticorruption Agency), must implement it. The colloquium aims initially to identify and discuss the procedural rules that they then specifically implement, in particular when the strong requirements of Compliance Law, efficiency and immediacy, new negotiation techniques and commitment, must be articulated with the traditional procedural requirements that remain. The question arises in particular as to whether the rules of a fair trial should apply (or can they be similar in transactional procedures and in the context of judicial procedures, and how the control by judges operates during homologation) in transactional procedures, with more or less specific treatment of the evidence used. Secondly, the colloquium considers the way in which the different judges assess the different constitutive standards of Compliance Law. These are often soft Law and depending on whether the judge is repressive, administrative, or European, his or her assessment will not be legally of the same scope or of the same nature, which together leads to an issue of articulation of method. Due to the breadth of the subject, certain sectors will be particularly examined, in particular the banking sector. Thirdly, the way in which the judge himself or herself applies Compliance Law will be examined, in what appears to be a balance between pedagogy and sanction. It then appears to play a triple role, in that it ensures compliance with standards but also in that it must find effective solutions in a Law which is more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post and that it must support operators so that they act effectively, by mastering their obligations. The motivation for decisions then appears to be a primary issue. Because this last phase concerns the even more direct relationship between the judge and the operators and stakeholders, this theme is intended to give rise to a presentation and a round table. -   Will speak notably:    Claudie Boiteau, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University, Member of the Centre de Recherche en Droit de l'Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (CR2D).   Jean-François Bohnert, Financial National Prosecutor   Olivier Catherine, Secretary General at Sonepar    Nicolas Cayrol, Professor at Tours Law School and Director of the Institut d'Etudes Judiciaires François Grua   Jean-Michel Darrois, Attorney, Darrois, Villey, Maillot, Brochier Law Firm   Marie-Laure Denis, President of the CNIL   Eric Dezeuze, Attorney, Bredin Prat Law Firm   Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor at Sciences Po (Paris), Director of the JoRC   Juliette Morel-Maroger, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University    Sophie Scemla, Associate attorney, Gide Law Firm   Sophie Schiller, Professor at Paris Dauphine-PSL University   Read a more detailed presentation below: 

► Full Reference: J.-B. Racine, "Compliance et Arbitrage. Essai de problématisation" ("Compliance and Arbitration : Problematisation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 265-279.  - 📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► The summary below describes an article that follows an intervention in the scientific manifestation Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). This conference was designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine, scientific co-directors, and took place in Paris II University on March 31, 2021.  In the book, the article will be published in Title II, devoted to: Compliance et Arbitrage. - ► Summary of the article (done by the author): Under the consideration of the "Compliance Juridictionalisation", it is necessary to study in the links between Compliance and Arbitration. The arbitrator is a judge, he is even the natural judge of international trade. Arbitration is therefore naturally intended to meet compliance which transforms the action of companies in an international context. However, the links between compliance and arbitration are not obvious. It is not a question of providing firm and definitive answers, but rather, and above all, of asking questions. We are at the start of reflection on this topic, which explains why there is, for the time being, little legal literature on the subject of the relationship between Compliance and Arbitration. It doesn't mean there aren't connections.  Quite simply, these relations may not have come to light, or they are in the making. We should research  the existing or potential bridges between two worlds that have long gravitated separately: Compliance on the one hand, Arbitration on the other. The central question is: is or can the arbitrator be a compliance judge, and, if so, how? In any event, the Arbitrator is thus in contact with matters requiring the methods, tools and logic of Compliance. In addition to the prevention and suppression of corruption, three examples can be given. Arbitration has been facing economic sanctions (notably embargoes) for several years. The link with Compliance is obvious, insofar as texts providing for economic sanctions are often accompanied by compliance mechanisms, as in the United States. The arbitrator is concerned as to the fate he reserves in the treatment of the dispute with the measures of economic sanctions. Competition Law is a branch that came into contact with Arbitration from the end of the 1980s. The arbitrability of this type of dispute is now established and arbitrators apply it regularly. At the same time, Compliance has also entered Competition Law, admittedly more strongly in the United States than in France. The existence, absence or insufficiency of a compliance program aimed at preventing violations of the competition rules are thus circumstances which may assist the arbitrator in the assessment of anti-competitive behavior. Environmental Law is also concerned. There is environmental Compliance, for example with regard to the French law of March 27, 2017 on the duty of vigilance. Companies are thus responsible for participating in the protection of the environment, by internalizing these concerns in their internal and external operations (in their sphere of influence). As soon as an arbitrator is in charge for settling a dispute relating to Environmental Law, the question of the relationship to Compliance, from this angle, naturally arises. It is therefore the multiple interactions between Compliance and Arbitration, actual or potential, which are thus open. -