Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, L'apport du Droit de la Compliance dans la Gouvernance d'Internet  (The contribution of Compliance Law to the Internet Governance), Report asked by the French Government, published the 15th of July 2019, 139 p. - ► Report Summary. Governing the Internet? Compliance Law can help. Compliance Law is for the Policy Maker to aim for global goals that they require to be achieved by companies in a position to do so. In the digital space built on the sole principle of Liberty, the Politics must insert a second principle: the Person. The respect of this One, in balance with the Freedom, can be required by the Policy Maker via Compliance Law, which internalises this specific pretention in the digital companies. Liberalism and Humanism become the two pillars of Internet Governance. The humanism of European Compliance Law then enriches US Compliance law. The crucial digital operators thus forced, like Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc., must then exercise powers only to better achieve these goals to protect persons (against hatred, inadequate exploitation of data, terrorism, violation of intellectual property, etc.). They must guarantee the rights of individuals, including intellectual property rights. To do this, they must be recognized as "second level regulators", supervised by Public Authorities. This governance of the Internet by Compliance Law is ongoing. By the European Banking Union. By green finance. By the GDPR. We must force the line and give unity and simplicity that are still lacking, by infusing a political dimension to Compliance: the Person. The European Court of Justice has always done it. The European Commission through its DG Connect is ready.   ► 📓 Read the reporte (in French) 📝 Read the Report Summary in 3 pages (in English) 📝 Read the Report Summary in 6 pages (in English) -   ►  Plan of the Report (4 chapters): an ascertainment of the digitization of the world (1), the challenge of civilization that this constitutes (2), the relations of Compliance mechanisms as it should be conceived between Europe and the United States, not to mention that the world is not limited to them, with the concrete solutions that result from this (3) and concrete practical solutions to better organize an effective digital governance, inspired by what is particularly in the banking sector, and continuing what has already been done in Europe in the digital field, which has already made it exemplary and what it must continue, France can be force of proposal by the example (4). -   📝  Read the written presentation of the Report done by Minister Cédric O (in French). 🏛 Listen to the oral  presentation of the Report by Minister Cédric O durant the parliamentary discussion of the law against hate contente on the Internet (in French). -   💬 Read the interview published the 18 July 2019 : "Gouvernance d'Internet : un enjeu de civilisation" ( "Governing Internet: an Issue of Civilization"), given in French,  📻 Listen the Radio broadcast of July 21, 2019 during which its consequences are applied to the cryptocurrency "Libra" (given in French) 🏛 Presentation of the Report to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel- CSA (French Council of Audiovisual) on Septembre 5, by a discussion with its members presentation (in French) 💬 Read the  Interview published the 20 December 2019 : "Le droit de la compliance pour réguler l'Internet" ("Compliance Law for regulate Internet"), given in French -     read below the 54 propositions of the Report ⤵️ - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance et personnalité, in Recueil Dalloz, n°11/7812, avril 2019, pp. 604-606 -   ► Chronique English Summary: Compliance is often presented as a set of mechanical procedures, in which human beings are absent. It's the opposite. It is an Information Law, in its function of preventing systemic risks and a markets protection Law, which poses the requirement of knowing “truly” the person who is “relevant”, generalizing what Company or Competition Law had partially admitted. Even more, beyond systems, Compliance Law, insofar as it is a Protection Law, aims to protect human beings, directly or indirectly concerned, establishing them as legal persons, true final subjects of law of this new branch of Law. - 📝read the chronique (in French). - 🚧  read the bilingual Working paper, Compliance and Personality, basis of this chronique,    working paper including footnotes, technical references and hyperlink - 📖 read the other chroniques Chronique MAFR Droit de la Compliance -

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la concurrence et droit de la compliance ("Competition Law and Compliance Law), November 2018,  in Revue Concurrences n° 4-2018, Art. n° 88053, pp. 1-4.  -   ► Summary: Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, still under construction. One can have a “narrow definition” of seeing it as the obligation of businesses to show that they are constantly and actively complying with the law. One can have a richer definition, of a substantive nature, defining it as the obligation or the own will of certain companies to achieve “monumental goals” that go beyond economic and financial performance. Competition Law partly integrates its two conceptions of Compliance: Precursor, Competition Law concretizes dynamically the first conception of Compliance Law. It is with more difficulties but also much more future that Competition Law can express in dialectic the second conception of Compliance Law as internationalization of these “monumental goals”, especially in the digital space. -   📝 read the article (in French) - 🚧read the Working Paper on which this Article is based, with footnotes, technical references and hypertext links.     -

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le Droit de la Compliance au-delà du Droit de la Régulation, Recueil Dalloz, 2018, chronique, pp. 1561-1563.   Summary : A movement started from precise legal requirements linked to identified actors, as the financial or banking sector, to transform itself in legal norms of Compliance. Compliance Law is thus the extension of Regulation Law. But Compliance Law is taking its full autonomy with regards with Regulation Law, while retaining its violence, its radicalisé, and even its archaism, even though it concerns companies which do not act on regulated sectors, putting down, for instance, notions linked to territoriality (I). How companies should react face to this unequaled news (II)?  Read the article (in French) Read the table of contents of the Review (in French). This document is based on a working paper with footnotes, technical references and hypertext links.   

► Full Reference:  Frison-Roche, M.-A., Dessiner les cercles du Droit de la Compliance, in Études en l'honneur de Philippe Neau-Leduc, Le juriste dans la cité, coll. « Les mélanges », Lextenso – LGDJ,  2018, pp. 483-496. -   🚧this article  is based on a Working Paper, with footnotes, technical references and hypertext links.  This Working Paper is freely available : in French: Tracer les cercles du Droit de la Compliance. in English:  Drawing the circles of Compliance Law.  - ► English Summary of this article: Compliance Law has the same teleological functioning as the Economic Law to which it belongs, which consists in placing the normativity of rules, decisions and reasoning in the aims pursued. Once we know what the goals of compliance techniques are, then we know who should be responsible for them, who must be subject to them, who must activate the rules: compliance rules must be activated by those who are in the best position to achieve the outcome in order to achieve the goal sought by the authority which designed the compliance mechanism. The "circles" are thus plotted in a rational and pragmatic way. That, all of it ("useful effect"), but not beyond that. The notion of efficiency does not always imply balancing: on the contrary, it can involve drawing circles which designate those who are "placed" to carry the burden of the rules because they are capable of producing them the desired effects. Within these circles, the rules must apply without restriction and without compromise, but they must not apply beyond these circles. Drawing such circles requires defining the Law of Compliance itself, since on the one hand the choice of those who must implement the Compliance depends on the aims of the Compliance and on the other hand the definition of the Law of Compliance is itself teleological in nature. This is why, contrary to the assertion that the exercise of definition would be useless in these matters, which would be above all on a case-by-case basis, this effort to define and determine the purposes is, on the contrary, necessary in practice to show which enterprise must bear the obligations of compliance and which must not. But it is enough to have posed this to reveal the major difficulty of the Compliance, that explains resistances, and even gives the impression that one is confronted with an aporia. If, as a matter of principle, what is expected of the "users" of the Compliance mechanisms must be articulated to the aim that is affected by the authors of the compliance mechanisms to them, we must have a minimum correspondence between the aims of these authors (Legislators and Regulators) and the aims pursued by those who are responsible for implementing them: companies. However, this correspondence does not exist at first sight, because the compliance mechanisms are found to be uniquely based on "monumental goals" which the public authorities have a legitimate concern, whereas companies have for their own interest . The two circles do not match. The internationalization of concern for these aims in companies would therefore be only a mechanism of violence of which enterprises are the object, violence felt as such. (I). To resolve this violence, it is better to stop confusing the State and enterprises, whose goals are not the same, and draw the circle of subjects of law "eligible" for Compliance. It is highly legitimate to target certain entities, in particular this category of companies, which are the "crucial operators", in a binding way, as it is legitimate to govern companies that have expressed a desire to surpass their own interests. These circles of a different nature can overlap on a concrete operator: for example, if a bank – always a crucial operator that is structural because it is systemic – is also international – a crucial operator because of its activity – decides to worry about others by commitments verified by the authorities to overcome their own interest (social responsibility), but these different circles are not confused. In any case, companies may belong to only one circle, or even belong to none. In the latter case, they must therefore remain beyond the reach of the pressure and cost of Compliance Law, in particular because they are not objectively required to realize the "monumental goals" aimed at effectiveness and do not want it: in a liberal system, it is for the public authorities to aim at the general interest, the ordinary people indirectly participating in it by paying the tax. (II). It is by making these "Compliance Circles" of eligible subjects of this specific Law to implement the heavy but justified and controlled burden of Compliance with regard to the monumental goals that this new system  aims, that then opens a royal way in order to find a uniqueness and to increase the "monumental function" of the Compliance Law by a relation of Trust towards the global general interest, rather than the mechanical application of rules whose meaning is not understood and whose perception is no longer perceived than violence. -   📝read the article. -    

This working paper is a basis for an article published in the Recueil Dalloz.  Compliance Law is a so recent branch of Law that some still doubt of its existence¹Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law, working paper, 2016.. It is not about taking back this question, nor the one of "definition" of Compliance and of its Law or of its appropriate translation.  The purpose of the thought is rather to observe the movement which came from precise sectorial Laws requirements, as Financial Law, Banking Law, which correspond without any doubt to "sectors", Compliance Law being thus the extension of Regulation Law²Frison-Roche, M.-A., From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017 and quoted references.  , extension which transforms this one, to spread over beyond regulated sectors now³Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance: before, now, after, working paper, 2017..   CONSEQUENCES ON COMPANIES OF A COMPLIANCE LAW BEYOND REGULATION LAW   Read the development below.