Articles in a JoRC book
CHAPUIS, Malik🕴️
► Full Reference: M. Chapuis, “Le juge de l’amiable et la compliance” (The Judge of Amicable Settlement and Compliance), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance”, 2025, pp. 721-725. - read the general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which the contribution is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author shows that the general office of the judge in matters of mediation is particularly welcome in Vigilance proceedings. This is due first of all to the procedural office of the Judge: the injunction to meet a mediator finds its proper place here, as do other measures of judicial administration which, by their non-jurisdictional nature, are well suited to what is at stake, for example the stay of proceedings in the event of negotiations, processes which interpose themselves with the trial proper. This makes it easier to resolve the dispute without having to decide it, the better to satisfy the goals of the law. It is in this respect that Compliance Law, which is structured around its Monumental Goals, particularly calls for its non-jurisdictional techniques of mediation, and this sheds light on the first judicial decisions handed down in matters of Vigilance. Secondly, the author sets out the structuring of amicable settlement. Indeed, it is both delicate and decisive to choose carefully the moments when conciliations, césures (split hearings), ARA (amicable settlement hearings), etc., will have the best effect. Moreover, the choice of the mediator must take into account expertise and acceptability to the parties, the idea of an “internal list”, where there are specialised chambers, being worth exploring. The author can thus conclude: “The litigation arising from the Duty of Vigilance and, more generally, from Compliance Law thus calls for a structuring of amicable methods, a condition of their efficacy. Following the very partial examples above, amicable settlement in Compliance first presupposes respecting the stages of the law as clarified by case law. Next, it will be a matter of identifying those of these litigation stages which are the most opportune for bringing in specialist mediators and conciliators whose expertise is identified and approved by the judge and the parties.” (Free translation of the original text, which alone is authoritative: « Le contentieux naissant du devoir de vigilance et, plus généralement du droit de la compliance appellent ainsi une structuration des modes amiables, condition de leur efficacité. Suivant les exemples, très partiels, qui précèdent, l’amiable dans la compliance suppose d’abord de respecter les étapes de la loi éclairées par la jurisprudence. Ensuite, il s’agira d’identifier celles de ces étapes contentieuses les plus opportunes pour faire intervenir des médiateurs et conciliateurs spécialistes aux compétences identifiées et agréées par le juge et les parties. ») - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -