La presse britannique, par exemple The Guardian, se fait l'écho de la position britannique offensive en matière de régulation financière.

La régulation épousant les contours de son objet, la régulation financière et bancaire est nécessairement en grande partie mondiale. En outre, la régulation est certes une question pratique mais aussi le résultat d'une théorie. Or, les britannique sont souvent précurseurs en la matière.

Ils ont d'autant plus les moyens de faire passer leurs idées que ce sont des britanniques qui occupent les postes-clés dans la régulation mondiale. Ainsi, c'est Monsieur Mark Carney, Gouverneur de la Banque d'Angleterre, qui préside en outre le Conseil de la Stabilité Financière, organisme mondial qui élabore des normes visant à éviter les crises systémiques.

Ainsi, les décisions mondiales sont prises par les Etats, à l'occasion des G20. Une réunion du G20 va se tenir à la fin du mois de novembre en Australie, en présence de tous les institutions financières internationales.

Mais la doctrine britannique se diffuse depuis longtemps. Comme souvent, elle est claire, nette et pédagogique : les Etats ne doivent plus toujours payer, alors même que les banques doivent être secourues. La solution est alors que les créanciers privés qui apportent des fonds à une banque systémique en péril doivent recevoir en échange des titres et non plus demeurer dans la situation confortable du créancier qui attend que la banque, souvent refinancée par ailleurs par l'Etat, soit revenue à meilleure fortune.

Cela montre en premier lieu que la faillite des banques redevient plus "ordinaire", la règle de l'Etat débiteur en dernier ressort s'éloignant, du fait de l'aléa moral qu'elle contient par nature et de l'épuisement financier des Etats.  Cela illuste en second lieu que la régulation bancaire devient de plus en plus un droit des procédures collectives, plus ou moins spécifiques.

Banks are regulated because they do not engage in an ordinary economic activity, as their are likely to create systemic risk. In the real economy indeed, banks play the role of providing credit to entrepreneurs who operate on the markets for goods and services. These credits are mainly financed through deposits made by depositors and, to a lesser extent, by shareholders (i.e., capitalists). That is how liberalism and capitalism are bound up. However, banks also have the power to create money by the book entries they make when they grant loans ('book money'). As such, the banks share with the State this extraordinary power to exercise monetary authority, which some describe as sovereign power. It is possible that the digital eventually calls this power into question, since the Regulation currently hesitates to seize control over new instruments that are called "virtual currency" and that are used as proper "currency" or as an ordinary instrument for cooperative relation.

Banks' prominent sovereign character justifies, first and foremost, that the State is granted the power to choose the institutions which benefit from the privilege of creating book money- in this regard, the banking industry has always been a monopoly. Hence, Banking Regulation is first an ex ante control to enter the profession, and also a careful monitor of the people and institutions that claim they are in.

In addition, banks and credit institutions lend more money than their own funds can allow: the whole banking system is necessarily based on the trust that each creditors place within the bank, including depositaries who leave their funds at the banks' disposal for it to use them. That is where Bank Regulation intervenes to establish what is called 'prudential ratios', i.e., ratios that ensure the soundness of the institution by determining the amount of money that banks can lend based on the equity and quasi-equity they actually have.

Moreover, banks are constantly monitored by their supervisory Regulator, the Central Bank (in France, the Banque de France) that ensures the safety of the whole system by setting the State as the lender of last resort. This can, however, incentivize a large financial institution to take excessive risks based on its reliance on the fact that the State will save it eventually- that is what the 'moral hazard' theory systematized. All monetary and financial systems are built on these central banks that are independent from governments, which are far too reliant on political strategies and which cannot generate the same trust that a Central Bank inspires. Since the missions of central banks have increased over the years, and since the notions of Regulation and Supervision have come together, we tend to consider that Central Banks are now fully fledged Regulators.

Besides, Banking Regulation has become all the more central since banking is no longer primarily about loaning but rather about financial intermediation.  Banking Regulation and Financial Regulation are mixing. In Europe , European Central Bank is in the center.

♾️ 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 ⤵️ 

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Si l'algorithme engendre un risque systémique de fraude, l'entreprise doit trouver le moyen de prévenir et détecter celle-ci : cas d'école", Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, 15 janvier 2023.

____

Le cas agite et inquiète à juste titre. Il est notamment relayé dans Le Parisien et dans Libération.

Il apparait qu'un professeur de master découvre que la moitié de la promotion de ses étudiants avait fait écrire sa copie par un algorithme (ChatGPT), dont on dit que les productions mécaniques se rapprochent, à s'y méprendre, du "langage naturel", c'est-à-dire manié par les êtres humains. Il en a résulté des copies correctes, mais si identiques que l'usage de l'outil par les étudiants avait été ainsi détecté.

La dimension systémique du phénomène mérite qu'on y réfléchisse car il s'agit non seulement de détecter mais encore de prévenir le recours à cet outil, si l'on veut que les travaux rendus par les étudiants permettent d'évaluer leurs niveaux.

L'on peut certes rechercher des solutions très radicales, comme obliger les étudiants à écrire à la main dans des contrôles faits sur table et surveillés..., ou interdire le recours aux algorithmes, interdiction dont l'effectivité va être difficile ; ou rêver d'une Université où l'on leur donnerait des sujets de réflexion à traiter chacun d'une façon originale, ce qui suppose sans doute un nombre d'étudiants moins élevés (d'ailleurs, les lycées et collègues sont aussi concernés).

Mais si l'on regarde le "but" : il s'agit bien de prévenir et détecter un comportement systémiquement dommageable, pour l'Université et pour les étudiants eux-mêmes (qui n'auront rien appris ; ce sont les premières victimes).

Or, la prévention et détection des comportements systémiquement dommageables non pas tant pour les sanctionner mais pour qu'ils ne prospèrent pas à l'avenir, ici garder les avantages des algorithmes comme outils et prévenir leur usage dolosif, c'est la définition du Droit de la Compliance comme mode de prévention et de détection des maux systémique. Cela constitue un "but monumental".

🔴 M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022

Pour concrétiser une telle ambition, notamment face à la puissance de ces outils neutres que sont les algorithmes, qui permettent d'ailleurs à des professeurs de rédiger sans difficulté des cours sur l'originalité desquels on ne leur demande pas de compte, le Droit de la Compliance présente un atout majeur : il repose sur les entreprises elles-mêmes, notamment celles par lesquelles le risque est né.

Historiquement, le Droit de la Compliance est né aux Etats-Unis, en imposant aux entreprises ayant contribué par leur comportement interne à la crise de 1929 une série d'obligations de prudence, de gestion des conflits d'intérêts, d'information et de soumission à un superviseur.

🔴 M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance : avant, maintenant, après, 2018

C'est en effet aux entreprises de trouver les solutions pour détecter et prévenir les comportements systémiques dommageables.

L'article publié dans Libération fait état des travaux menés par les entreprises fabriquant les algorithmes pour que soient insérés dans les textes des signaux, indétectables par l'usager (par exemple l'algorithme achevant une phrase sur dix par un mot finissant par la même lettre, ou une phrase sur vingt par un mot commençant par la même lettre), mais qu'un autre algorithme pourrait "détecter" pour que le travail produit soit analysé par le professeur (comme on le fait déjà en matière de plagiat).

Il s'agit ici d'une "compliance consentie, choisie par l'entreprise elle-même ; cela pourrait être leur être également imposé.

🔴 L. Benzoni et B. Deffains, 📝Approche économique des outils de la Compliance: finalité, effectivité et mesure de la Compliance subie et choisie, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021

Apparaît ainsi le juste et efficace rapport entre le Droit de la Compliance et ce que l'on appelle "l'intelligence artificielle", dès l'instant que l'on n'a précisément pas une vision mécanique du Droit de la Compliance, ce qui permet de laisser les algorithmes à leur place : des "outils".

🔴 M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🎥Compliance, Intelligence artificielle et gestion des entreprises : la juste mesure, 2022

________

► Full Reference: R.-O. Maistre, "Quels buts fondamentaux pour le régulateur dans un paysage audiovisuel et numérique en pleine mutation ?" ("What Monumental Goals for the regulator in a rapidly changing audiovisual and digital landscape?"), ​in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 47-54.

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): In France, since the law of 1982 which put an end to the State monopoly on the audio-visual area, the landscape has profoundly evolved and diversified. In view of the multitude of players who are now established there, the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique - Arcom (French Audiovisual and Digital Regulatory High Council) must ensure the economic balance of the sector and the respect for pluralism, in the interest of all audiences. The growing societal responsibilities of audiovisual media and new digital players have multiplied the "monumental goals" on which the Arcom) is watching.

Its competences have gradually been extended to the digital space and the successive laws concerning its missions aim at new objectives, in particular in terms of protection of minors, fight against online hate or against disinformation. The emergence of a new European model of Regulation makes it possible to give substance to these additional goals, the Regulator adopting a systemic perspective and calling on soft law tools to fulfill its new missions.

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance" ("Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p. 21-44.

____

📝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, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

________

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A. Compliance, Artificial Intelligence and Business Management: the right measure ("Compliance, Intelligence artificielle et gestion des entreprises : la juste mesure"), participation to the Conference coordinated by Mustapha Mekki, L'intelligence artificielle et la gestion des entreprises. July 1st, 2022. 

____

🎥 see the conference (in French)

____

 consult the slides having been used as brief notes for deliver the lecture (inf French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper having been used as basis for this conference

____

📝This work will be the basis for an article.

____

► Summary of the Lecture: Of the next European Regulation on artificial intelligence, the European Commission has a quite neutral conception of AI for obtaining a consensus between the Member States, while the Regulators and certain States have a more substantial conception of technology, wanting its power to be used to protect people, firstly from these new tools themselves, secondly from what is an amplification of the evils of the classic world, such as hate or misinformation. This is the reflection of two conceptions of Compliance.

Firstly, Compliance can be defined as neutral processes that increase the effectiveness of what would be the obligation for companies or their desire for efficient risk management (in particular the consideration of "legal risks") to prove being "conform" to all regulations that are applicable to itself and all persons to whom the firm is accountable. This is often referred to as the "compliance obligation" or "obligation of conformity".

This conception implies considerable practical consequences for the company which, in order to succeed in this "total exploit", would then have to resort to artificial intelligence tools constituting a "total and infallible solution", which mechanically generate for it the obligation to "know " all the "regulatory mass", to detect all "non-compliances", to conceive its relationship to the Law in terms of "risk of non-compliance", fully supported by Compliance by Design which could, without human intervention , eliminate legal risk and ensure "compliance total efficiency" in Ex Ante.

The "legal price" of this technological dream is extremely high because all the "regulatory" requirements will then be transformed into obligations of result, any failure generating liability. The Compliance probationary system will become overwhelming for the company, both in terms of burden of proof, means of proof, and transfers, without exemption from proof. Objective responsibilities for others will multiply. The "law of conformity" will multiply Ex Ante systemic penalties, the border with criminal law being less and less preserved.

It is essential to avoid this, both for businesses and for the Rule of Law. For this, we must use Artificial Intelligence to its proper extent: it may constitute a "massive aid", without ever claiming to be a total and infallible solution, because it is the human who must be at the center of the compliance system functioning thank to the firms and not the machinery.

For this, it is necessary to adopt a substantial conception of Compliance Law (and not a sort of Conformity Law or Obedience Law). It does not at all cover all the applicable regulations and it is not at all "neutral", being in no way a series of processes. This new branch of Law is substantially built on Monumental Goals. These are either of a negative nature (preventing a systemic crisis from happening, in many but specific perspectives: banking, financial, health, climate, etc.), or of a positive nature (building a better balance, in particular between human beings, in the company and beyond).

In this conception which appears more and more strongly, artificial intelligence finds its place, more modest. As Compliance Law is based on information, Artificial Intelligence is essential to capture it and make first connections, first stages for successive analyses, done by human beings, making what is essential: the commitment of the company, both by the leaders and by all those who are "embarked" by a "culture of Compliance" which is at both built and common.

This restores the required seal between Criminal Law and what can be asked of the mechanical use of Artificial Intelligence; this puts the obligation of means back as a principle. This restores the principal place to the lawyer and the compliance officer, so that the culture of compliance is articulated with the specificities of a sector and the identity of the company itself. Indeed, the culture of compliance being inseparable from a culture of values, Compliance by design requires a dual technique, both mathematical and legal culture. It is why European Compliance Law, because it is rooted in the European humanist tradition, is a model.

________

For further:

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022

📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021

📓Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la Gouvernance d'Internet, 2019 

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019

📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017

📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Internet, espace d'interrégulation, 2016

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance law,  2022,

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 2022

📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Assessment of Whistleblowing, and the duty of Vigilance, 2022

📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an obligation and the paradox of he "compliance risks", 2021

__________

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes prises pour la synthèse sur le vif de la conférence L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, in Cycle de conférences, Penser l'office du juge, Grand Chambre de la Cour de cassation, 9 mai 2022, 17h-19h.

____

► Résumé des notes prises au fur et à mesure de la conférence : les trois juges, Christophe Soulard, Président de la Chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation, Fabien Raynaud, Conseiller d'Etat, et François Ancel, Président de la Chambre internationale de la Cour d'appel de Paris, invités à réfléchir et réagir à une hypothèse, à savoir l'existence parmi les cas qui leur sont apportés par les parties, sont intervenus à la fois d'une façon très diverse, très originale et exprimant pourtant l'unicité de l'art de juger.

Les notes prises ci-dessous montrent que les juges ont conscience que les temps ont changé et que, de plus en plus, les "systèmes" sont présents dans les causes qui, construites par les parties, leur sont présentées (1). Leurs analyses, réactions et propositions ont montré à ceux qui les écoutaient que pour appréhender des causes systémiques, les juges doivent être expérimentés (2). Ils ont eu souci de fixer des critères pour identifier la nature systémique des causes parmi la multitude de celles qu'ils traitent, justifiant alors un traitement procédural et décisionnaire particulier (3). L'auditoire a ainsi pu mesurer la part qui revient aux parties (4), puisque le système est dans la construction des faits de la cause et la part qui revient à l'office du juge (5).

Il apparaît alors que par un effet de miroir, l'office du juge se déplace de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante (6), les trois juges décrivant et proposant des mécanismes concrets pour appréhender en Ex Ante cette dimension systémique et y répondre (7). Ils soulignent que cela s'opère en collaboration avec les avocats, dans une instruction élargie et le débat contradictoire (8), dans une collaboration qui s'opère en amont (9). Les trois magistrats ont recherché les techniques procédurales pour accroître la plus grande considération des systèmes (10) et les nouvelles organisations à mettre en place pour répondre à cette dimension systémique de certaines causes (11). Pour ce faire, une dialectique est à opérer vers, à la fois, de l'informel mais aussi plus de formel (12), l'ensemble produisant une meilleure réception méthodologique des systèmes par les juges (13) par une plus grande compréhension entre les juges, quel que soit leur niveau et les droits substantiels en cause, les autorités et les parties systémiques (14).

____ 

🎥Voir la vidéo de l'ensemble de la conférence

🎥 Voir la vidéo de la synthèse réalisée sur le vif par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche au terme de la conférence

____

📝Lire l'article de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche rendant compte au Dalloz de la conférence. 

____ 

🚧 lire le document de travail L'hypothèse de la "cause systémique, réalisé préalablement à la conférence, pour préparer celle-ci.

_____

✏️ lire les notes exhaustives prises pendant la conférence⤵️

► 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)

________

♾️follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance Law and Climate. To prevent Climate Risk and build Climate Balance, January 2022.

____

🎤 In its French version, this Working Paper had been written for a speech  for  the colloquium held under the scientific direction of Marta Torre-Schaub, Béatrice Lormeteau, & Anne Stevignon, Les risques climatiques à l’épreuve du droit Comment le droit fait-il face aux nouveaux risques engendrés par la crise climatique ? , at the University Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), Amphithéâtre Liard, on March 17, 2022.

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is beginning to emerge in climate topic, through the expression  "Climate Compliance Law", but the climate issue itself is the most perfect example of why General Compliance Law is made for.  It is indeed a new branch of Law, a global Law claiming to provide Ex Ante solutions here and now for global issues, so that in the future systemic catastrophies will not occur, will not happen: it is these "Monumental Goals" that give meaning, coherence, and simplicity to Compliance Law.

Compliance Law, linked to the Rule of Law principle, makes it possible to go beyond the choice often presented between the effectiveness of the protection of the planet and the renunciation of freedoms, in particular the freedom to do business and the freedom of individuals, especially the protection of their data.

Climate is thus exemplary of the object of Monumental Goals of Compliance Law (I). The systemic risk that it now constitutes is analogous to Banking or Digital Systemic Risks and therefore calls for the application of identical legal Compliance Tools, formerly put in place for Banking Regulatory and Compliance Law, recently invented for Digital. Compliance Law, extending Regulation Law, itself from the precondition of the Sector and the Territory, is therefore the branch which makes it possible to put in place new legal solutions, either by force (judicial agreements, compliance programs, etc.), or by will (commitments, global charters, etc.).

Therefore, an alliance can exist between political and public authorities, and crucial economic operators (II), that the rise in power of the "raison d'être" is the sight and whose technical challenge is the collection of information that must be put in correlation. Scientists pooling Information, this public good, provided by public and private entities. The courts are at the center of this articulation between Compliance Law and Climate, which object is the Future.

____ 

🔓read the developments below⤵️

____

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Why do we regulate? If it is to prevent systemic risks, systemic "family offices" must be subject to it (Archegos case) (Pourquoi régule-t-on? Si c'est pour prévenir les risques systémiques, les "family offices" systémiques doivent y être soumis (cas Archegos)), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 30th of March 2021

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news: 

Archegos was a wealth management company whose activity consisted mainly in managing funds that were not themselves from the financial markets (hence its title of "family office"). Obviously, Archegos was proving to be too fragile financially in view of the highly speculative commitments it made on the financial markets and systemic banks were particularly deeply affected by the liquidation of large amounts by Archegos to be able to respond to margin calls.

As the mandate of the financial regulatory authorities is aimed almost exclusively at the protection of public savings, Archegos completely escaped the regulation and supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, Regulation Law also aims to prevent and manage systemic risks, which are often multi-sectoral and even trans-sectoral, and this in a teleological way. In view of this and the increasingly important place taken by speculative behavior in the financial markets, the financial regulatory authorities must give up the condition of using public savings in their consideration of operators which should be regulated because even an operator not handling public savings can threaten the existence of financial markets. From this perspective, "family offices", not handling public savings but having a systemic dimension, must come under the regulation and supervision of financial regulatory authorities.

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Appliquer la notion de "Raison d'être" à la profession du Notariat", audition par le Conseil supérieur du notariat (CSN), 5 mars 2021.

____

Résumé de l'intervention débutant l'audition : L'on peut prendre "raison d'être" dans son sens courant et dans son sens plus juridique. Dans son sens courant, il est bien difficile de déterminer ce qu'est une "raison d'être". Le plus souvent on ne le traduit pas, en anglais on dira purpose , c'est-à-dire ce qui caractérise l'être humain par rapport à la machine, comme le souligna Alain Supiot, tandis que la langue japonaise le traduit comme Ikigaï, ce qui va animer la personne. L'on sent bien que le souffle de l'esprit passe dans cette notion, qui anime la personne, la porte dans une action qui ne sera pas mécanique, qui va la dépasser elle-même, la fait tout à la fois se distinguer des autres et se rapprocher de ses alter ego.... 

Mais le Droit a transformé cette notion, si proche de l'éthique, voire de l'art, par laquelle l'individu est "transporté dans le temps par une action partagée avec quelque uns, en un "conception juridique". Cette expression de "raison d'être" est aujourd'hui estampillée par le Droit. A travers une vision renouvelée de l'Entreprise, désormais portée par la législation.  En tant qu'une entreprise, selon une définition fortement développée par Alain Supiot est un "projet commun" qui vise une action commune concrétisant un projet conçu ensemble pour être réalisé dans le futur, l'organisation et les moyens n'étant que le reflet de cela. Dans cette définition de l'entreprise, centrée sur la "raison d'être", l'organisation, les moyens, les pouvoirs et les droits de chacun, les rouages internes et les intérêts extérieurs ne sont pas premiers, ils sont totalement imprégnés par cette "raison d'être". Dire la raison d'être, l'affirmer et savoir précisément ce qu'elle est dessine la régime applicable. C'est pourquoi la "raison d'être" a changé en 2019 le Droit des sociétés et le Droit financier. 

 Elle fût d'abord adoptée par le rapport que Nicole Notat et Dominique Senard remirent le 9 mars 2018 au Ministre de l'Economie et des Finances en réponse à la question posée par celui-ci : l'entreprise peut-elle contribuer à l'intérêt général ? Et la réponse tînt dans cette expression-là : pourquoi pas, si c'est la "raison d'être" de l'entreprise que de s'arracher à la seule préoccupation de se développer afin de devenir toujours plus riche, d'avoir aussi un projet qui inclut le souci d'autrui, d'un autrui qui n'ait pas pour seul souci l'appât du gain, d'avoir le souci d'un intérêt autre (les autres visant pour les auteurs de ce rapport "l'intérêt collectif" et non plus l'intérêt général), par exemple l'intérêt de la Terre, dont la temporalité excède celle de la vie humaine, si fortunée soit cette vie de l'actionnaire et si somptueuse soit la tombe de celui-ci. 

La "raison d'être" est donc une notion juridique. A ce titre le Droit des sociétés a changé et l'on en rend les mandataires sociaux responsables : ils doivent montrer qu'ils ont pris en charge d'autres intérêts. L'article 1833 du Code civil a été modifié dans ce sens. Pour pouvoir remplir les nouvelles obligations qu'engendre l'évolution de leur mandat fiduciaire, cela justifie un élargissement de leur "pouvoir" car il est plus difficile encore de faire le bien d'autrui en plus de que rendre riche les associés. Si en plus il faut se soucier de l'environnement et de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes ... Les études pleuvent non seulement sur la pertinence managériale et financière de l'approche (plutôt favorable) mais encore juridique (par exemple lorsqu'il y a une offre publique, l'offreur devrait-il démontrer qu'il ferait plus que le bonheur des investisseurs en se saisissant du contrôle de la société-cible ?). 

Parle de "raison d'être", c'est donc appliquer un régime juridique à une organisation. Il est fructueux de prendre l'expression au sérieux, c'est-à-dire au pied de sa lettre juridique, car si le Droit est toujours ancré dans le langage courant, les mots gagnent souvent en rigueur et précision par leur entrée dans l'espace juridique. Dans le Droit des sociétés, on a pu critiquer la notion en tant qu'elle diluait la notion d'intérêt social dans de l'insécurité juridique, mais cela permet aussi à l'organisation en cause d'avoir plus de liberté pour poser par sa volonté propre ce pour quoi elle consacre ses prérogatives. Puisque c'est l'entreprise elle-même qui va pose publiquement quelle est sa "raison d'être" (comme elle a posé son objet social) 

La "raison d'être" a été conçue pour une "entreprise", pour laquelle la "personnalité morale" a été définie comme n'étant qu'un instrument juridique qui lui permet d'accéder au commerce juridique, selon l'acception retenue par le rapport Notat-Senard. Le Droit va donc vers de plus en plus de "réalisme". 

Le notariat se prête particulièrement bien à la notion juridique de "raison d'être". Pour trois raisons. En premier lieu, parce que le Notariat est une profession et que les professions sont des organisations qui sont souvent animées par des projets communs, un esprit commun. C'est même précisément cela que le Droit de la concurrence leur reproche, cette "entente" autour d'une communauté de valeurs, cristallisée par des règles d'organisation (même si l'évolution de ce Droit dans le bon accueil de l'organisation des "groupes de sociétés", notamment face à un appel d'offre montre que cette branche du Droit évolue).

En deuxième lieu, une étude notariale est une entreprise. Pourquoi ne pas l'admettre, et même prendre appui sur cela ? Parce que le Droit des sociétés a si fortement évolué avec la loi Pacte, l'on pourrait considérer que structurellement une étude notariale est une "entreprise à mission". Ce qui doit conduire la profession à étudier de très près ce statut emprunté au Droit britannique, droit incontestablement libéral qui conçoit qu'une entreprise se développe et fasse un chiffre d'affaires, mais pas que. 

En troisième lieu, les entreprises à mission se développent dans une architecture institutionnelle par laquelle elles doivent donner à voir l'effectivité de la concrétisation de leur mission. Il a donc deux impératifs : dire exactement quelle est cette mission en amont et donner à voir à tous (et pas seulement à l'Etat) que cette mission, qui justifie de s'écarter du Droit commun de la rencontrer de l'offre et de la demande) est remplie : cela est confiée à la "profession", cadre institutionnel indispensable qui exerce un contrôle permanent (et non pas des contrôles ponctuels comme le font les Autorités de concurrence). 

Dès lors, si l'on observe que l'étude notariale a une activité économique de service, ce qui est le cas, elle est légitime comme toute entreprise à avoir une "raison d'être", voire à être une "entreprise à mission". Si en outre, elle appartient à une "profession", elle est alors imprégnée de la "raison d'être" de celle-ci, ce qui n'entame pas sa nature d'entreprise (I). Les professions ne se ressemblant pas et la "raison d'être" donnant à chacun son identité, il convient de prendre au sérieux celle du Notariat pour en tirer à l'avenir les conséquences techniques (II). 

Lire le plan de l'intervention ci-dessous.

► Référence complète : L. d'Ambrosio, "Le devoir de vigilance : une innovation juridique entre continuités et ruptures", Droit & Société, n° 106, 2020, p. 633-648.

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : "Cette contribution analyse les origines de la notion de devoir de vigilance. A cette fin, elle reconstruit les rapports de filiation entre cette notion et celle de "due diligence", devenue ces derniers temps une notion clé pour caractériser la responsabilité des Etats et des entreprises concernant les atteintes graves a des valeurs protégées par le droit international (environnement, santé, droits de l'homme, etc.). L'article vise ainsi à repérer les lignes de continuité ainsi que celles de rupture qui marquent l'introduction et la traduction du devoir de vigilance dans le système juridique français : les unes comme les autres permettront en effet de présenter les contours de cette innovation juridique et d'en saisir la portée dans le cadre du plus large processus d'institution d'une responsabilité juridique des entreprises dans l'horizon de la globalisation."

________

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'impossible unicité juridique de la catégorie des "lanceurs d'alertes" ("The impossible legal unicity of the category of "whistleblowers""), in Chacornac, J. (dir.), Lanceurs d'alertes, regards comparatistes, ("Whistleblowers, comparative perspectives"), Publications of the Centre français de droit comparé ("French Comparative Law Center"), May 2020, Volume 21, p.13-31. 

Read the article (in French).   

Read the general presentation of the collective book in which this article is published

Read the bilingual working paper which had served of basis for this article. 

Read the presentation of the conference "Les lanceurs d'alertes: glose" (Whistleblowers: glose") and especially the slides elabored for the colloquium organized by the Centre français de droit comparé ("French Comparative Law Center") on 23th of November 2018 under the direction of Jérôme Chacornac

____

Introduction of the article

"Whistleblowers". This is a new expression. Which is a great success. Barely heard once, we hear it everywhere ...

A topic not of course or knowledge test, but rather a topic of daily conversation. Because it is spoken to us every day, in more or less gracious terms. For example President Donald Trump on October 1, 2019 declared to the press "want to question" the whistleblower who would have illegally denounced him and would not, according to him, have the right to conceal his identity, proof in this according to him of the lying character of his assertions against him, while his lawyer indicates on October 6, 2019 that he is not speaking on behalf of a single whistleblower thus taken to task but of a plurality of people who gave information against the President of the United States. Even the most imaginative screenwriters would not have written such brutal and rapid twists and turns. Spectators, we are waiting for the next episode, secretly hoping for the escalation.

And precisely if we go to the cinema, it is still a whistleblower whose dedication and success, we are told about, even the drama, for the benefit of global society, and in particular democracy, since the secrets are fought for the benefit of the truth. The Secret Man designates Mark Felt as the first whistleblower. Returning to what we often present as being a more "serious" media!footnote-1391, we listen to France-Culture and here is another story told by a historian who worked as an archivist on events that political power would have liked to keep hidden by possibly destroying their traces but which its trade led to preserve: here it is expressly presented to the studious listeners like a "whistleblower" .... While the same radio tries to find the one who could well be, as in a kind of contest the "first whistleblower"!footnote-1727? .... This rewriting of History can be defended because ultimately what did other Voltaire do for Calas, or Zola for Dreyfus?

It is also a subject of legislative discussion since in the United States the Dodd-Frank law of 2010 inserted in the law of 1934 which established the Securities & Exchanges Commission a complete device of remuneration and remuneration of the whistleblowers, whereas after having developed flexible but guiding lines in this regard in 2012!footnote-1698, the European Commission published on November 20, 2018 the text of what will become a Directive intended to give a unified European status to the character, in the system gradually developed to protect the one who was presented in 2018 as that "cannot be punished for having done what is right".

In Europe, the Directive first approved by a Resolution of the European Parliament on April 16, 2019 on the protection of persons denouncing breaches of Union Law and then adopted on October 7, 2019 (Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Union on the Protection of Persons who Report Violations of European Union Law, different title, it should be noted, will have to be transposed into the laws of the Member States within the next two years. , since only "violations of Union Law" are targeted, but the character of the "whistleblower" is more generally targeted: he is "whole"!footnote-1699.

In short, the whistleblower is a star!footnote-1390. A sort of historical figure, covered in blows and glory, going from Voltaire to Snowden, both of whom find themselves embodied on the screens!footnote-1681 ....,

Consecrated by law, which associates with it a legal regime of protection to such an extent that, like a Nessus tunic, it is this legal regime which will define the character and not the reverse. When we read the law of December 9, 2016 relating to transparency in the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life, known as "Sapin 2", we notice that the Legislator makes much of this character, since 'he dedicates its chapter II to him!footnote-1682: "From the protection of whistleblowers", and that it is by his very protection that he formally opens the door of Right to him.

But why a plural? Admittedly when we read the recitals of the Community Directive of October 7, 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers!footnote-1702, it is only a list of all the subjects on which it is a good idea to protect them, which therefore prompts us to see in this plural only the index of this non-exhaustive list of subjects which it is good to tell us, a sign of the lack of definition of who should alert us. Reading the French law known as "Sapin 2" makes it less severe but more perplexing. Indeed, this plurality referred to by the title of the chapter devoted to "whistleblowers", there is no longer any question in the rest of the law, in the very definition which follows, article 6 which opens this chapter devoted to "whistleblowers" offering the reader immediately a singular since it begins as follows: "A!footnote-1684 whistleblower is a person ...". No mention of diversity. The art of legislative writing would however have required that the qualifying article not only be singular but that it should not yet be undefined. Stendhal if he had still deigned to have the law for bedside book would have wanted to find at the beginning of chapter a sentence like: "The!footnote-1683 whistleblower is a person ...".

Thus seem to contradict themselves within the law "Sapin 2 the very title which presents the character, in that it uses a defined plural (the) while the defining article which presents it is in the undefined singular (one). ...

Here is a first reason not to advance any more but in a very careful way, in this "step by step" that constitutes a reading word for word: a gloss. This consists of taking the expression itself literally. The second reason for this technical choice is that the gloss is well suited to the introduction of a collective work, thus allowing more targeted developments to take place in other contributions, on the techniques, the difficulties and the limits of this protection, or on its history, or the reasons for the arrival in French law of these whistleblowers and the way they develop, or not, elsewhere.

I am therefore going to content myself with taking this already legal expression to the letter: The (I) whistle (III). blowers (II). 

This working paper served as a basis for a conference done in French for the Centre de droit comparé (Center for Comparative Law) in Paris on 23 November 2018.

Updated, it has served as a basis for an article published in French in a book of the Société de Législation comparé (Society of Comparative Legislation).

________

"The whistleblowers". This is a new expression. Which wins a full success. Barely heard once, we hear it everywhere ...

A theme not only of academic teaching, but rather a topic of daily conversation. Because it is every day that we speak about it, in terms more or less graceful. For example President Donald Trump on October 1, 2019 told the press he "wants to interrogate" the whistleblower who would have unlawfully denounced him and would not have, according to him, the right to conceal his own identity, evidence in this according Donald Trump of the false character of his assertions against him, while his lawyer indicates on October 6, 2019 that he does not speak on behalf of a single whistleblower thus taken apart but of a plurality people who gave information against the President of the United States. Even the most imaginative scriptwriters would not have written twists as abruptly or so fast. Spectators, we wait for the next episode, secretly hoping for climbs and slashs.

Precisely if we go to the cinema, it is still a whistleblower whose dedication and success, or even drama, we are told, for the benefit of the global society, and especially of Democracy, since the secrets are fought for the benefit of the truth. Thus, the movie The Secret Man designates Mark Felt as the first whistleblower. Returning to what is often presented as a more "serious" media, for example in France the radio "France Culture" we can learn the story of a historian who worked as an archivist on events that the political power would have wanted to keep hidden by possibly destroying their traces but that his profession led to preserve!footnote-1391: here it is expressly presented to the studious listeners as a "whistleblower" ... While the same radio is trying to find the one that could be, as in a kind of contest, the "first whistleblowers"!footnote-1727?. This rewriting of History can be made because finally Voltaire for Calas, or Zola for Dreyfus did they anything else? 

It is also a topic of legislative debate since in the United States the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 inserted in the 1934 law that established the Securities & Exchanges Commission (SEC) a complete system for retribution and remuneration of whistleblowers, while after elaborating guidelines about about in 2012!footnote-1698, the European Commission has published the text on November 20, 2018 in order to give the character a unified European status, in the device gradually developed to protect the one that was presented in 2018 as who  like that : ""The new whistleblowers' protection rules will be a game changer. In the globalised world where the temptation to maximise profit sometimes at the expense of the law is real we need to support people who are ready to take the risk to uncover serious violations of EU law. We owe it to the honest people of Europe.". Step for the Directive of October 7, 2019. 

In Europe, the Directive first approved by a Resolution of the European Parliament on 16 April 2019 on protection of persons reporting breaches of Union law and then adopted on 7 October 2019 (Directive 2019/78 (EU) of the European Parliament European Union and the Council of the European Union on the Protection of Persons Reporting Breaches of Union law, will have to be transposed in the next two years to the legal systems of the Member States. is not general, since only "violations of European Union Law" are targeted but the character of the "whistleblower" is more generally referred to: it is "whole"!footnote-1699.

In short, the whistleblower is a star !footnote-1390. A kind of historical character, covered with blows and glory, going from Voltaire to Snowden, one as the other being incarnated on the screens!footnote-1681 ....

Recognized by national legislations, which associate to him a legal regime of protection to such a point that, like a tunic of Nessus, it is this legal regime which will define his character and not the opposite. When we read the French law of December 9, 2016 relative à la transparence à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique (on transparency in the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life), usually known as "Sapin 2 Act", we note that the lawmaker makes much of this character, because he devotes to him the chapter II: "De la protection des!footnote-1682 lanceurs d'alerte" ("The protection of!footnote-1682 whistle-blowers") and that it is by his very protection that the French Parliament formally opens the door of Law to him and throws it openly.

But why a plural? Certainly when we read the recitals of the European Directive of 7 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers!footnote-1702, this is only an enumeration of all the subjects about which it is a good idea to to protect them, which encourages us to see in this plural only the index of this non-exhaustive list of topics about which it is good that we are alerted, sign of the lack of definition ... Reading the French law known as "Sapin 2" makes us less severe but more perplex. Indeed, from this plurality covered by the title of the chapter devoted to Les lanceurs d'alerte ("The whistleblowers"), there is no longer any question in the rest of the law, in the very definition that follows, Article 6 which opens this chapter devoted the "whistleblowers" offering the player immediately a singular since it begins as follows:  "Un!footnote-1684 lanceur d'alerte est une personne ..." (A! footnote-1684 whistleblower is a person ..."). No more mention of diversity. The art of legislative writing would have even required that the qualifying article should not be singular but not yet indefinite. 

Thus seem to contradict in this law "Sapin 2" itself the very title which presents the character, in that it uses a definite plural ("the whistleblowers") while the article of definition which presents the topic does it by using the singular indefinite : "a whistleblower....".

This is a first reason to move forward only in a very cautious way, in this "step by step" that constitutes a word-by-word reading: a gloss. This method consists in taking literally the expression itself. The second reason for this technical choice is that the gloss is well suited to an introduction of a collective work, allowing more specific developments to take place in other contributions, for example on the techniques, the difficulties and the limits of this protection, or the history of it, or the reasons for the arrival in French law of these American or Brithish whistleblowers and the way they develop, or not, in other legal systems or other countries.

I will therefore content myself with taking again literally this already legal expression: The (I) launchers (II) of alert (III).

See below developments.

The European Banking Union is based on supervision as much as on regulation: it concerns the operators as much as the structures of the sector, because the operators "hold" the sector.

This is why the "regulator - supervisor" holds the operators by the supervision and is close to them.

He meets them officially and in "soft law" relations. This is all the more necessary since the distinction between the Ex Ante and the Ex Post must be nuanced, in that its application is too rigid, in that it involves a long time (first of all the rules, then to apply them, then to notice a gap between rules and behaviors, then to repair it) is not appropriate if the system aims at the prevention of systemic crises, whose source is inside the operators.

This is why the body in charge of solving the difficulties of the systemic banks for the salvation of the systeme meets the banking sector itself, to ensure that they are permanently "resolvable", so that the hypothesis of their resolution never arises. This is the challenge of this system: that it is always ready, for never be applying.

____

In the European Banking Union, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) is in charge of "resolve" the difficulties of European systemic banks in difficulty. It is the public body of the second pillar of the Banking Union. The first pillar is the prevention of these difficulties and the third is the guarantee of deposits. The resolution is therefore more like an Ex Post mechanism.

But in this continuum through these three pillars between the Ex Ante and the Ex Post, the SRB does not wait passively - as would a traditional judge do - that the file of the troubled bank reaches it. Like a supervisor - which brings it closer to the first public in the system (Single Supervisory Board -SSB), which supervises all the banks, it is in direct contact with all the banks, and it approaches the hypothesis of a bank in trouble by a systemic perspective: it is therefore to the entire banking system that the SRB addresses itself.

As such, it organizes meetings, where he is located: in Brussels.

Thus, on June 18, 2019, all banks came to discuss with the Single Resolution Board to know what it wants from the banks and for the banks, in what is called a "dialogue meeting".

To resolve in Ex Post the difficulties of a bank, it has to present a quality (a little known concept in Bankruptcy Law): "resolvability". How build it? Who build it ? In its very design and in its application, bank by bank.

For the resolution body vis-à-vis all players in the banking and financial sector, it's clear: "Working together" is crucial in building resolvability ".

In the projection that is made, it is affirmed that there can be a successful resolution only if the operator in difficulty is not deprived of access to what makes to stay it alive, that is to say the banking and financial system itself, and more specifically the "Financial Market Infrastructures", for example payment services.

Does the Single Resolution Board expect spontaneous commitments from the FMIs for such a "right of access"? In this case, as the Single Resolution Board says, this right of access corresponds to "critical functions" for a bank, the resolution situation can not justify the closure of the service.

By nature, these crucial operators are entities that report to regulators who oversee them. Who enforces - and immediately - this right of access? When one can think that it is everyone, it risks being nobody .... That is why the resolution body, relaying in this a concern of the Financial Stability Board, underlines that it is necessary to articulate the supervisors, regulators and "resolvers" between them.

_____

To read this program, since it is a proposed program of work for the banking sector, four observations can be made:

1. We are moving more and more towards a general "intermaillage" (which will perhaps replace the absence of a global State, but it is an similar nature because it is always to public authorities that it refers and not to self-regulation);

2. But as there is no political authority to keep these guardians, the entities that articulate all these various public structures, with different functions, located in different countries, acting according to different temporalities, these are the companies themselves that internalize the concern that animates those who built the system: here the prevention of systemic risk. This is the definition of Compliance, which brings back to companies, here more clearly those those which manage the Market Infrastructures, the obligations of Compliance (here the management of systemic risk through the obligation of giving access).

3. Even without a  single systemic guard, there is always a recourse. That will be the judge. There are already many, there will probably be more in a system of this type, more and more complex, the articulation of disputes is sometimes called "dialogue". And it is undoubtedly "decisions of principle" that will set the principles common to all of these particular organisms.

4. We then see the emergence of Ex Ante mechanisms for the solidity of the systems, and the solidity of the players in the systems, and then the Ex Post resolution of the difficulties of the actors according to access to the solidity of the infrastructures of these systems, which ultimately depend on judges (throughout the West) facing areas where all of this depends much less on the judge: the rest of the world.

____

♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

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

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance : avant, maintenant, après", in N. Borga, J. -Cl. Marin et J.-Ch. Roda, J.-Cl. (dir.), Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, Série Régulations & Compliance, Dalloz, 2018, p. 23-36. 

____

📝 Lire l'article 

____

🚧 Lire le document de travail sur la base duquel s'appuie l'article 

🚧 Read the working paper on which the article is based : Compliance : Before, Now, After. 

____

📝Lire l'autre article publié par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : Entreprise, Régulateur, Juge : penser la compliance par ces trois personnages. 

______

► Résumé de l'article : Autant l'admettre. Parce que devant des règles de "Compliance si nombreuses et si disparates l'on a tant de mal à s'y retrouver, l'on est contraint à partir dans des directions si changeantes, que nous nous consolons de leur poids, de leur coût et de l'incompréhension que nous en avons en disant que la "Compliance" est "complexe" et "transdisciplinaire", comme si les mots compliqués pouvaient masquer notre désarroi. Mais la "Compliance" n'est pas un cataclysme, une bombe envoyée par les américains pour anéantir l'Europe, la nouvelle forme d'une Guerre froide en habits juridiques ; c'est une façon de voir des choses qui vient de loin, avec une cohérence qui lui est propre et qu'il faut avant tout comprendre. Pour mieux s'y déployer.

Si l'on comprend d'où vient ce nouveau corpus qui contraint aujourd'hui les entreprises à prouver qu'elles prennent effectivement en charge la concrétisation de certains buts qui les dépassent, notamment la lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent, la fraude fiscale, mais aussi la lutte contre la vente des êtres humains ou la lutte pour la préservation de la nature et de la planète, alors l'on peut continuer l'histoire, dans une nouvelle alliance entre certaines entreprises et les autorités publiques.

En effet, toutes les entreprises ne sont pas visées par une telle internalisation de "buts monumentaux" en leur sein. Une entreprise ordinaire a quant à elle vocation à se développer pour réaliser un but qui est le sien. Le système de Compliance ne peut concerner que des "entreprises cruciales". S'il doit y avoir changement de projet poursuivi par l'entreprise, cela ne peut tenir qu'à sa "position" dans un système. Cette position peut avoir une source objective (entreprise systémique) ou une source subjective, parce que l'entreprise veut concrétiser ces buts globaux car elle veut être "responsable". Dans ce cas, l'entreprise supporte alors la charge de preuve qu'un tel discours de responsabilité nouvelle correspond à un comportement et à une culture effective. Le poids des règles existe déjà aujourd'hui. Et c'est encore comme cela qu'aujourd'hui d'une façon négative et passive que la Compliance est perçue, par ceux qui la "subissent" (entreprises), voire par ceux qui l'appliquent (autorités publiques).

La transformation vers une "culture de confiance, c'est l'enjeu d'un passage entre aujourd'hui et demain. En effet demain, c'est une relation de confiance qui pourrait se construire entre ces entreprises-là et les autorités publiques, parce qu'elles partageaient les informations (enjeu systémique), parce qu'elles seraient d'accord sur les buts monumentaux (tous centrés sur la protection des êtres humains, que le seul fonctionnement marchand ne peut produire, que les seuls États ne peuvent assurer).

En cela, la "Compliance" est avant tout un pari, celui de la place des êtres humains sur des marchés mondialisés.

____

English Summary of the article. We have to admit, because we find it difficult to find ourselves in front of so numerous and disparate rules, going in all directions and constantly changing, we console ourselves with their weight, their cost and our misunderstanding by affirming that Compliance is "complex" and "transdisciplinary", as if complicated words could mask our disarray. But "Compliance" is not a cataclysm, a bomb sent by the Americans to annihilate Europe, the new form of a Cold War in legal dress, it is a way of seeing things that comes from afar, with a coherence of its own and which must first be understood.

If one understands where this new corpus comes from, which now obliges companies to prove that they effectively take on the fulfillment of certain goals that go beyond them, notably the fight against money laundering, tax evasion , but also the fight against the sale of human beings or the struggle for the preservation of nature and the Earth, then we can continue the story.

Indeed, not all companies are targeted by such internalization of "monumental goals" within them." An ordinary enterprise is destined to develop itself in order to achieve a goal which is its own. The concern of these goals can only be for the "crucial enterprises. "If there is to be a change in the corporate project, then it can only depend on its" position "in a system, a financial, economic, social, global system, or because it has itself decided that it would be so. The company then bears the burden of proof that such a discourse of new responsibility corresponds to a behavior and an effective culture. The weight of the rules already exists today. And it is for the moment that now, in a negative and passive way, Compliance is perceived, by those who "undergo" it (companies), even by those who apply it (public authorities).

The transformation towards a "culture of trust" is the issue between today and tomorrow, because tomorrow, it is a relationship of trust that could be built between these companies and the public authorities, because they would share information (systemic issue), because they would agree on the less technical monumental goals (protection of human beings issue).

In this, "Compliance" is above all a bet, that of the place of human beings in globalized markets.

____

📕Lire une présentation générale du livre, Compliance : l'entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, dans lequel cet article est publié.

Consulter les autres titres de la Série dans laquelle est publié l'ouvrage.

Référence complète : Roussel Galle, Ph. et Douaoui-Chamseddine, M., Les défaillances bancaires et financières : un droit spécial ?, Revue de droit bancaire et financier, déc. 2014, p.64-65.

Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l'article par le drive dans le dossier "MAFR - Régulation"

Paru en 2011, ce numéro thématique porte sur "La supervision" au regard du risque systémique, tandis que le précédent portait sur "La régulation" au regard de ce même thème.

Il en ressort, pour éviter la prochaine crise, la volonté d'étendre la supervision, notamment aux "non-banques", comme les compagnies d'assurance, et de la renforcer, notamment quant aux moyens de contrôle, de surveillance et de sanction des Autorités de supervision.

Référence complète : FRISON-ROCHE, Marie-Anne, La nature hybride du Conseil de régulation financière et du risque systémique, D.2010, chron., p.2712-2714.

Le Conseil de la régulation financière et du risque systémique établi par la loi du 22 octobre 2010 montre que la summa divisio entre régulation et prudentiel n’existe plus, puisque les opérateurs financiers sont systémiques. La composition du Conseil le cristallise en rassemblant le gouverneur de la Banque de France, le président de l’AMF et le président de l’Autorité des normes comptables. En outre, le Conseil revient sur la distinction naguère affirmée entre régulation et politique, puisque ces présidents d’Autorités indépendantes sont présidés par le Ministre de l’Économie. Cela tient au fait que la sortie de la crise suppose le recours à la décision purement politique. Si ces deux liens, avec le prudentiel, avec le politique, avaient été reconnus, la crise ne serait peut-être pas advenue.

Accéder à l'article

Accéder à l'article en langue anglaise

Lire le résumé de l'article ci-dessous.

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., "L’hypothèse de l’interrégulation", in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.) Les risques de régulation, coll. « Droit et Économie de la Régulation », t.3, Dalloz / Presses de Sciences-Po, 2005, p.69-80.

The topic of of this article is to propose a new notion, already presented in 2001 in the article "Regulation Law": "Interregulation".

This mechanism will makes more easier a unified decision when several autonomous, even contradictory, regulations are legitimate to rule a situation. This creation therefore responds to a gap in the general system, of which the antimony is a variant. Political power no longer has the means to unify these disparate sources because it is "overtaken by the globalization of sectors and markets. Likewise, the hierarchical mode of traditional law cannot be suitable for autonomous sectorial regulations. There is therefore a need for interregulation between regulators, for the creation of a common "doctrine", or by procedural means, such as "authorized advice".

Read the article. (written in French)

Read the general presentation, written in English, of the collective book, Les risques de régulation, in which this article has been published.

Below, read the article Summary. 

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L’office de règlement des différends, entre régulation et juridiction, in Les risques de régulation, coll. « Droit et Economie de la Régulation », t.3, Dalloz / Presses de Sciences-Po, 2005, p. 269-287.

____

► Résumé de l'article : La notion d’office, si usuelle lorsque l’on parle du juge, doit aussi être utilisée concernant le régulateur, en ce qu’elle renvoie à la notion de mission, à la noblesse d’un service guidé par sa finalité. Mais autant il est usuel de considérer que le premier office d’un juge est de trancher les litiges, autant la doctrine estime qu’un régulateur ne prend en charge cette tâche que d’une façon auxiliaire. En effet, le juge serait toujours enfermé dans le rapport bilatéral entre les parties qui se disputent, alors que le régulateur est en charge d’un système.

____

Accéder à l'article.

____

📕 Lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage dans lequel l'article est publié.

____

Lire le résumé développé de l'article ci-dessous 

After defining what may be a "crisis of Regulation" and stressing that the crisis is a political phenomenon, the book devotes its first part of "systemic risk," which refers to the assumption of the general crisis. This hypothesis is exposed to prospectively or from cases in different sectors, e.g. financial, energy and health, before wondering how to organize post-crisis.

The regulation itself including risk, the book chooses to study especially the inconsistency because it is the higher legal risk for an economic system. Therefore, it is proposed to organize inter-regulation mechanisms.

Finally, the specific risks Regulator is able to address are conflicts, through the dispute settlement mechanism, derived from judicial system. It is examined in each of the regulated sectors.