Subjective law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation to the round table "Le droit à l'enfant : réalité ou faux concept ?" ("The right to a child: reality or false concept?"), in Regards croisés sur les nouvelles filiations, Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal), September 12, 2024 - 🧮see the full programme of this event - ► Summary of the conference:  -   🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: CJUE, 1st Chamber, 22 June 2023, C-579/21, Pankki S. - 🏛️read the judgment -

Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A..,Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, 2021, pp. 319-342   -   Article Summary: In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve. Because every effort must be done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools". But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law. We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space. -   Read the bilingual working paper, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks, on which this article is based    Read the General Presentation of the book in which this article has been published   -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les droits subjectifs, outils premiers et naturels du Droit de la Compliance" ("Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Les outils de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2021, pp. 301-323. - 📝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 outils de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of this article (done by the Journal of Regulation and Compliance): In the traditional conception of the architecture of the sectors regulated by Law, and in Compliance Law which extends the regulatory techniques, rights have little place. But this configuration no longer takes place; on the contrary, rights are at the center of Regulatory and Compliance systems, and will be more and more so. They are and will be the primary tools of Compliance Law because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve. Because every effort must be done to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people and organizations who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goal". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools for actually achieving the goals set, so much so that they can be seen as "primary tools". But it is pertinent to have more pretension and to conceive rights as the most "natural" tools of Compliance Law. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be expressed by the protection of persons, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given as tools by Law by to persons and rights which constitute the very goal of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights becoming a "natural tool" of Compliance Law. We are only at the beginning of their deployment and it is undoubtedly on them that Digital space in which we now live would be regulated, so that we will not suffocated there and that it will constitute for people a civilized space. -

► Full Reference: Bundesverfassungsgericht (Deutsch Federal Constitutional Court), Order of the First Senate, March 24, 2021 (published on April 29, 2021), Nos. 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20 - 🏛️read the decision (in English) - 🏛️read the press release (in English) -

Full reference: CJEU, 2nd of February 2021, DB v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), case C‑481/19 Read the decision Read the opinion of advocate general   Summary of the decision by CJEU:  "Natural persons who are subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing have the right to remain silent when their answers might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability".    To go further, read: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolve the contradiction between "incentive" and "sanction" under the fire of Compliance Law, 2021 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance tools, 2021

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., New SEC Report to Congress about Whistleblower Program: what is common between American and European conception, Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of December 2020 Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation   Summary of the news Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process. If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing).  However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future. 

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Théorie juridique de la cartographie des risques, centre du Droit de la Compliance (Legal Theory of Risk Mapping, center of Compliance Law)", D. 2019, chronique Compliance, p.  - ► English Summary of this article : The act of mapping risks is not currently defined by Law. It is only described in special laws. While risks mapping is central to preventing in Ex Ante the occurrence of crises or behaviors from which the occurrence is excluded, no legal regime is available, due to the lack of a legal definition available. This legal definition is proposed here in 5 stages, starting from special laws and specific cases to go towards a general conception. Risk mapping then appears as a concern for others taken care of willingly or by force by crucial operators, through a new subjective right: the “right to be alarmed”, the map being the structural counterpart of the character of the whistleblower. Two articulated systems of Compliance Law. - Read the article, published in French.   Read its translation in English.    Read the English Working Paper  on which this article is based, working paper with additional developpments, technical references and hypertext links.    -

Full reference: Bounie, D. and Maxwell, W., L'explicabilité des algorithmes est-elle un droit fondamental?, Column in Le Monde, 1st of September 2019  Read the column (in French)

Documents Motulsky_le_droit_subjectif_et_l_action_en_justice.pdf