Technical

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Scientific direction of the conference Le rapport de durabilité : obligation et Contentieux Systémiques Émergents (The Sustainability Report: Emerging Systemic Obligations and Litigation), in cycle of conference-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School) and MAFR, September 19, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom - ► Presentation of the conférence: Sustainability is a new legal concept, the lineaments of which can be found in certain sectors and branches of Law, and which today has both multiple resulting obligations and a definition that is sufficiently unified to allow it to be grasped through the technique and the requirement of the "Sustainability Report", which translates a requirement linked to the systems themselves. The dual materiality mechanism illustrates this. The Litigation that will ensue shall be imbued with this systemic dimension, since this report was required from this perspective, and the notion of Sustainability itself was conceived in the same way. What is commonly referred to as "ESG" reflects this perspective, which is both structural and long-term: Information is central here, since it is a Report, anchored in  the new conception of Corporate Law that is imbued with Governance, where internal and external stakeholders are present. The various Supervisors and Regulators, who go beyond supervising professionals to regulate activities, are also bound to have a role to play in this Emerging Systemic Litigation. In order to understand and anticipate this, this conference is built around an analysis of the construction of the Sustainability Report and an analysis of the role of the Regulatory and Supervisory Authority, the French Audit Authority, the Haute Autorité de l'Audit – H2A. These analyses are carried out with a view to the Systemic Litigation that will arise from these new requirements and practices, in correlation with Litigation linked to other fields of Systemic Litigation such as Vigilance field. - 🧮Programme of this event:  Fith conference-debate LE RAPPORT DE DURABILITÉ : OBLIGATIONS ET CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUES ÉMERGENTS (THE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT: EMERGING SYSTEMIC OBLIGATIONS AND LITIGATION) Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom 🕰️11am.-11.10am. 🎤Pourquoi les textes et la pratiques sur le rapport de durabilité vont engendrer un Contentieux Systémique (Why the texts and practices on sustainability reporting will give rise to Systemic Litigation), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) ➡️read the presentation of this speech 🕰️11.10am.-11.20am. 🎤Élaboration et esprit de la directive CSRD (Elaboration and spirit of the CSRD), by 🕴️Florence Peybernès, President of the Haute Autorité de l'Audit – H2A (French High Audit Authority) 🕰️11.20am.-11.40am. 🎤Comment construire un rapport de durabilité ? (How to build a sustainability report?), by 🕴️Alexis Gazzo, Partner, Climate Change & Sustainability leader, EY France 🕰️11.40am.-12pm. 🎤Le contrôle de l'activité d'audit du rapport de durabilité (The control of the audit of the sustainability report), by 🕴️Florence Peybernès, President of the Haute Autorité de l'Audit – H2A (French High Audit Authority) 🕰️12pm.-12.30pm. Debate - 🔴Registrations and information requests can be sent to: inscriptionscse@gmail.com 🔴For the attorneys, registrations have to be sent to the following address: https://evenium.events/cycle-de-conferences-contentieux-systemique-emergent/  ⚠️The conference-debates are held in person only, in the Cour d’appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal). -

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., For regulating or supervising, technical competence is required: example of the French creation of the "Pôle d'expertise de la régulation numérique"​, Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation, Compliance, 2nd of September 2020 Lire par abonnement gratuit d'autres news de la Newsletter MAFR – Law, Regulation, Compliance   Summary of the news Through a decree of 31st of August 2020, the government created a national service, the "Pôle d'expertise de la régulation numérique" (digital regulation expertise pole). It has to furnish to State services a technical expertise in computer science, data science and algorithm processes in order to assist them in their role of control, investigation and study. The aim is to favor information sharing between researchers and State services in charge of regulating digital space.  As its acronym indicates, this pole of expertise aims to represents constance in a changing world. Moreover, more than being a national service, this organism must adopt a transversal dimension, its creation decree being signed by the Prime Minister, Minister of Economy, Minister of Culture and Minister of Digital Transition. The creation of such a pole shows the awareness of the government of the importance of technical competency in the regulation of digital space and of the necessity to centralize these expertises in one organ.  However, as the decree indicates, this pole of expertise could be consulted only by "State services", that excludes regulators which are independent from the State and which could put the pole in conflict of interest, and courts even if they are supposed to play a central role in the regulation of digital space and even if they are allowed to ask the advice of the regulator about some cases. But if regulators cannot size the pole, to whom does it benefit except the legislator and a few officials?  It would therefore have been better for this pole of expertise to be placed under the direction of regulatory and supervisory bodies, which would have enabled it to be able to be consulted both by regulators and by judges, both of whom are key players in digital regulation.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance by Design, a new weapon? Opinion of Facebook about Apple new technical dispositions on Personal Data protection, Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation, 31st of August 2020 Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation   Summary of the news: Personal Data, as they are information, are Compliance Tools. They represent a precious resource for firms which must implement a vigilance plan in order to prevent corruption, money laundering or terrorism financing, for examples. It is the reason why personal data are the angular stone of "Compliance by design" systems. However, the use of these data cannot clear the firm of its simultaneous obligation to protect these same personal data, that is also a "monumental goal" of Compliance Law.  In order to be able to exploit these data in an objective of Compliance and protecting them in the same time, the digital firm Apple adopted for example new dispositions in order to the exploitation of the Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) integrated in the iPad and in the iPhone and broadly used by targeted advertising firms, is conditioned to the consumer's consent. Facebook reacted to this new disposition explaining that such measures will restrict the access to data for advertisers who will suffer from that. Facebook suspects Apple to block the access to advertisers in order to develop its own advertising tool. Facebook guaranteed to advertisers who work with it that it will not take similar measures and that it will always favor consultation before decision making in order to concile sometimes divergent interests.  We can sleep and already make some remarks: GDPR imposing to companies that they guarantee a minimal level of protection for personal data does not apply in the United-States. It is then possible that Apple acted through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), more than through legal obligation.  The mode of regulation used here is the "conversational regulation" theorized by Julia Black. Indeed, regulators let the forces in presence discuss.  This "conversational regulation" does not seem to be very efficient in this case and an intervention of administrative authorities or of judges could be justified via Competition Law, Regulation Law or Compliance Law, knowing that Competition Law will favor access right to information and Regulation or Compliance Law private life right.  The whole paradox of Compliance Law rests in the equilibrium between circulation of information and secret.