Vigilance

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Les spécificités à concevoir dans l'audience publique des contentieux systémiques de vigilance" ("The Specific Features of Public Hearings to conceive on Vigilance Systemic Litigation"), in Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), 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), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom - 🕴️An other speaker to this conference is Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor at Côte d'Azur University 🧮see the full programme of this event - ⚙️This event was conceived as part of the "Emerging Systemic Litigation" cycle of conference-debates, organized by the Paris Court of appeal, in conjunction with the French Court of cassation, the Versailles Court of appeal, the French National School for the Judiciary and the Paris Bar School, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. - ► English 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 subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

► Full Reference: Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), 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), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom - ► Presentation of the conférence:  - 🧮Programme of this event:  Seventh conference-debate LE DROIT PROCESSUEL DE LA VIGILANCE (VIGILANCE GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW) Paris Court of Appeal, Cassin courtroom Presentation and moderation par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director ot the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🕰️11h-11h20. 🎤, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director ot the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🕰️11h20-11h40. 🎤, by 🕴️Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor of Law at Côte d'Azur University 🕰️11h40-12h30. 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: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Choix et embranchements de compétences lorsqu'un enjeu de vigilance est allégué" ("Choice and Branching of Jurisdiction when a Vigilance issue is Alleged"), in Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance General Procedural Law), 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), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, November 18, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, Cassin courtroom - 🕴️An other speaker to this conference is Natalie Fricero, Emeritus Professor at Côte d'Azur University 🧮see the full programme of this event - ⚙️This event was conceived as part of the "Emerging Systemic Litigation" cycle of conference-debates, organized by the Paris Court of appeal, in conjunction with the French Court of cassation, the Versailles Court of appeal, the French National School for the Judiciary and the Paris Bar School, under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. - ► English Summary of the conference: This speech opens the conference. It therefore logically focuses on the question of "jurisdictional competence". It is divided into successive points which are progressively linked to each other. The first point consists to insist on this rule : the organisation of the courts and their jurisdiction can never be detached from the substance of the matter in dispute. This explains why the issue of jurisdiction is such a source of passion for as long as the very definition of Vigilance remains so contentious, and why the 2021 legislature's belief that it could put out the fire has only served to exacerbate it. The second point relates to the first proposed solution, i.e. maintaining the exclusivity of the Paris First Judicial Court, which is acceptable in principle because by specialising judges acquire a "technical competence" but which presents a very damaging "Bibendum risk". The third point relates to the second solution proposed, namely the reference to the Motulskian notion of the 'basis of demand', which provokes a fork in the road, with the risk of interminable conflicts and divergent interpretations. The fourth point is the need to find the best solution, i.e. the least bad solution, consisting above all of forming practical alliances, without requiring new texts, for this particular type of litigation which does not come under any branch of Law and which justifies a dialogue between the heads of the courts.           - 🔓read the key points of this speech below ⤵️ - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Considérer la géographie pour réussir le Devoir de Vigilance" ("Taking Geography into account for a successful Vigilance Duty"), concluding speech in Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? Regards croisés en droit international, droit comparé et droit OHADA (Vigilance Duty : what African perspectives? Cross-analysis of International Law, Comparative Law and OHADA Law), Institut de Recherche en Droit des Affaires et du Patrimoine (IRDAP), Bordeaux, 15 November 2024. - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation (in French) - ► English summary of this concluding speech: This concluding speech was made "on the bench", i.e. directly after listening to all the day's speakers. It is not, therefore, based on an a priori conception of the subject, but on the impression that emerged from the whole, as one speaker followed another. The general impression is that these compliance instruments, of which the vigilance tool is the spurred head, are only appropriate if they fulfill the purpose for which they were devised and imposed, which presupposes that they are appropriate to the concrete situations to which they apply: to the country, to the legislation that shapes and expresses this country, to its economy, to its population. There is certainly room for improvement. But Vigilance legal instruments, like Compliance Law, are new mechanisms that are in the process of taking shape: we must seek to improve them and find solutions: 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Duty of Vigilance: the way forward, 2024   This is not easy, especially if we get lost in the jigsaw puzzle of texts and decisions in which the vigilance technique fits, particularly at French, European and international level: 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Vigilance, a piece of the European puzzle, 2023   Listening to all the many and varied speakers, it is clear that progress needs to be made to ensure that the Vigilance instrument takes greater account of the concrete situations reflected in the various legal systems of African countries, and in particular the unified OHADA legal system. It can be done, as long as everyone is willing to bear it in mind. 🧱🕴🏻J.-B. Racine, 📝Geographical dominance in the choice and the use of compliance tools. Introductory remarks, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021   The speakers demonstrated that the good feelings of Paris or Brussels can pave the way for African hell, for example when about the children labour. The same is true of the fight against corruption, as Mohamed Salah showed. 🧱🕴🏻M.M. Salah ,📝Conception and Application of Compliance in Africa, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021 - Meanwhile, listening to each other, it appears that often, despite using the same words, the speakers were not talking about the same thing, particularly not in terms of what the very term "Vigilance" refers to, the difference between the French and English being a challenge because "due diligences" are not the same than Vigilance duty . This is a sign that what we call a duty, or an obligation, or a spontaneous commitment, or a legal order criminally sanctioned, which are not at all the same thing, shows the immaturity of this notion of "Vigilance". What's more, we sometimes talk about the climate, or human rights, or the need to fight corruption or money laundering. These latter concerns are undoubtedly covered by texts classified under Compliance Law, some of which assert that Vigilance is the cutting edge, while others claim that Compliance is alien to or merely a component of Vigilance, because Vigilance embraces ethics, while Compliance is merely obedience to the norm ('conformity'). It is clear that the absence of an agreement on definitions is a handicap in practice, as we do not know which legal regime will apply. This uncertainty is problematic in practice because the regulations don't  lay down definitions which alone make it possible to deduce the outline of the obligations of each party, particularly not those of the companies, which ask for instructions for use. Companies receive contradictory interpretations for the same situation, depending on who you are dealing with (a regulator or an NGO for example) or depending on the text (a text specific to the industrial activity, a text specific to the country, or a text from the country of the ordering company on the duty of vigilance, or a text from ordinary contract law or a text that will come from a soft law that remains rather mysterious).   This uncertainty feeds the passion that surrounds the issue of vigilance, with everyone speaking out, the specialists who want to talk about it being suspected of being a technocrat or captured, and those who don't speak out being the local population for whom others speak out. As a result, two phenomena are set to persist, which we had hardly anticipated but which are set to increase: the contractualisation of all vigilance mechanisms and the jurisdictionalisation of all vigilance organisation. - The first phenomenon is the contracting of Vigilance. This contractualisation is the means by which companies have been carrying out their legal compliance obligations for years, using a contractual art that is becoming increasingly sophisticated. We have very little information on these contracts, which are nonetheless what allow companies to obey the regulations and also to add to them, a combination of obedience and contractual freedom, the effects of which in practice have not yet been fully measured. 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Will, Heart and Calculation, the Three Traits Encercling the Compliance Obligation, 2024 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2025   But they do raise essential questions. Firstly, they will bring back the jurisdiction of general courts , for example the commercial courts (tribunaux de commerce) in France, and the courts of the countries where the industrial operations take place: moreover, they are the natural route to international arbitration. They are a new type of contract, since they structure "value chains" (a managerial concept). 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 🚧Compliance Contract, Compliance Clauses, 2022   There are two key issues concerning these contracts: they directly concern African countries, their economic activity and their populations, as described throughout all the speeches. The first is to know who governs the structural apparatus constituted by these 'regulatory contracts' through which chains of activity are built as durable structures. Who is strong and who is weak, between companies and states? The second is to find out how much of the reality of the country and of local economic activity is taken into account by the subsidiary, and how much consideration is given to the local people involved: are the people who are actually involved really "taken into consideration" when we speak for them? Who is best placed to speak on their behalf, to defend them, to get to know them? If we want to contextualise, refine and get to know the situation as closely as possible, in other words if we want to have definitions so that we know what we are talking about, but at the same time start from geographical and human realities, then it is the Judge who appears because the court starts from the facts. - This is the second phenomenon that has emerged and is set to increase: the jurisdictionalisation of Vigilance. 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023 This is understandable, since the judge is able to take cognisance of the facts, the situation in Uganda or Tanzania, and what is often referred to as the "extraterritoriality" of the Compliance mechanisms being thus compensated for. However, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Court of First Instance (decided in France by a 2021 law) may become more difficult, as it is even further away from Africa than the ordering company is. But it is precisely the contract judges who can be called upon to rule on the basis of Contract Law. This central role of the judge raises a number of procedural difficulties that have either not yet been resolved, moreover are not still being perceive 🧱🕴🏻mafr (dir.), 🧮Le Droit processuel de la Vigilance (Vigilance Genreral Procedural Law), 2024   At the interface between procedure and substance, evidentiary issues require the development of a new evidentiary system. When the relevant facts are in Africa but the company accountable for them is in France under legislation adopted in Europe, this must be taken into account. 🧱🕴🏻mafr, 📝The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2023   What's more, since the Monumental Goal is to prevent, manage and detect risks, it is the future that is the main object of proof. A difficult subject by its very nature of the future, which calls for caution. Caution is to be expected from Judges, who may prefer the solution of an agreement: the contract and the commitment come back, for example through mediation, among the methods of conflict resolution. But as close as possible to where it happens, OHADA's courts can then be called upon to hear States and populations.   What is more, in contractualisation (at which point the two major phenomena, contractualisation and jurisdictionalisation, enter into a dialectic), the clauses work together to activate the natural judge of the international contract, including vigilance clauses: the international arbitrator. 🧱🕴🏻L. Aynès, 📝How international arbitration can reinforce the Compliance Obligation, in 🧱🕴🏻mafr (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2025   OHADA has institutional arbitration mechanisms. Now is the time to guide them so that they open up Africa to Vigilance and open up Vigilance to Africa. In concrete terms. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance : progresser" ("Duty of Vigilance: the Way Forward"), in Ch. Maubernard & A. Brès (eds.), Le devoir de vigilance des entreprises. L'âge de la maturité ? (The duty of vigilance. The age of maturity?), Bruylant, "Droit & Economie" Serie, 2024, pp. 221-251 - 📝read the article (in French)  - 🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► English Summary of the article: In 2017 in France the so-called Vigilance law expressed great ambition. So did the draft directive. But in 2024 the European institutions moderated this ambition by refusing to increase either the type of companies subject and the constraints to which the duty of vigilance is associated. The directive has essentially halted what was for some the "march of progress". Does the ambition no longer exist? Does the future lie in an extension of the philosophy of the duty of vigilance, i.e. companies that should always be more concerned about others? This would undoubtedly be reaching the "age of maturity", where others see the age of madness, because it would be a contradiction in terms to ask a company to be concerned about anything other than its own development. It is therefore appropriate to consider this very hypothesis of an "age of maturity" as being an ambition maintained despite a European directive which, in its adopted version, is weakened and while the oppositions are intact (I). First of all, it must be admitted that the notion of "maturity" most often conceals a value judgment when applied to a legal concept (I.A.) and that this is blatantly obvious with regard to the duty of vigilance, which is considered by some and by nature by some as a good and by others as an evil (I.B). In order not to remain in what appears to be trench warfare, we must not get too bogged down in the reference French legislation of 2017 and what appears to be a European stutter in 2024, arguing so loudly that we can hear them reasoning in print, by paying attention to less visible and now more promising avenues of progress (II). In fact, the duty of vigilance can progress simply by the passage of time (II.A), by a better definition of the vocabulary (II.B), by the consolidation of the principles of Responsibility and Dialogue (II.C), by the uniqueness of the jurisdictional route (II.D). This last perspective of the progress that will be made possible in France by the uniqueness of the judicial route leads to a final avenue of progress. By their very nature, laws are jolts, all the more violent for being disputed. At the moment, if we want to make progress, these two other sources – the contract and the judge – must be favoured (III). The European directive is rightly concerned with access to the courts and takes a measured view of the effectiveness of contracts as a means of making the duty of vigilance effective, with the courts having to ensure that the contract does not destroy the spirit of the system. This is what the law already organises about the relationship between the contract, the judge and the duty of compliance (III.A). What is new in Europe in 2024 is the introduction of a Supervisor (III.B). Here again, vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Law, as it is an extension of Regulatory Law.  The result is that, through interpretation and the handling of principles, and to formulate a more general conclusion, it is the judge who holds and will hold the balance of the duty of vigilance. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law s'abonner à la Newsletter Surplomb, par MAFR

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l'"incidence" et s’organiser" ("Duty of vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised"), in L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The Impact of the Duty of Vigilance on Commercial Litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, September 25, 2024, 17.15pm to 20pm - read the report of this speech on LinkedIn (in French) - 🧮see the full programme of this event (in French) - 🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event - consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event (in French) - ► English Summary of the conference: After listening to the enlightening speeches of François Ancel and Jean-Christophe Roda, I had the great opportunity to emphasise, as they did, that the duty of vigilance, in the respect of French laws of 2017 and 2021, with a view to the transposition of the CS3D, does not imply, so brutally as has been said, a lack of knowledge by judges other than those of the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) of this new Law, which is the extension of Compliance Law, as François Ancel reminded us. Because Commercial Court judges deal with Contract Law on a daily basis, and because companies build their value chains through contracts that should be described as "regulatory contracts", the duty of vigilance has an "impact" on these disputes. These disputes may be of a "systemic" nature. This can only result not in jurisdictional trenches, but in "shared jurisdiction", along the lines drawn by François Ancel. This sharing must be built through a dialogue between judges, a necessary method on which Patrick Sayer concluded this elaborate conference on an essential and forward-looking subject. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, coordination of the conference L'incidence du devoir de vigilance sur les litiges commerciaux (The impact of the duty of vigilance on commercial litigation), Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court), Droit & Commerce and Association Française en Faveur de l'Institution Consulaire (AFFIC), Tribunal de commerce de Paris, 25 September 2024, 5.15p.m. to 8p.m. - 🧮see the full programme of this event - consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event (in French) - ► General presentation of the conference: The Duty of Vigilance reflects the new role of firms in the world. Vigilance sometimes existed on a sectoral basis, but the 2017 French law extended it to large companies that control value chains. The French so-called "confiance" law gave the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) jurisdiction to hear "actions relatives" ("actions relating") to this duty. This does not mean, however, that the commercial courts will no longer have jurisdiction. Firstly, vigilance may go beyond the scope of the 2017 French law. Secondly, vigilance may concern not only the plan drawn up by the firm, but also Commercial Contract Law or Liability Law, special Distribution Law, etc. Commercial courts will have to develop a doctrine for dividing up and coordinating disputes, in particular by staying proceedings within certain disputes. To build a unified or at least non-contradictory case law on vigilance, we need to imagine a dialogue between judges and new procedures. - 🧮Programme of this event:  L'INCIDENCE DU DEVOIR DE VIGILANCE SUR LES LITIGES COMMERCIAUX (THE IMPACT OF THE DUTY OF VIGILANCE ON COMMERCIAL LITIGATION) Paris First Instance Commercial Court, room 1 🕰️5.15pm.-5.30pm. Welcome 🕰️5.30pm.-5.40pm. 🎤Mots d'ouverture (Opening words), by 🕴️Antoine Diesbecq, President of Droit & Commerce, attorney at the Paris Bar and 🕴️Marie-Hélène Huertas, President of AFFIC, Honorary President of Chamber of the Paris First Instance Commercial Court 🕰️5.40pm.-6pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Une compétence à partager ? (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: A jurisdiction to share?), by 🕴️François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation) 🕰️6pm.-6.20pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Expliciter les notions et qualifications en jeu (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Explain the concepts and qualifications involved?), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University, Director of the Centre de Droit de l’entreprise 🕰️6.20pm.-6.40pm. 🎤Devoir de vigilance et litiges commerciaux : Anticiper l''incidence" et s’organiser (Duty of Vigilance and Commercial Litigation: Anticipating the "impact" and getting organised), by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🕰️6.40pm.-7pm. 🎤Conclusion (Conclusion), by 🕴️Patrick Sayer, President of the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris First Instance Commercial Court) 🕰️7pm.-7.30pm. Discussion with the audience 🕰️7.30pm.-8pm. Cocktail - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: V. Magnier, "The transformation of governance and due diligence", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author develops the tensions caused by Compliance Law and the Duty of Vigilance on corporate governance. The French "Sapin 2" law targets corruption, while the French "Vigilance" law has a broader scope in terms of risks and the entire value chain. It is logical that this should create tensions in terms of governance, given the monumental goals involved. Companies need to take ownership of the powers delegated to them, which means rethinking their governance and the way in which they exercise their corporate mandates, with the corporate interest, the judge's compass, having to be combined with the adoption of new standards of behaviour formalised voluntarily by ethical charters in line with international standards. On this voluntary and supervised basis, the company must adapt its structure and then contractualise these norms. This ethical approach has an impact on the role of corporate organs, not only in terms of transparency and risk prioritisation, but also proactively in terms of the adoption of commitments whose sincerity will be verified, as reflected, for example, in corporate governance codes (cf.in France the AFEP-MEDEF Code), the setting up of ad hoc committees and the presence of stakeholders, who will be consulted when the vigilance plan is drawn up. She stresses that this creates tensions, that dialogue is difficult, that business secrecy must be preserved, but that stakeholders must become Vigilance watchdogs, a role that should not be left to the public authorities alone. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: L. d'Avout, "Compliance and conflict of laws. International Law of Vigilance-Conformity, based on recent applications in Europe", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, to be published - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Obligation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Author, translated by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): In the absence of constraints derived from the real international law, vigilance-compliance laws themselves determine their scope of application in space. They do so generously, to the extent that they often converge on the same operators and 'overlap' on the world stage. The result is a hybridation of the law applicable to the definition of Compliance Obligations; a law possibly written "with four hands" or more, which is not always harmonious and which exposes unilateral legislators to occasional retouching their work and their applied regulations. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full reference:  M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Entreprises et compliance : une justice et des juges plus offensifs" ("Companies and compliance: more aggressive courts and judges"), interview conducted by Jean-Philippe Denis as part of a series of interviews on Compliance Law, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion (Open windows on management), broadcast by J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, recorded December 12, 2023, released on June 14, 2024. - consult the December 2023 presentation of the interview on LinkedIn - watch the interview video on LinkedIn, with English subtitles - 🧱consult the general presentation of this series of interviews on Compliance Law - ► Starting point: Since 2016, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche has been building Compliance Law, notably through a collection co-published in French with Editions Dalloz and co-published in English with Editions Bruylant:  🧱read the presentation in English of the series in French, Régulations & Compliance ➡️click HERE  🧱read the presentation of the series in English, Compliance & Regulation ➡️click HERE - ► Summary of interview:   Jean-Philippe Denis. Question :  Marie-Anne Frison-Roche.  Answer. :  - J.-Ph D. Q. : Thus MaFR. A. : Yes,  - J.-Ph. D. Q. : Thus MaFR. A. : Yes,  -

► Full Reference: Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 (CS3D) - ► read the text of the directive - 📧see on LinkedIn the article published by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in the Newsletter MAFR. Regulation, Compliance, Law, on the occasion of the publication of this directive in the Official Journal of the European Union -

► Full Reference: La vigilance, nouveau champ de contentieux systémique (Vigilance, new field of Systemic Ligation), 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), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 26 April 2024, 11am.-12.30am., Cour d'appel de Paris, Massé courtroom - 🧮see the full programme of the cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation) - see on LinkedIn the report of this event - 🧱read below the report of this event⤵️ - ► Presentation of the conference: The duty of vigilance imposed by the 2017 French law is being contractualised, either by ad hoc contracts or by stipulations that reproduce the legal provisions, adjust them or go beyond them. This adoption by the Contract and Tort Law is valuable but not without risk. The systemic scope of the underlying law on the one hand and of economic structures on the other, the firm or the value chain, will permeate litigation. The example of labour relations is instructive in this respect. - 🧮Programme of this event:  Second conference-debate LA VIGILANCE, NOUVEAU CHAMP DE CONTENTIEUX SYSTÉMIQUE (VIGILANCE, NEW FIELD OF SYSTEMIC LITIGATION)   Paris Court of Appeal, Massé courtroom General presentation of the topic and moderation by 🕴️François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation) 🕰️11am.-11.20am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les rapports contractuels (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Contractual Relationships), by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University 🕰️11.20am.-11.40am. 🎤Le contentieux émergent de la Vigilance dans les relations de travail (Emerging Vigilance Litigation in Employment Relationships), by 🕴️Cyril Cosme, Director of the French Office of the International Labour Organization (ILO) 🕰️11.40am.-12.30am. 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). - 🧱read below a detailed presentation of this event⤵️ -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance" ("Synthesis: The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law through Compliance Law"), Synthesis in Conseil d'État (French Council of State) and Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? Regards croisés du Conseil d'État et de la Cour de cassation – Colloque du 2 juin 2023, La Documentation française, "Droits et Débats" Serie, 2024, pp. 173-182 - 🎥this article follows the closing speech of the biannual symposium organised by the Council of State and the Court of cassation, which in 2023 was entitled De la régulation à la compliance : quel rôle pour le juge ? (From Regulation to Compliance, what role for the judge ?) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► Presentation of this concluding article: It is remarkable to note the unity of conception and practice between professionals who tend to work in administrative jurisdictions and professionals who tend to work in judicial jurisdictions: they all note, in similar terms, an essential movement: what Regulatory Law is, how it has been transformed into Compliance Law, and how in one and even more so in the other the Judge is at the centre of it. Judges, as well as Regulators and European officials, explain this and use different examples to illustrate the far-reaching changes it brings to the Law and to the companies responsible for increasing the systemic effectiveness of the rules through the practice and dissemination of a Culture of Compliance. The role of the judge participating in this Ex Ante transformation is renewed, whether he/she is a judge of Public Law or a judge of Private Law, in a greater unity of the legal system. - ► English Summary of this article: The tug-of-war between 'Compliance' and 'conformity', which is exhausting us, obscures what is essential, i.e. the great novelty of a branch of law that assumes a humanist vision expressing the ambition to shape the future so that it is not catastrophic (preventing systems from collapsing), or even better (protecting human beings in these systems). The article begins by describing the emergence of Compliance Law, as an extension of Regulatory Law and going beyond it. This new branch of law takes account of our new world, brings its benefits and seeks to counter these systemic dangers so that human beings could be their beneficiaries and are not crushed by them. This branch of Ex Ante Law is therefore political, often supported by public Authorities, such as Regulatory Authorities, but today it goes beyond sectors, as shown by its cutting edge, the Obligation of Vigilance. The "Monumental Goals" in which Compliance Law is normatively anchored imply a teleological interpretation, leading to an "empowerment" of the crucial operators, not only States but also companies, responsible for the effectiveness of the many new Compliance Tools. The article goes on to show that Judges are increasingly central to Compliance Law. Lawsuits are designed to make companies more accountable. In this transformation, the role of the judge is also to remain the guardian of the Rule of Law, both in the protection of the rights of the defence and in the protection of secrets. Efficiency is not what defines Compliance, which should not be reduced to a pure and simple method of efficiency, which would lead to being an instrument of dictatorship. This is why the principle of Proportionality is essential in the judge's review of the requirements arising from this so powerful branch of Law.  The courts are thus faced with a new type of dispute, of a systemic nature, in their own area, which must not be distorted: the Area of Justice. - 📝read article (in French) - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’émergence du Contentieux Systémique" ("Emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), in Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-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), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Masse - 🧮see the full programme of this event - 🧮see the programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent - consult on LinkedIn the report of this speech (in French) - consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech (in French) - 🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made - 🔲see the slides used to support this intervention (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this speech - ► English Summary of the conference: We are seeing the emergence of what should be referred to as a category of its own: the "Systemic Litigation". This concept, proposed in 2021📎¹🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧The hypothesis of Systemic Cases brought before the Judge, 2021., refers to the hypothesis in which a system is 'involved' in a particular 'case' submitted to the judge. The presence of a system should not be confused with a systemic analysis of a phenomenon. The term 'cause' must be understood in the procedural sense, as used in article 5 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Specifically, the prohibition contained in article 5 of the French Civil Code does not apply because a system thus involved calls for factual responses and solutions and not necessarily general and abstract solutions: the solution of a systemic nature and scope, that the presence of a system in a cause calls for, may be a factual solution, even if it radiates out from the system as a whole. But precisely because the presence of a system in the case often gives rise to a question that is itself systemic, the judge, if he wishes to comply with article 4 of the French Civil Code, must respond not only a minima by not evading the question, for example of systemic risks, but also fully by providing systemic solutions, for example remedies to preserve in the future the solidity and durability of the systems involved in the case.    These systems may be of different kinds: banking, financial, transport, health, energy, digital, algorithmic or climatic. Their presence in cases brought to the attention of judges, the variety and difficulties of which will be seen in later contributions, leads to basic questions relating to the emergence of Systemic Litigation: firstly, how can Systemic Litigation be defined? Secondly, what makes this category of litigation emerge? The answers to these two questions have essential practical consequences.  The new solutions must be based on a classic distinction, used in particular in criminal and administrative proceedings, which are more objective, but also in civil proceedings, notably by Hébraud, namely the distinction between the "party to the dispute/litigation" and the "party to the proceedings". Depending on whether it is accepted that the system should be considered as a "party to the litigation", which would allow it, through an entity that is legitimate in expressing it, to allege claims and formulate demands against an adversary, or as a "party to the proceedings", a much broader category, which would allow the judge to hear the interests of the systems involved without individuals being able, on behalf of a system, to formulate claims against or for the benefit of a party to the litigation.     This makes it possible to innovate while preserving the measure of which the judge is the guardian.   - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference: F. Ancel &  M.-A. Frison-Roche, Droit de la compliance (Compliance Law), École nationale de la magistrature – ENM (French National School for the Judiciary), in collaboration with the École de Formation professionnelle des Barreaux du ressort de la cour d'appel de Paris – EFB (Paris Bar School), Paris, February 1 and 2, 2024 This teaching is given in French. - consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech - ► Presentation of the Teaching: The aim of this two-day conference is to enable judges and lawyers to grasp the issues, objectives and methods that define Compliance Law as it is practised in companies. The speakers will illustrate the growing trend towards litigation, which is difficult to reconcile with the supranational dimension, or even indifference to territories, for example when disputes concern systemic climate or digital issues: the result is a renewal of the role of the judge and the role of lawyers. This must be set against the renewal of the role and operation of companies themselves. This is analysed from the perspective of Civil Law, in particular Contract Law and Liability Law. Company Law and Criminal Law are also addressed, as well as the way in which the legal system now integrates governance, regulation, climate and digital issues and the smooth operation of financial markets through Compliance techniques. - ► Organisation of the Teaching: This conference is divided into two parts. The first day is designed as a presentation of the major themes through which Compliance Law crosses the branches of traditional Law. The speakers will be professors of Law who will successively summarise the branches of Law and put into perspective the way in which Compliance imperatives give rise to new situations, new difficulties and new solutions. This enables the second day to focus on practical and topical issues and to debate controversial questions between people of different sensibilities. The participants tend to be judges, members of regulatory authorities, lawyers, members of associations and so on. - ► Enrolment procedure: The course is open to all judicial and consular magistrates, as well as lawyers. Registrations can be made directly with the ENM or with the EFB. - ► Speakers :   🎤François Ancel, Judge at the Première Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (First Civil Chamber of the French Court of cassation)  🎤Thomas Baudesson, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Clifford Chance 🎤Guillaume Beaussonie, Full Professor at Toulouse 1 Capitole University 🎤Jacques Boulard, Premier Président de la Cour d’appel de Paris (First President of the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤Marie Caffin-Moi, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤Malik Chapuis, Judge at the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris First Instance Civil Court) 🎤Lucie Chatelain, Advocacy and Litigation Manager – Civil Liability of Parent Companies, Sherpa 🎤Jean-Benoît Devauges, Directeur Juridique, Ethique et Gouvernance des entreprises (Legal, Ethics and enterprises governance Director), MEDEF 🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🎤Arnaud Gossement, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Gossement Avocats 🎤Thibault Goujon-Bethan, Full Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Christophe Ingrain, Attorney at the Paris Bar, Partner at Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier 🎤Isabelle Jegouzo, Director of the Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anti-Corruption Agency)  🎤Anne-Valérie Le Fur, Full Professor at Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University 🎤Charlotte Michon, Attorney at the Paris Bar, partner at Charlotte Michon Avocat 🎤Jean-Baptiste Racine, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University 🎤 Jean-Christophe Roda, Full Professor at Jean-Moulin Lyon 3 University 🎤Jérôme Simon, 1er Vice-Procureur Financier (First Financial Vice-Prosecutor) - 🧮read below the programme put together and organised by François Ancel and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, as well as the reports of each presentation⤵️ - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law