Food for thoughts

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance and conformity: distinguishing them to articulate them, Working Paper, February 2024.

____

📝 this working paper was drawn up to serve as a basis for the article published in French in the Chronique MAFR -  Compliance Law, published in the Recueil Dalloz.  

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The words "conformité" and "compliance" are sometimes used interchangeably, presenting "conformité" as the translation into good legal French vocabulary of "compliance", which would come from the American system. This is not true, however, because each of these terms refers to two distinct and even opposing concepts. 

"conformity"' would require companies to show that they are actively obeying all the 'regulations' applicable to them, regardless of their content. "Compliance Law" is a new substantial branch of Law that derives its normativity from the "Monumental Goals" targeted by the political and public authorities: these monumental goals are intended to ensure that systems do not collapse in the future (Negative Monumental Goals), or even improve (Positive Monumental Goals). The systems concerned are banking, finance, energy, health, transport, digital and climate systems. The scope of Compliance Law is therefore both much more limited and more ambitious.

Distinguishing between the two allows us to put conformity back where it belongs, as a tool of Compliance Law. As such, conformity justifies the collation and correlation of information, with the algorithmic system playing a major role in this. On the other hand, the human concern that underpins Compliance Law justifies making training and the actions of in-house lawyers, attorneys and judges, central to it. The evidentiary system of Compliance that is currently being developed is based on evidentiary techniques rooted on the one hand in the tool of conformity and on the other in the culture of Compliance, which can be articulated as soon as they are no longer confused.

____

🔓read the working paper below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Main Aspects of the Book. Compliance Jurisdictionalisation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 11-38

____

📝This article constitutes the first part of the Introduction of the book; its access is free

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : This free access article ⤵️ explains firstly the general purpose of the book and secondly how the book is structured in 4 chapters.

Then, thirdly and following the table of contents, this article takes up in a few lines each of the contributions.

This is how the "main aspects" of the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation become even clearer

____

🔓read this article in full text⤵️

________

► Full Reference: D. Latour, "Internal investigations within companies", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation,  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 184-201

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (): 

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: Ch. Lapp, "Compliance in Companies: The Statutes of the Process", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie,  2024, pp. 155-166 

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Jan-Marc Coulon, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Jean-Marc Coulon's  Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law ).

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Author): The Company is caught in the grip of Compliance Law, the jaws of which are those of Incitement (1) and Sanction that the Company must apply to ensure the effectiveness of its processes to which it is itself subject (2 ).

First, the Company has been delegated to fabricate reprehensible rules that it must apply to itself and to third parties with whom it has dealings. To this end, the Company sets up "processes", that is to say verification and prevention procedures, in order to show that the offenses that it is likely to commit will not happened.

These processes constitute standards of behavior to prevent and avoid that the facts constituting the infringements are not themselves carried out. They are thus one of the elements of Civil Liability Law in its preventive or restorative purposes.

Second, the sanction of non obedience of Compliance processes puts the Company in front of two pitfalls. The first  dimension place the company, with regard to its employees and its partners, in the obligation to define processes which also constitute the quasi-jurisdictional resolution of their non-compliance, the company having to reconcile the sanction it pronounces with the fundamental principles of classical Criminal Law, constitutional principles and all fundamental rights. The processes then become the procedural rule.

The second dimension is that the Company is accountable for the effectiveness of the avoidance by its processes of facts constituting infringements. By a reversal of the burden of proof, the Company is then required to prove that its processes are efficient. at least equivalent to the measures defined by laws and regulations, the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA), European directives and various communications on legal tools to fight breaches of probity, environmental attacks and current societal concerns. The processes then become the constitutive element, per se, of the infringement.

Thus, in its search for a balance between Prevention and Sanction to which it is itself subject, the Company will not then be tempted to favor the orthodoxy of its processes over the expectations of the Agence Française Anticorruption - AFA , regulators and judges, to the detriment of their efficiency?

In doing so, are we not moving towards an instrumental and conformist Compliance, paradoxically disempowering with regard to the Compliance Monumental Goals of Compliance?

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: A. Bruneau, "The company judges itself: the Compliance function in the bank", in M.A. Frison-Roche, (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 127-145

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article: First, it should be remembered that the compliance function was born within finance, and that by being structured, it has evolved to support the transition from regulatory law to compliance law. Through these changes, compliance has gone from an ex-post controlling function to an ex-ante binding function. The LIBOR crisis imperfectly illustrates the primacy of this transition. The evolution of this role is illustrated by concrete examples. Firstly, the management of reputational risk is a fundamental part of the company as prosecutor and judge of itself. Reputational risk is a significant element for a financial institution, because it can have negative consequences on its capitalization, or even culminate in a systemic crisis. Avoiding a large-scale financial crisis is also part of the monumental goals of compliance.

In order to avoid complex and inopportune scenarios, compliance law intervenes as early as possible and identifies issues that may impact reputation. The regulations require the implementation of certain ex ante mechanisms. The French law known as "Sapin 2" requires the implementation of tools that concern all companies (and not just banks). Indeed, beyond the risk of reputation, it is essential to consider the risk of corruption. Consideration of reputational risk may justify refusing to execute certain transactions. From this perspective, compliance must assess the potential consequences of entering into a relationship with a new client upstream, sometimes to decline the provision of services. The compliance function therefore unilaterally judges the relationship with a view to managing the company reputational risk.

Secondly, the internal sanction mechanism established by compliance law is also discussed in this article, in particular the internal sanctions adopted by compliance in a financial institution.

Compliance can act as a prosecutor via management committees set up within the business lines. In addition, compliance can determine and apply sanctions against employees. In this way, there is a dual role of prosecutor and judge for the compliance function within the framework of an extraordinary mechanism of ordinary law.

Finally, the analysis deals with the case of the "judge-judged": following a decision by the bank, the regulator may take an even stricter position by believing that the bank is applying its guidelines incorrectly. Thus, the compliance law, which takes hold within the banking enterprise, finds itself under the judgment of its own regulator. The company finds itself judged and comes to be a prosecutor and judge of itself, but also of its clients.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: S. Merabet, "Vigilance, being a judge and not judge", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 218-228

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article:

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: J.-M. Coulon, "Compliance Law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and deadlocks that companies face", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 148-154 

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Christophe Lapp, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Christophe Lapp's Article).

In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law).

____

► Summary of the article (done by the author): The construction industry is not a regulated sector. Its market is made up of a superposition of territorial strata which are all relevant markets, to which corresponds a specific microcosm of companies. Finally, the temporary association between companies for the purposes of carrying out a project or a work is consubstantial with this sector.

The penetration of Compliance in this sector is inevitably very heterogeneous and results from both exogenous factors (other partners within temporary associations, influence of economic operators from other sectors of activity, capital providers and lender, incitations from professional organizations ) the endogenous (submission to a Financial Regulatory Authority because the company is listed ; application of the laws on duty of vigilance, and French Law called "Sapin 2"). For example, subject to all these factors combined, the Bouygues group is particularly sensitive to compliance.

Not only internal "legislator", the Bouygues group finds itself in turn "prosecutor and judge" both of itself and of others. Indeed, leading an investigation, filing a complaint, triggering an ethics alert, making use of the leniency program, this group is, however, no other than a sort of assistant for the Prosecutor. In addition, scrutinizing its stakeholders, sanctioning its employees, resorting to a Convention Judiciaire d'intérêt public (judicial agreement in the public interest) or negotiating its sanction within the framework of a procedure instituted by a multilateral bank, it fulfills the function of a judge. Legislator, prosecutor, judge, the Bouygues group is faced with a paradox, in a way encouraged to exercise “sovereignty”, yet it does not benefit from the attributes attached to it or from the unwavering support of the competent Public Authorities.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the Nature of things", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 273-28. 

____

📝read the article

____

🚧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, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

The principal elements of this articles had been presented during the scientific manifestation held on September 23, 2021, at Dauphine University in Paris, coorganised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institute Droit Dauphine. 

In the book this article is placed in the chapter II about the General Procedural Law in the Compliance Law.  

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of regulation & Compliance - JoRC): General Procedural Law is an invention, essentially due to Professor Motulsky, going well beyond the gain that one always has in comparing types of procedures with each other. As he asserted, there is Natural Law in General Procedural Law, in that as soon as there is the Rule of Law Principle there cannot be, whatever the "procedure", even the "process", such and such way of doing things: for example, to decide, to seize the one who decides, to listen before deciding, to contest the one who has decided.

General Procedural Law therefore depends on the nature of things. However, Compliance Law organizes things in a new way. Therefore, both the simple and iron principles of General Procedural Law creep in where we do not expect them at first sight, because there is no judge, this character around whom ordinary procedures fit together. The principles of General Procedural Law are essential in companies. Even if the regulations do not breathe a word about it, it is up to the Judges, in particular the Supreme Courts, to recognize this nature of things because on this effect of nature that  General Procedural Law is built: when compliance mechanisms oblige companies to strike, General Procedural law must oblige, even in the silence of the texts, to arm those who can be hit, even stand up against devices that would set aside too much these defenses that are easily considered contrary to efficiency (I).

But because it is a question of making room for this nature of the things of which the Rule of Law Principle entrusts the custody to the Judge and the Lawyer, the General Procedural Law must also adjust itself to what the extraordinary new branch of Law Compliance Law is. Indeed, Compliance Law is extraordinary in that it expresses the political pretention to act now so that the future will not be catastrophic, by detecting and preventing the realization of systemic risks, or even that it is better, by building effective equality or real concern for others. Because it is the Monumental Goals that defines this new branch of Law, a disputed systemic issue, possibly disputed by several parties before a judge, the procedural principles used by the court must be broadened considerably: they must then include civil society and the future (II).

General Procedural Law thus naturally acquires an even more place than in the classic branches of Law since on the one hand it imposes itself outside of trials, particularly in companies and on the other before the courts it involves people who had hardly any place to speak and thinks themselves, especially the systems entering the "causes" of Compliance now debated before the Judge.

________

► Full Reference: C. Granier, "Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 95-107

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done par the author): Because Compliance shakes up established frameworks, Compliance forces to look at certain concepts in a new light, which until then seemed to be well tamed. This is particularly the case with the notion of "Jurisprudence". Recent developments in Compliance indeed raise questions about the possible existence of "jurisprudence" (case law) that would be produced by companies during the implementation of compliance procedures.

At first glance, the concept of "business jurisprudence" may appear unnatural because case law is traditionally understood as the fruit of the office of the Judge and, more particularly, of the State Judge. However, the observation that the company can position itself as a Judge with regard to itself and others in the context of the implementation of Compliance legitimately raises the question of the possibility for the latter. to produce case law. The example of Facebook's supervisory board and the first decisions rendered by this body increases the legitimacy of this crucial question.

Thinking about the concept of "Jurisprudence of companies" implies to compare the process of emergence of the case law standard emanating from the Judge with the process of emergence of a "Jurisprudence" that would be produced by companies during their "jurisdictional functions". On the material level, an analogy between State case law and company case law seems conceivable. It then remains to overcome an obstacle of an organic nature: can an institution other than the judge be understood as producing case law?

In view of contemporary developments in Law and the practical interest that exists in designing business case law, it seems appropriate to adopt a broader view of case law, which is detached from the traditional organic criterion. It therefore seems that it is possible but above all that it is necessary to think about the concept of "business case law" in order to highlight a new facet of the normative power of companies in the context of compliance, in particular with a view to its supervision.

____ 

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Full Reference: J. Heymann, "The Legal Nature of the Facebook “Supreme Court”", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 167-182

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done par the Author): Taking place in the general theme aiming at making “words and things coincide”, the article offers some thoughts on the “conditions of the discourse” – in the sense in which Foucault understood it in his Archéologie des sciences humaines – relating to the phenomenon of “jurisdictionalization” of Compliance.

The thoughts are more specifically focusing on the nature of the so-called “Supreme Court” that Facebook instituted to hear appeals of decisions relating to content on the digital social networks that are Facebook and Instagram. Is this really a “Supreme Court”, designed in order to “judge” the Facebook Group?

A careful examination of the Oversight Board – i.e. the so-called “Supreme Court” created by Facebook – reveals that the latter, in addition to its advisory mission (which consists of issuing policy advisory opinions on Facebook’s content policies), exercises some form of adjudicative function. This is essentially conceived in terms of compliance assessment, of the content published on the social networks Facebook or Instagram with the standards issued by these corporations on the one hand, of content enforcement decisions taken by Facebook with the Law on the other hand. The legal framework of reference is yet rather vague, although its substantial content seems to be per se evolutive, based on the geographical realm where the case to be reviewed is located. An adjudicative function can therefore be characterized, even if the Oversight Board can only claim for a limited one.

The author can ultimately identify the Oversight Board as a preventive dispute settlement body, in the sense that it seems to aim at avoiding any referral to state courts and ruling before any court’s judgement can be delivered. Some questions are thus to be raised, relating with both legitimacy and authority of such a Board. But whatever the answers will be, the fact remains that the creation of the Oversight Board by a private law company already reveals all the liveliness of contemporary legal pluralism.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

_________

► Full Reference: A. Bavitot, "Shaping the Company through Negotiated Criminal Justice Agreements. French Perspective", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 203-215

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the author): Negotiated justice is "the situation in which the criminal conflict is the object of a trade in the etymological sense of the term negotio, i.e. a debate between the parties to reach an agreement".

Thus, the French legislator has succumbed to globalized mimicry by creating the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public (Public Interest Judicial Agreement), first in matters of probity and then in environmental matters. What is the nature of this deal of justice? Validated by a judge's order, it does not entail any declaration of guilt, has neither the nature nor the effects of a judgment of conviction and is not registered in the judicial record. Possible at the investigation stage as well as at the pre-trial stage, the Public Interest Judicial Agreement is original in that it makes it possible to avoid either the prosecutor's proceedings or the judge's wrath.

A detailed study of the agreements signed shows that in order to negotiate in the best possible way, the company can and must shape itself. The company will shape the facts of its agreement, shape its charge and, finally, shape its sentence. The article offers a concrete analysis of these three dimensions of corporate shaping to better approach understanding the legal nature of negotiated criminal justice agreements.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Référence complète : C. Prieto, "Les autorités administratives indépendantes et les sources du droit des affaires : l’exemple de l’Autorité de la concurrence", JCP E, n° 7-8, 15 février 2024, étude 1050, pp. 24-34

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteure) : "Les autorités administratives indépendantes ont-elles leur place dans les sources du droit des affaires ? À partir de l’exemple de l’Autorité de la concurrence, une réponse est apportée à la lumière des avancées du Conseil d’État et de la Cour de cassation.".

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Full Reference: L.-M. Augagneur, "The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp.109-125 

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published

____

► Summary of the article (done by the Author): The large platforms are in the position of arbiter of the reputation economy (referencing, notoriety) in which they themselves act. Although the stakes are usually low on a unit basis, the jurisdiction of reputation represents significant aggregate stakes. Platforms are thus led to detect and assess reputation manipulations (by users: SEO, fake reviews, fake followers; or by the platforms themselves as highlighted by the Google Shopping decision issued by the European Commission in 2017) that are implemented on a large scale with algorithmic tools.

The identification and treatment of manipulations is itself only possible by means of artificial intelligence tools. Google thus proceeds with an automated downgrading mechanism for sites that do not follow its guidelines, with the possibility of requesting a review through a very summary procedure entirely conducted by an algorithm. Tripadvisor, on the other hand, uses an algorithm to detect false reviews based on "fraud modeling to identify electronic patterns that cannot be detected by the human eye". It only conducts a human investigation in limited cases.

This jurisdictionality of reputation has little in common with that defined by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (legal origin, contradictory procedure, independence, application of the Rules of Law). It is characterized, on the one hand, by the absence of transparency of the rules and even of the existence of rules stated in predicative form and applied by deductive reasoning. It is replaced by an inductive probabilistic model by the identification of abnormal behaviors in relation to centroids. This approach of course raises the issue of statistical bias. More fundamentally, it reflects a transition from Rule of Law, not so much to "Code is Law" (Laurence Lessig), but to "Data is Law", that is, to a governance of numbers (rather than "by" numbers). It also comes back to a form of collective jurisdictionality, since the sanction comes from a computational apprehension of the phenomena of the multitude and not from an individual appreciation. Finally, it appears particularly consubstantial with compliance, since it is based on a teleological approach (the search for a finality rather than the application of principles).

On the other hand, this jurisdictionality is characterized by man-machine cooperation, whether in the decision-making process (which poses the problem of automaticity bias) or in the contradictory procedure (which poses, in particular, the problems of discussion with the machine and the explicability of the machine response).

Until now, the supervision of these processes has been based essentially on the mechanisms of transparency, a limited adversarial requirement and the accessibility of appeal channels. The French Law Loi pour une République Numérique ("Law  for a Digital Republic"), the European Legislation Platform-to-Business Regulation and the Omnibus Directive, have thus set requirements on the ranking criteria on platforms. The Omnibus Directive also requires that professionals guarantee that reviews come from consumers through reasonable and proportionate measures. As for the European Digital Services Act, it provides for transparency on content moderation rules, procedures and algorithms. But this transparency is often a sham. In the same way and for the moment the requirements of sufficient human intervention and adversarial processes appear very limited in the draft text.

The most efficient forms of this jurisdictionality ultimately emerge from the role played by third parties in a form of participatory dispute resolution. Thus, for example, FakeSpot detects false Tripadvisor reviews, Sistrix establishes a ranking index that helped establish the manipulation of Google's algorithm in the Google Shopping case by detecting artifacts based on algorithm changes. Moreover, the draft Digital Services Act envisages recognizing a specific status for trusted flaggers who identify illegal content on platforms.

This singular jurisdictional configuration (judge and party platform, massive situations, algorithmic systems for handling manipulations) thus leads us to reconsider the grammar of the jurisdictional process and its characteristics. If Law is a language (Alain Sériaux), it offers a new grammatical form that would be that of the middle way (mesotès) described by Benevéniste. Between the active and the passive way, there is a way in which the subject carries out an action in which he includes himself. Now, it is the very nature of this jurisdictionality of compliance to make laws by including oneself in them (nomos tithestai). In this respect, the irruption of artificial intelligence in this jurisdictional treatment undoubtedly bears witness to the renewal of the language of Law.

____

🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses

________

► Référence complète : C. Boyer-Capelle & E. Chevalier (dir.), Contentieux stratégiques. Quelle place du juge dans la cité?, LexisNexis, 2024, 160 p.

____

📗lire la 4ième de couverture

____

📗lire le sommaire de l'ouvrage

____

📗lire la table des matières de l'ouvrage

____

► Résumé de l'ouvrage (fait par l'éditeur) : "Les actes issus du colloque organisé à Limoges en mars 2023 s'inscrivent dans un travail d'analyse et de recherche initié en 2020 sur l'évolution de la Justice et de ses représentations lorsque le juge est saisi d'un contentieux stratégique.

Les enjeux du litige se situent alors en réalité moins sur le plan du droit que sur celui de valeurs, la Justice apparaissant aux yeux des requérants comme un instrument au service d'une cause. Mais cette approche objectivée du recours rend sans doute imparfaitement compte des représentations sociales à l'oeuvre dans ces contentieux : croyance en l'indépendance de la Justice, en son autorité, force évocatrice du droit et du langage juridique, recherche de légitimation de la cause défendue, etc.

Les espoirs placés par les requérants peuvent toutefois se heurter aux contraintes procédurales attachées aux différents types d'actions contentieuses et aux limites attachées à l'office du juge. Le questionnement rejoint ici celui de l'efficacité du contentieux stratégique et suppose d'identifier quels sont les attentes initiales des requérants, les résultats attendus mais également les réponses que le juge est en droit de donner. Ces tentatives plus ou moins explicites invitant le juge à se saisir de questions de société interrogent la place et le rôle qu'il estime devoir être les siens et les potentielles résistances qu'il peut opposer à cette utilisation stratégique du recours".

________

► Référence complète : Cass. Com., 14 février 2024, n° 22-10.472, Bloomberg

____

🏛️lire la décision

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech 

____

🏗️This symposium takes place in the cycle of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners Universities, focusing in 2023-2024 on the general theme of the Compliance Obligation

____

📚The works will then be inserted in the books: 

📕L'obligation de Compliance, to be published in the 📚Régulations & Compliance Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, published in French.

📘Compliance Obligation, to be published on the 📚Compliance & Regulation Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, published in English.

____

► General presentation of the symposium: "Compliance Obligation" appears to be far from International Arbitration if Compliance Law is only understood in terms of binding regulations or even Criminal Law. Arbitration would only have contact with Compliance Obligation in a repulsive way, when a person claims to have enforced a contract before an arbitration court that disregards a compliance prohibition, e.g. corruption or money laundering. It is therefore from a negative angle that the cross-over has taken place.

The fact that Arbitration Law respects the requisite of Criminal Law is nothing new.  Moreover, the power of Compliance in its detection and prevention tools, particularly in terms of evidence, no doubt increases the global efficiency.

But Compliance Obligation is based on Monumental Goals, notably linked to global human rights and active ambitions about environment and climate which, particularly in the value chain economy, take the legal form of compliance clauses, or even compliance contracts, or various commitments and plans, which the parties can ask the international arbitrator to enforce. They will do so even more as arbitrators are often the only international, or even global, judges available.

The use they will do of Contract Law, Quasi-Contract Law, Enforcement Law, Tort Law, reinforces Compliance Law in a global dimension.

____

____

► Interviennent : 

____

🧮Read a detailed presentation of the event below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

📝This conference and the Working Paper on which it is based are to be linked with the article to be published in the book📘Compliance Obligation 

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), given at the same symposium

____

► Presentation of the conference: It was initially planned that I would speak on the subject Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international (Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration), but it was agreed with the other organisers of the symposium that after defining the concept of the Compliance Obligation📎!footnote-3390 I would refocus my second speech, mentioned above, on what a Commitment is📎!footnote-3391, an essential prerequisite for dealing with the subject of International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation. Developments on Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration will appear in the forthcoming books: L'obligation de Compliance (in French), Compliance Obligation (in English). Nevertheless, if I had dealt with this subject, I would have raised the following points:

• The inclusion of an offer of arbitration in the field of Compliance implies considering it in a contract as well as in a non-contractual commitment, and studying which category of Compliance Obligation the offer may apply to.
• This insertion benefits from taking the form of a "graduated offer", in a crescendo organised by the company ex ante and offered to the stakeholders: conciliation, mediation and arbitration, in "circles of trust"📎!footnote-3387. This is supported by the current French amicable settlement policy.
• The result was that I had to prepare a long "preliminary" discussion of what a "commitment" is, without which it seemed difficult to talk in concrete terms about the effective insertion of an offer of arbitration if we did not know whether such links or words had a constraining effect on the person issuing them in relation to the person benefiting from them. After discussions with the other speakers, it became clear that it would be more effective to give a talk devoted solely to the question of the legal definition of commitment. We therefore decided to allocate this second speaking slot to the notion of commitment. Since the written words do not have the same constraints, it will take up the initial construction, insisting on the different supports, either compliance contracts, or associations with compliance clauses, relating to different Compliance obligations, in particular on information or audit or Vigilance📎!footnote-3388, because the company must have the legal power corresponding to the mission that the State entrusts to it through Compliance📎!footnote-3389.
• The offer must be carefully drafted to explain its purpose, and its organisation must prove the reality of this purpose: to give access to a judge to people affected by the company's activity, and not to block it.
• This will therefore be available in detail in the forthcoming books:
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L'obligation de Compliance
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Préalable : ce qu'est l'obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: the Compliance Obligation"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration") which was finally not pronounced but will be the subject of an 📝article in the forthcoming book 📘Compliance Obligation 

____

► Presentation of the conference: I have first dealt with the very definition of the Compliance Obligation.

After showing that the relationship between Compliance Law and International Arbitration will naturally develop, because the companies subject to it are international, because they contractualise their legal Compliance obligations and because Compliance is being jurisdictionalised📎!footnote-3379, the arbitrator being the natural judge since he is a global judge and the judge of the contract, I pointed out that Compliance Law does not simply entrust arbitration with the task of preventing evils, such as corruption pacts, but that it creates positive obligations for companies: to detect and prevent behaviour whose systemic effect is deleterious.

This culture of compliance is achieved either through compliance contracts📎!footnote-3380 (which outsource the handling of audits, alerts, the drawing up of plans, etc.), or through compliance clauses📎!footnote-3380, which are inserted into distribution or supply contracts, etc.; arbitration clauses are linked to these. Thus, the alliance between Compliance and Contract is an indirect mode of alliance between Arbitration and Compliance Obligation.

The obligation of Compliance which then takes concrete form consists for the company not in making effective Ex Ante all the regulations which apply to it (conception of conformity which is at once unreasonable, blind and impossible), but in making its best efforts, which it must make visible (see Compliance Evidence System📎!footnote-3381) to achieve Monumental Goals.

These Monumental Goals are systemic. The aim is to protect systems from collapse (Negative Monumental Goals) or to make them better (Positive Monumental Goals)📎!footnote-3382. By making companies accountable, via this Ex Ante Law whose object is the future, the systemic evils of corruption, money laundering, discrimination, climate change and hatred are combated, thus finding substantial unity. The Positive Monumental Goals aim to engender sustainability, security, respect for human beings, etc. in systems, be they banking, financial, digital, climatic, etc.

The role of the Judge, and therefore also that of the Arbitrator, is renewed.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration") which was finally not pronounced but will be the subject of an 📝article in the forthcoming book 📘Compliance Obligation 

____

► Presentation of the conference: Having defined the Compliance Obligation in "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), I set out to define what a commitment is.

No one doubts that commitments, as words, constitute facts that can engage the liability of companies if there are inconsistencies or lies. The question today is whether a commitment can constitute a legal act, binding in ex ante.

Companies make commitments either to fulfil their legal Compliance obligations, which is simply obeying the law, or to express their own wishes, either for themselves or for others. The cases are often confused, even though the scope is not the same.

If the commitment takes the form of a contract, Compliance is concerned if the contract is used as an Ex Ante Compliance Tool📎!footnote-3383, either if the entire contract has this purpose, or if a compliance clause is inserted, and an arbitration clause may be linked to it.

The commitment, a concept that comes more from the Economics of Regulation, was conceived between a Regulatory Authority and a Company: it is the unilateral decision of the Authority that gives legal force to the commitment. Case law confirms this (Conseil d'État (French Council of State)📎!footnote-3384 and Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council)📎!footnote-3385) and this is particularly clear in Competition Law, but it is also true of the convention judiciaire d'intérêt public - CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement).

If commitment is central to Compliance, particularly Vigilance, it is because Compliance Law is an extension of Regulatory Law📎!footnote-3386. The company is forcibly instituted by the Compliance regulator, particularly in value chains, or on digital spaces (DSA).

In drawing up a plan, the company is fulfilling its legal obligation. But if we were to consider that it is a commitment, then we would also have to consider that the plan is the result of its will, that it must consult the stakeholders in its preparation, but that the source of the plan is its will: the provisions are not stipulations, are not applications of the law, but unilateral voluntary provisions.

In this respect, and because its source is the will of the company (which does not prevent its co-construction), a plan could contain a "graduated offer" of arbitration.

This offer could be included in commitments that are less regulated by law, such as those made in the context of CSR.

________

► Référence complète : I. Grossi, "Du nouveau sur les contours du devoir de vigilance", La lettre juridique, n° 973, 8 février 2024

____

► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : "Le tribunal judiciaire de Paris a eu l’occasion de se prononcer pour la première fois, au fond, dans un jugement didactique et équilibré, en matière de plan de vigilance. Selon lui, le plan de vigilance de la société La Poste doit être complété par des mesures concrètes, adéquates et efficaces en cohérence avec la cartographie des risques. Le tribunal ne va cependant pas jusqu’à décider à sa place de la mesure la plus appropriée.".

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Full Reference: A. Mignon Colombet, "Pour une justice négociée plus équitable" ("for fairer negotiated justice"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche& M. Boissavy (ed.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC ("Compliance and due process - internal investigations and DPA"), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", to be published.

____

► English Summary of this article (written in French): The contribution highlights both the criticisms levelled at the French legal mechanisms of the Judicial agremeemt of public interest (CJIP) and the guilty plea agreement (CRPC) in the name of the rights of the defence and the advantages offered by these new tools in the French legal system, which have been validated by the courts that are the guardians of fundamental rights and whose adoption is spreading. Their functioning should therefore be improved.

The author believes that the risk of disregarding the right to a fair trial arises rather from the misuse of these procedurse for purposes other than those for which they exist. What must be prevented is not the exchange of a non-prosecution or the negotiation of an agreement in exchange for revelations but, which is a misuse, a prejudgement of a person who did not participate in drawing up the agreement. This often happens, particularly in the case of individuals, and it violates the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence, as well as being unfair. To remedy this, the fate of legal entities and natural persons should be more closely linked, and French Law should borrow from British Law, which involves the judge in the agreement mechanisms at an early stage to ensure that his control is effective.

____

📕read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published

________

► Référence complète : Th. Baudesson, "L'évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l'introduction de la CJIP", in M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, sous presse.

____

📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de la contribution (résumé fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance - JoRC) : L''auteur estime que la CJIP, évolution la plus marquante de la procédure pénale, fait  dialoguer le Barreau et les autorités de poursuite, qui passent d'une logique de confrontation à la coopération. Il s'agit d'une relation d'un type nouveau. Le Procureur concerné est avant tout le PNF qui bénéficie d'une expertise en la matière qu'il diffuse par sa soft law et apporte plus de sécurité aux entreprises. 

Il illustre ses propos notamment par la CJIP dite Airbus dans laquelle il y eut confrontation avec les pratiques anglaises et américaines dans des "enquêtes de coopérations" qui requièrent une confiance réciproque.  Mais il reconnaît les progrès qui restent à faire, aussi bien du côté des avocats qui en France semblent demeurer comme par principe en opposition aux magistrats et peu sensibles à ce qui pourrait être leur rôle dans la recherche de la vérité, que du côté des magistrats qui semblent percevoir les avocats comme des sortes de "mercenaires" dont il faudrait par principe se méfier. C'est pour cela que dans leur guide sur les enquêtes internes l'AFA et le PNF demandent que l'avocat qui mène l'enquête et celui qui assure la défense pénale de l'entreprise ne puisse pas  être le même, ce que l'auteur explique par cette défiance, présumant des enquêtes de complaisance, suspicion de principe que l'auteur regrette. De la même façon, le refus des magistrats de reconnaître le secret professionnel couvrant le rapport d'enquête paraît à l'auteur archaïque par rapport aux conceptions anglo-saxonnes, car le DOJ comme le SFO admettent aisément le legal privilege attaché à ce rapport. De ce fait, la France ne serait pas au même niveau d'État de Droit que les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni. 

L'auteur en conclut que des progrès restent donc à faire pour que la France achève son évolution pour devenir pleinement attractive pour que des entreprises qui, confrontées à des pratiques répréhensibles, soient effectivement menées à entreprendre une démarche d'auto-révélation.

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

► Référence complète : Autorité de la concurrence (ADLC), décision n° 24-D-02 du 6 février 2024 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la distribution de chocolats

____

🏛️lire la décision

________

► Référence complète : Ch. Lapp, "L’usage par les entreprises des outils de la compliance (d’une façon non-mécanique)", entretien mené par M.-A. Frison-Roche à l'occasion d'une série d'entretiens sur le Droit de la Compliance, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion, émission de J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, enregistré le 12 décembre 2023, diffusé le 3 février 2024

____

🌐consulter sur LinkedIn la présentation de l'interview de Christophe Lapp

____

🌐consulter sur LinkedIn le compte-rendu de l'interview de Christophe Lapp  

____

🎥visionner l'interview complète sur Xerfi Canal

____

► Point de départ : En 2023 Christophe Lapp écrit une contribution sur 📝La compliance dans l'entreprise : les statuts du process, dans 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.

🧱lire la présentation de cette contribution ➡️cliquerICI

____

► Résumé de l'entretien : 

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. Question : Dans votre article vous affirmez qu’« il faut dépasser la conformité pour aller vers la Compliance », pouvez-vous nous en dire plus ?

Christophe Lapp. Réponse : Il répond que

____
 

MaFR. Q. : On dit souvent que la Compliance est perçue comme une perte de compétitivité. Quel est votre point de vue de praticien international ?

Ch.L. R. : Il répond que

____

MaFR. Q : Certaines entreprises s’interrogent sur l’over compliance ; que leur répondre ?

Ch.L. R.: Il répond que

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et Responsabilité civile : comprendre et raison garder" ("Compliance and Civil Liability: understanding and keeping our heads"), in 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, 2024.

____

► This conference is given in French.

____

🧮see the full programme of this event (in French)

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

📝This conference and the Working Paper on which it is based are to be linked with the article to be published in the book📘Compliance Obligation 

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Droit de la Compliance : tour d'horizon" ("Compliance Law: overview"), given at the same symposium

____

► Presentation of the conference : It is difficult, even artificial, to separate the presentation of the relationship between Compliance Law and Civil Liability from the consideration given in Compliance to Criminal Liability, sanctions and the whole contractual organisation. But, if only for reasons of time, this will be done.

The chosen method consists of using decisions handed down either under Compliance Law, an emerging branch of Law of which an overview has been given before📎!footnote-3362, or under Special Liability Laws, such as Company Law (but here too the field of analysis is huge), or under Ordinary Civil Liability Law. The latter is often the preferred approach.

It always seems that civil liability and Compliance Law are both intimate and have a difficult relationship. To understand them, before embarking on crusades in one direction or another, it is technically necessary to look at the liabilities attached to the application of "compliance regulations" imposed on economic operators, who contractualise the resulting legal obligations and whose third parties may also rely on breaches on the grounds of civil liability. This is the first stage of the analysis. Much is made of the Vigilance technique. Even if this is the advances point of Compliance, we also need to look at the GDPR, the French co-called "Sapin 2" law, Anti-Corruption, etc.

However, civil liability is not the same depending on whether the obligation, legal and/or contractual, in relation to which it arises as a cause of action, gives rise, depending on the case, the text and the person, to an obligation of means or an obligation of result. If there is one principle to bear in mind, particularly in the mind of the judge, it is that, unless a text or clause provides otherwise, an obligation is an obligation of means.

This essential question raises the need to better define the "Compliance Obligation", which consists of prevention and detection, with the economic operator making his "best efforts" with regard to the monumental goals to which the various regulations (thus finding their unity) are normatively anchored. The Ex Ante evidential dimension thus comes to the fore.

In the second part of the analysis, which continues to be based on court decisions, we need to measure the "points of contact" between these "special compliance responsibilities" and the Ordinary Law of Civil Liability. Indeed, because this is a profound movement that runs through the entire legal system, expressing a social demand that distinguishes Western law from the rest of the world, Ordinary Liability Law has long had a preventive dimension and targets operators in a different way, not only because of their power, but also because of their "mission". This is expressly stated in the case law, and these points of contact do not justify opposing the two branches. It would only be if Compliance Law were confused with its instrument, "conformity", and if new principles were invented in an Ordinary Law, that clashes could arise.

In the third stage of the analysis, which can be applied to the principles at stake today, it should be remembered that while there is no general Compliance Obligation under Ordinary Law, which implies detecting and preventing for oneself and for others any breach of any applicable regulation likely to harm others, there is a principle of freedom, as the Conseil constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council) regularly reminds us. Unless we change the legal system so that people become nothing more than subjects who obey all regulations and let it be seen that they do so, with the judge's role being limited to punishing them for not doing so. Indeed, the principle of freedom remains the foundation both of the Ordinary Civil Liability Law (and not of repression, as in Chinese Law) and of the Special Law of Compliance (and not of conformity, as in Chinese law).

In conclusion, it appears that the evolution of Civil Liability, in particular due to the spirit of a Compliance Law that is articulated with it, is leading to a twofold movement: from Ex Post liability to Ex Ante responsibility📎!footnote-3363, and from Liability to Accountability.

To accompany this movement, alliances are being forged and must be fostered, which brings Compliance Law face to face with Competition Law, alliances often forged by contract and for which the role of the judge is being renewed, particularly through mediation techniques.

________