Sont ici répertoriés les sujets proposés chaque année,

- soit au titre du travail à faire en parallèle du cours, à remettre à la fin du semestre (le jour de l'examen étant la date limite de remise),

- soit les sujets à traiter sur table, sans documentation extérieure et sous surveillance le jour de l'examen final. 

 

Retourner sur la description générale du Cours de Droit de la Compliance, comprenant notamment des fiches méthodologiques. 

 

 

Legally, the State is a public law subject defined by territory, people and institutions. It acts in the international space and emits norms. Politically, it has the legitimacy required to express the will of the social body and to exercise the violence of which it deprives the other subjects of law. It is often recognizable by its power: its use of public force, its budgetary power, its jurisdictional power. These three powers, declining or being challenged by private, international and more satisfying mechanisms, some predicted the disappearance of the State, to deplore it or to dance on its corpse.

With such a background, in current theories of Regulation, primarily constructed by economic thought and at first sight one might say that the State is above all the enemy. And this for two main reasons. The first is theoretical and of a negative nature. The advocates of the theory of regulation deny the State the political qualities set out above. The State would not be a "person" but rather a group of individuals, civil servants, elected officials and other concrete human beings, expressing nothing but their particular interests, coming into conflict with other interests, and using their powers to serve the former rather than the latter as everyone else. The Regulation theory, adjoining the theory of the agency, is then aimed at controlling public agents and elected representatives in whom there is no reason to trust a priori.

The second reason is practical and positive. The State would not be a "person" but an organization. Here we find the same perspective as for the concept of enterprise, which classical lawyers conceive as a person or a group of people, while economists who conceive of the world through the market represent it as an organization. The state as an organization should be "efficient" or even "optimal". It is then the pragmatic function of the Regulation Law. When it is governed by traditional law, entangled by that it would be an almost religious illusions of the general interest, or even the social contract, it is suboptimal. The Regulation purpose is about making it more effective.

To this end, as an organization, the State is divided into independent regulatory agencies or independent administrative authorities that manage the subjects as close as possible, which is fortunate in reducing the asymmetry of information and in reviving trust in a direct link. The unitary, distant and arrogant State is abandoned for a flexible and pragmatic conception of a strategic state (without capital ...) that would finally have understood that it is an organization like any other ...

Competition law adopts this conception of the State, which it posed from the beginning that it was an economic operator like any other. This is how this conception which would be  more "neutral" of the world is often presented.

Successive crises, whether sanitary or financial, have produced a pendulum effect.

Now, the notions of general interest or common goods are credited of an autonomous value, and the necessity of surpassing immediate interests and of finding persons to bear superior interests or to take charge of the interests of others, even a non-immediate one, emerged.

Thus, the State or the public authority, reappears in the globalization. The Compliance Law or the Corporal Social Responsibility of the crucial companies are converging towards a consideration of the State, which can not be reduced to a pure and simple organization receptacle of externalities.

 

Complete reference : Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD), Droit et économie, tome 37, ed. Sirey, 1992, 426 p. 

 

Read the table of contents.

Read the summaries of the articles in english. 

 

See the presentation of others volumes of Archives de Philosophie du Droit.

Competition is the law of the market. It allows the emergence of the exact price, which is often referred to as "fair price". It means and requires that agents on the market are both mobile, that is to say free to exercise their will, and atomized, that is to say, not grouped together. This is true for those who offer a good or service, the offerers, as well as for those seeking to acquire them, the applicants: the bidders seek to attract the applicants so that they buy them the goods and services that they propose.  Bidders are in competition with each other.

In the competitive market, buyers are indulging in their natural infidelity: even if they have previously bought a product from an A supplier, they will be able to turn away from him in favor of a B supplier if the latter offers them a product more attractive in terms of quality or price. Price is the main signal and information provided by the suppliers on the market to excite this competitive mobility of the offerers. Thus, free competition accelerates market liquidity, the circulation of goods and services, raises the quality of products and services and lowers prices. It is therefore a moral and virtuous system, as Adam Smith wanted, a system which is the fruits of individual vices. That is why everything that will inject "viscosity" into the system will be countered by Competition Law as "non-virtuous": not only frontal coordination on prices but for example, exclusivity clauses, agreements by which companies delay their entry on the market or intellectual property rights which confer on the patentee a monopoly.

Admittedly, Competition Law can not be reduced to a presentation of such simplicity, since it admits economic organizations which deviate from this basic model, for example distribution networks or patent mechanisms on which, inter alia, is built the pharmaceutical sector. But the impact is probative: in the sphere of Competition Law, if one is in a pattern that is not part of the fundamental figure of the free confrontation of supply and demand, he has to demonstrate the legitimacy and efficiency of its organization, which is a heavy burden on the firm or the State concerned.

Thus, in the field of Regulation, if regulatory mechanis were to be regarded as an exception to competition, an exception admitted by the competition authorities, but which should be constantly demonstrated before them by its legitimacy and effectiveness in the light of the "competitive order", then public organizations and operators in regulated sectors would always face a heavy burden of proof. This is what the competition authorities consider.

But if we consider that regulated sectors have a completely different logic from competitive logic, both from an economic and a legal point of view, the Law of Regulation refers in particular to the notion of public service and having its own institutions, which are the regulatory authorities, then certain behaviors, in particular monopolies, are not illegitimate in themselves and do not have to justify themselves in relation to the competitive model, for they are not the exception ( Such as the public education or health service).

Impartiality is the quality, maybe the virtue, that is demanded of the judge, not only the one who is called like that but also the one who has the function to judge the others (maybe without this name).

It can not be defined as the absolute positive aptitude, namely the total absence of prejudice, the heroic aptitude for a person to totally ignore his or her personal opinions and personal history. This heroic virtue is nonsense because not only is it inaccurate, impossible but it is also not desirable because a person is not a machine. It must not be so because good justice is human justice. In this respect, impartiality refers to a philosophical conception of what is justice and what is Regulation, not machines, but systems that must keep the human person in their center (Sunstein).

Thus Impartiality is articulated with the subjective nature of the assessment not only inevitable but also desirable that the judge makes of situations. Because Law is reasonable, Impartiality is defined only negatively: the absence of bias.

Impartiality is defined first and foremost as a subjective and individual quality, namely, the prohibition on the person who makes a decision affecting the situation of others (as is the case of a judge) to a a personal interest in this situation. The constitutional prohibition of being "judge and party" is thus the expression of the principle of impartiality. This definition is in line with the otherwise general requirement of no conflict of interests.

Impartiality is defined secondly as an objective and individual quality, namely the prohibition for a person who has already known of the case to know again (because he or she has already had an opinion about it, this having constituted an objective pre-judgment).

Impartiality is defined thirdly as an objective and structural quality, which obliges the organ which takes judgments to "give to see" a structure that makes it fit for this impartiality, objective impartiality that third parties can see and which generates confidence in its ability to judge without bias. This theory of English origin has been taken up by European law in the interpretation given to the European Convention on Human Rights. The expression "apparent impartiality" has sometimes given rise to misunderstandings. Indeed, far from being less demanding (in that it is "only" to be satisfied with an appearance of impartiality and not of a true impartiality), it is rather a matter of demanding more, not only of a true impartiality, but also of an impartiality which can be seen by all. This leads in particular to the obligation of transparency, to which the institutions, notably the State, were not necessarily bound by the law.

For a long time the Regulator, in that it took the form of an Administrative Authority, was not considered a jurisdiction, it was long considered that it was not directly subject to this requirement. It is clear from the case law that the national courts now consider that the regulatory authorities are courts "in the European sense", which implies a fundamental procedural guarantee for the operators concerned

The State's traditional view is that it serves the general interest through its public services, either directly (by its administrations, or even by public enterprises), or by delegation (eg through the concession mechanism). Public service is generally defined in a functional way, ie through public service missions that the organization must perform, such as providing public transport or caring for the population whatever (Eg in France by the public firm the SNCF). The liberalization of those public sectors, the primary reference to the market as a means of achieving the general interest, the primary reference to competition and the play of the European Law has destroyed this intimacy between public service, general interest, public enterprise and State.

Today, in a dialectical game, the Regulation keeps this concern for public service missions in balance with the competition, in a competitive context and under the control of a Regulator. The system is more complex and challenging because it creates new difficulties, such as information asymmetry or less easy integration of long-term planning, but it is better suited to an open and globalized economy.

The notion of "Common Goods" refers to a political conception insofar as it concerns objectively commercial goods such as cultural goods or medical services, but which the community is going to demand that everyone should have access to it even though the individual does not have the ability to pay the exact price. It is then the taxpayer - present or future - or the social partners who bear the cost, or even some companies, through the corporal social social responsibility mechanism.

This protection of Common Goods can be done by the State in the name of the interest of the social group for which it is responsible and whose it expresses the will, particularly through the notion of the general interest. In this now restricted framework which is the State, this reference runs counter to the principle of competition. This is particularly clear in Europe, which is based on a Union built on an autonomous and integrated legal order in the Member States in which competition continues to have a principled value and benefits from the hierarchy of norms. The evolution of European Law has balanced the principle of competition with other principles, such as the management of systemic risks, for example health, financial or environmental risks and the creation of the banking union shows that the principle of competition is no longer an apex in the European system.

But it still remains to an economic and financial conception of Europe, definition that the definition of the Regulatory Law  when it is restricted to the management of the market failures feeds. It is conceivable that Europe will one day evolve towards a more humanistic conception of Regulatory  Law, the same one that the European States practice and defend, notably through the notion of public service. Indeed and traditionally, public services give people access to common goods, such as education, health or culture.

Paradoxically, even though Law is not set up on a global scale, it is at this level that the legal notion of "common goods" has developed.

When one refers to goods that are called "global goods", one then seeks goods that are common to humanity, such as oceans or civilizations. It is at once the heart of Nature and the heart of Human Being, which plunges into the past and the future. Paradoxically, the concept of "global goods" is still more political in substance, but because of a lack of global political governance, effective protection is difficult, as their political consecration can only be effective nationally or simply declaratory internationally. That is why this balance is at present only at national level, which refers to the difficulty of regulating globalization.

Thus, the "common goods" legally exist more under their black face: the "global evils" or "global ills" or "global failures", against which a "Global Law" actually takes place. The notion of "global evils" constitutes a sort of mirror of Common Goods. It is then observed that countries that develop legal discourse to regulate global evils and global goods thus deploy global unilateral national Law. This is the case in the United States, notably in financial regulatory Law or more broadly through the new Compliance Law, which is being born. Companies have a role to play, particularly through Codes of Conduct and Corporate Social Responsibility.

In Europe, Community Law prohibits States from providing aid to companies, which are analyzed as means for the benefit of their country which the State cares about (and sometimes wrongly)  having the effect and maybe the object of maintaining or constructing borders between peoples, thus contradicting the first European political project of a common area of peace and exchanges between the peoples of Europe. That is why this prohibition does not exist in the United States, since Antitrust Law is not intended to build such a space, which is already available to businesses and people.

This essential difference between the two zones changes industrial policies because the US federal Government can help sectors where Member States can not. The European prohibition of State Aid can not be called into question because it is associated with the political project of Europe. This seems to be an aporia since Europe is handicapped against the United States.

In any form it takes, Aid is prohibited because it distorts equality of opportunity in competition between  operators in the markets and constitutes a fundamental obstacle to the construction of a unified European internal market. On the basis of this simple principle, a branch of technical and specific law has developed, because States continue to support their entreprises and sectors, and many rules and cases divide this principe of prohibition into as many exceptions and nuances. Is built over the years a probation system related to it. Thus, the concept of a public enterprise was able to remain despite this principle of prohibition.

But if there is a crisis of such a nature or magnitude that the market does not succeed by its own forces to overcome and / or the European Union itself pursues a-competitive objectives, exogenous Regulation, which can then take the form of legitimate State Aid. Thus a sort of synonymy exists between State Aid and Regulation.

For this reason, the European institutions have asserted that State Aid becomes lawful when it intervenes either in strategic sectors, such as energy production in which the State must retain its power over assets, or the defense sector. Far from diminishing, this hypothesis is increasing. European Union Law also allows the State to intervene by lending to financial operators threatened with default or already failing, the State whose function is to fight systemic risk, directly or through its Central Bank. The aid can come from the European Central Bank itself helping States in issuing sovereign debt, the Court of Justice having admitted in 2015 the non-conventional monetary policy programs compliance with the treaties. In 2010, the European Commissioner for Competition stressed that public aid is essential tools for States to deal with crises, before regulations come to the fore in 2014 to lay the foundations of the European Banking Union.

Le plan est  actualisé chaque semaine au fur et à mesure que les leçons se déroulent en amphi.

Il est disponible ci-dessous.

 

Retourner à la présentation générale du cours.

 

 

(Avant le début des enseignements de Droit de la Régulation bancaire et financière, un aperçu du plan général du Cours avait été mis à disposition.)

Network industries are built on transport infrastructure such as telecommunications waves or data, gas or electricity, which are essential facilities.

These essential infrastructures are monitored by regulators not only for the operators to have a concrete right of access but also for a complete network of these infrastructures to be built in a space, especially in Europe, for example to achieve a European railway system.

These infrastructures also exist in banking, financial and insurance matters, which it would be futile to oppose too easily to Network industries, as financial centers are based on huge computer systems, internalized clearing houses, which are themselves Infrastructure, deserving Regulation.

In this way, the optimal infrastructure solidity, the Regulator having its final responsibility in a permanent control over the manager, whether the State or an operator - whether the operator is an operator Public or a private operator -, and the competitive dynamism of the sector that the system can also entrust to the same regulator.

This is particularly the case in Financial Regulation, which aims to optimize the places, which compete with each other, and their respective security, which itself constitutes a competitive advantage, common to all operators.

"Liberalization" refers to the process of the legal end of a monopolistic organization of an economy, a sector or a market, in order to open it up to Competition.

Since it is rare for an economy to be entirely monopolistic (which presupposes an extreme concentration of political power), the phenomenon is more particularly characteristic of public sectors. Liberalization, if it is translated into Law only by a declaration of openness to Competition, is actually achieved only by a much slower implementation of the latter, since the incumbent operators have the power to check the entry of potential new entrants. This is why the process of liberalization is only effective if strong regulatory authorities are established to open up the market, weakening incumbent operators where necessary and offering benefits to new entrants through asymmetric regulation .

This Regulation aims to build Competition, now permitted by law.

This is why, in a process of Liberalization, Regulation aims to concretizeCcompetition by constructing it. This transitional regulation is intended to be withdrawn and the institutions set up to disappear, for example by becoming merely specialized chambers of the General Competition Authority, Regulation being temporary when linked to liberalization.

It is distinct from the Regulation of essential infrastructures which, as natural monopolies, must be definitively regulated. Quite often, in liberal economies, the State has asked public enterprises to manage such monopolies, particularly in the network industries, to which it has also entrusted the economic activity of the entire sector. By the liberalization phenomenon, most States have opted to retain the management of infrastructure for this operator, now an incumbent operator competing on the competing activities offered to consumers. In this respect, the Regulator forces it in two ways: in a transitional way to establish competition for the benefit of new entrants, in a definitive way insofar as it has been chosen by the State to manage the economic monopoly of infrastructure.

Even in the only relationship between competitors, Regulation has difficulty to retreat, and this often due to the Regulator. Max Weber's sociological rules  administration show about administration that the regulatory authorities, even in view of the purpose of competitive development, for example in the field of telecommunications, seek to remain, even though competition has actually been built. It does it by finding new purposes (in the above sector, the regulator could be the guardian of Net Neutralityt) or by affirming to practice a permanent "symmetric Regulation".

Référence complète : Gauvain, R. et Marleix, O., Rapport d'information sur l'évaluation de l'impact de la loi n° 2016-1691 du 9 décembre 2016 relative à la transparence, à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique, 2021.

____

 

Lire le rapport. 

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the VideoNews  MAFR Surplomb

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance et Contrat ("Compliance and Contract"), coll."Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Editions Lefebvre-Dalloz, to be published.

____

📘 At the same time, a book in English, Compliance and Contracts, is published in the collection copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Editions Lefebre-Bruylant.

____

🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners in 2026

____

📚this volume is one of a series of books devoted to Compliance in this collection.

► read the presentations of the other books:

• further books:

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, 2027

 

• previous books:

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L'obligation de compliance 2025

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne - CJIP - CRPC, 2024

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de Compliance, 2023

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021

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

🕴️N. Borga, 🕴️J.-Cl. Marin and 🕴️J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l'Entreprise, le Régulateur et le Juge, 2018

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

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

 

📚see the global presentation of all the books of the collection.

___

► General presentation of this book: The book, published in 2025 int the same series "Regulations & Compliance" series, demonstrates that the Obligation of Compliance—which falls upon crucial operators and those concerned with the future of systems and the present and future individuals involved in them—derives from laws and regulations, and is upheld by these operators themselves, regulators and judges. The role played by contracts is discussed therein. This book specifically examines the role that contracts play and will play in the conception, development and implementation of Compliance Law.  

This aspect is underestimated because Compliance Law is often analysed through the prism of laws and regulations designed to achieve Monumental Goals set by states and public authorities, to the realisation of which systemic economic operations contribute through compliance tools, rather than through the actors themselves. When they do act, this is referred to outside the realm of Law, generally to Ethics. However, the Contract, the binding legal instrument par excellence, will play an increasingly significant role within global and interconnected compliance systems.

In the European construction of Compliance Law, which places human beings at the heart of efforts to ensure the sustainability of systems, the Contract serves not only as the means by which the entity fulfils its legal obligations, forges relationships with stakeholders and implements the necessary innovations, but also as the means by which it exercises its autonomy to contribute to the realisation of the systemic ambitions in question. 

To describe and anticipate the practice and rules that link Compliance Law and Contracts, the book first examines how this new branch of Law, insofar as it draws on the political ideas of the Social Contract, renews Contract Law by embedding it within the strategy of economic operators, a task made all the easier for them as they have built value chains through contracts. These are ‘regulatory contracts’. This demonstrates that Public Law Contracts exemplify the incorporation by General Contract Law of the overarching perspective of compliance, normatively anchored in the Monumental Goals (Title I).

That explained, the book examines how General Contract Law interfaces with the techniques and objectives of Compliance Law. Whether through mandatory requirements, incentives or support, Compliance Law plays a role in contracts, helping to shape them in part, whether they relate to regulated or unregulated activities, with the points of contact with the principle of liberalism – and the limits to it – being determined by the courts. Conversely, however, General Contract Law contributes to Compliance Law and will do so increasingly. This applies equally to the stages of formation, execution, and sanctions, which may take the form of consolidations (Title II). 

In practical terms, the Contract itself serves as a Compliance Tol. As such, the company may choose to outsource the compliance function, which it is free to do provided it remains accountable for its performance to the legislator and the persons concerned: this is the concept of the ‘Compliance Contract’, which appears as a specific contract.  Furthermore, compliance can be incorporated into multiple contracts—contractual arrangements through which the contracting parties establish one or more obligations that will facilitate or enhance their legal obligations. In doing so, legal entities exercise their freedom, as permitted by general law, and this is also recognised by the Regulator, Supervisor and/or Judge in light of the normative Monumental Goals of Compliance Law (Title III). 

Precisely, a new field of ‘contractual compliance litigation’ is emerging. The primary topic here is to examine contractual judicial disputes in which an element of Compliance Law features in the proceedings. Indeed, a dispute concerning a claim for mandatory execution, termination or contractual liability may involve, in the claim itself or in an procedural exception or defence raised, an element of compliance law, ranging from an allegation of lack of jurisdiction to a request for the court to take into account a systemic teological norm that the contract judge should consider. Secondly, in certain emerging systemic compliance litigation, because the role of the judge is transformed and the procedure must be adapted, the contract appears as a particularly suitable tool, either as a ‘procedural framework’ through the contractualisation of the whole, or as a technique used in the strict sense, its ex ante nature allowing, in disputes concerning the future, the development of new adequate techniques (Title IV). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

► First presentation of the Table of Content  : 

____

TABLE OF CONTENT 

 

REPORTING ON CONTRACTUAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM AND ENHANCING ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND HUMANITY COMPTE DES PRATIQUES CONTRACTUELLES DANS LE SYSTEME DE COMPLIANCE ET ACCROITRE L'EFFICACITE ET L'HUMANISME DE CELUI-CI  

(REPORTING ON CONTRACTUAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM AND ENHANCING ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND HUMANITY) 

 

 

 

 ♦️ sss, par 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

 

TITRE I.

CONTRAT SOCIAL, DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE ET STRATEGIE DES OPERATEURS ECONOMIQUES 

 

CHAPITRE I : CONTRAT SOCIAL ET DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE 

Section 1 ♦️ Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, guide d'action pour des opérateurs économiques au service d'une politique globale, par 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 🕴️René Sève

 

CHAPITRE II : AMBITIONS POITIQUES ET STRATEGIES D'ENTREPRISE DANS L'ORGANISATION CONTRACTUELLE DES CHAINES DE VALEUR

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 

 

CHAPITRE III : LES CONTRATS PUBLICS, PARANGONS DE L'ACCUEILS DES AMBITIONS POLITIQUES DANS LES STRATEGIES ET L'ALLIANCE DES INSTITUTIONS

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 

 

TITRE II.

LE DROIT COMMUN DES CONTRATS CONFRONTE AU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE

 

CHAPITRE I : DISTINGUER LE CONTRACTUEL DE CE QUI S'EN RAPPROCHE DANS LE SYSTEM DE COMPLIANCE 

Section 1 ♦️ La ronde des engagements et des contrats dans le droit de la compliance e, par 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 ♦️ sss,

 

CHAPITRE II : L'EMPRISE DU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE SUR LE DROIT COMMUN DE DES CONTRATS 

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss,

 

CHAPITRE III : L'APPORT DU DROIT COMMUN DES CONTRATS AU DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 

 

 

 

TITRE III.

CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE, CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE

 

CHAPITRE I : LE "CONTRAT DE COMPLIANCE"

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss,

 

CHAPITRE II : LES CLAUSES DE COMPLIANCE

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 

 

 

 

TITRE IV.

LE CONTENTIEUX CONTRACTUEL IMPLIQUANT LE DROIT DE LA COMPLIANCE 

 

CHAPITRE I : CE 

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss,

 

CHAPITRE II : CE 

Section 1 ♦️ sss

Section 2 ♦️ sss, par 

 

​

________

► Référence complète : E da Allada. (dir.), Devoir de vigilance. Quelles perspectives africaines ?, Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. "Thèmes & Commentaires, 2026, sous presse.

____

►Voir notamment la présentation des contributions :

 

► Référence complète  : Conseil constitutionnel, déc.  n°25-1184 QPC, 6 mars 2026, Conseil national des barreaux et autres

[Expérimentation d’une contribution pour la justice économique due pour chaque instance devant le tribunal des activités économiques]

____

►lire la décision

________

 

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakingsn", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

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

____

► Summary of this article: The innocents might believe, taking the Law and its words literally, that "commitments" are binding on those who make them. Shouldn't they be afraid of falling into the trap of the 'false friend', which is what the Law wants to protect them from (as stated in the prolegomena)?

Indeed, the innocent persons think that those who make commitments ask what they must do and say what they will do. Yet, strangely enough, the 'commitments' that are so frequent and common in compliance behaviours are often considered by those who adopt them to have no binding value! Doubtless because they come under disciplines other than Law, such as the art of Management or Ethics. It is both very important and sometimes difficult to distinguish between these different Orders - Management, Moral Norms and Law - because they are intertwined, but because their respective standards do not have the same scope, it is important to untangle this tangle. This potentially creates a great deal of insecurity for companies (I).

The legal certainty comes back when commitments take the form of contracts (II), which is becoming more common as companies contractualise their legal Compliance Obligations, thereby changing the nature of the resulting liability, with the contract retaining the imprint of the legal order or not having the same scope if this prerequisite is not present.

But the contours and distinctions are not so uncontested. In fact, the qualification of unilateral undertaking of will is proposed to apprehend the various documents issued by the companies, with the consequences which are attached to that, in particular the transformation of the company into a 'debtor', which would change the position of the stakeholders with regard to it (III).

It remains that the undertakings expressed by companies on so many important subjects cannot be ignored: they are facts (IV). It is as such that they must be legally considered. In this case, Civil Liability will have to deal with them if the company, in implementing what it says, what it writes and in the way it behaves, commits a fault or negligence that causes damage, not only the sole existence of an undertaking. 

________

 

________

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

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

____

► Summary of this article: At first glance, General Procedural Law seems to be the area the least concerned by the Compliance Obligation, because if the person is obliged by it, mainly large companies, it is precisely, thanks to this Ex Ante, in order to never to have to deal with proceedings, these path that leads to the Judge, that Ex Post figure that in return for the weight of the compliance obligation they have been promised they will never see: any prospect of proceedings would be seeming to signify the very failure of the Compliance Obligation (I).

But not only are the legal rules attached to the Procedure necessary because the Judge is involved, and increasingly so, in compliance mechanisms, but they are also rules of General Procedural Law and not a juxtaposition of civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, etc., because the Compliance Obligation itself is not confined either to civil procedure or to criminal procedure, to administrative procedure, etc., which in practice gives primacy to what brings them all together: General Procedural Law (II).

In addition to what might be called the "negative" presence of General Procedural Law, there is also a positive reason, because General Procedural Law is the prototype for "Systemic Compliance Litigation", and in particular for the most advanced aspect of this, namely the duty of vigilance (III). In particular, it governs the actions that can be brought before the Courts (IV), and the principles around which proceedings are conducted, with an increased opposition between the adversarial principle, which marries the Compliance Obligation, since both reflect the principle of Information, and the rights of the defence, which do not necessarily serve them, a clash that will pose a procedural difficulty in principle (V).

Finally, and this "prototype" status is even more justified, because Compliance Law has given companies jurisdiction over the way in which they implement their legal Compliance Obligations, it is by respecting and relying on the principles of General Procedural Law that this must be done, in particular through not only sanctions but also internal investigations (VI).

________

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a sustainable Arbitration Place", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

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

____

► Summary of this article: The first part of this study assesses the evolving relationship between Arbitration Law and Compliance Law, which depends on the very definition of the Compliance Obligation (I). Indeed, these relations have been negative for as long as Compliance has been seen solely in terms of "conformity", i.e. obeying the rules or being punished. These relationships are undergoing a metamorphosis, because the Compliance Obligation refers to a positive and dynamic definition, anchored in the Monumental Goals that companies anchor in the contracts that structure their value chains.

Based on this development, the second part of the study aims to establish the techniques of Arbitration and the office of the arbitrator to increase the systemic efficiency of the Compliance Obligation, thereby strengthening the attractiveness of the Place (II). First and foremost, it is a question of culture: the culture of Compliance must permeate the world of Arbitration, and vice versa. To achieve this, it is advisable to take advantage of the fact that in Compliance Law the distinction between Public and Private Law is less significant, while the concern for the long term of contractually forged structural relationships is essential.

To encourage such a movement to deploy the Compliance Obligation, promoting the strengthening of a Sustainable Arbitration Place (III), the first tool is the contract. Since contracts structure value chains and enable companies to fulfill their legal Compliance Obligation but also to add their own will to it, stipulations or offers relating to Arbitration should be included in them. In addition, the adoption of non-binding texts can set out a guiding principle to ensure that concern for the Monumental Goals is appropriate in order the Compliance Obligation to be taken into account by Arbitrators.

________

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, to be published

____

📕In parallel, a book in French L'Obligation de compliance, is published in the collection "Régulations & Compliance" co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. 

____

📚This book is inserted in this series created by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for developing Compliance Law.

 read the presentations of the other books of this Compliance Series:

• further books:

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Evidential System, 2027

🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2027

 

• previous books:

​🕴️M.A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Juridictionnalisation, 2023

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

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

____

► go to the general presentation of this 📚Series ​Compliance & Regulation, conceived, founded et managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. 

____

🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners.

____

► general presentation of the book: Compliance is sometimes presented as something that cannot be avoided, which is tantamount to seeing it as the legal obligation par excellence, Criminal Law being its most appropriate mode of expression. However, this is not so evident. Moreover, it is becoming difficult to find a unity to the set of compliance tools, encompassing what refers to a moral representation of the world, or even to the cultures specific to each company, Compliance Law only having to produce incentives or translate this ethical movement. The obligation of compliance is therefore difficult to define.

This difficulty to define affecting the obligation of compliance reflects the uncertainty that still affects Compliance Law in which this obligation develops. Indeed, if we were to limit this branch of law to the obligation to "be conform" with the applicable regulations, the obligation would then be located more in these "regulations", the classical branches of Law which are Contract Law and Tort Law organising "Obligations" paradoxically remaining distant from it. In practice, however, it is on the one hand Liability actions that give life to legal requirements, while companies make themselves responsible through commitments, often unilateral, while contracts multiply, the articulation between legal requirements and corporate and contractual organisations ultimately creating a new way of "governing" not only companies but also what is external to them, so that the Monumental Goals, that Compliance Law substantially aims at, are achieved. 

The various Compliance Tools illustrate this spectrum of the Compliance Obligation which varies in its intensity and takes many forms, either as an extension of the classic legal instruments, as in the field of information, or in a more novel way through specific instruments, such as whistleblowing or vigilance. The contract, in that it is by nature an Ex-Ante instrument and not very constrained by borders, can then appear as a natural instrument in the compliance system, as is the Judge who is the guarantor of the proper execution of Contract and Tort laws. The relationship between companies, stakeholders and political authorities is thus renewed.

____

🏗️general construction of the book

The book opens with a substantial Introduction, putting the different sort of obligations of compliance in legal categories for showing that companies must build structures of compliance (obligation of result) and act to contribute with states and stakeholders to reach Monumental Goals (obligation of means). 

The first part is devoted to the definition of the Compliance Obligation. 

The second part presents the articulation of Compliance obligation with the other branchs of Law, because the specific obligation is built by Compliance Law, as new substantial branch of Law but also by many other branchs of Law.

The third part develops the pratical means established to obtained the Compliance Obligation to be effective, efficace and efficient.

The fourth part takes the Obligation  of Vigilance as an illustration of all these considerations and the discussion about the future of this sparehead fo the Compliance Obligation . 

The fifth part refers to the place and the role of the judges, natural characters for any obligation. 

____

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

ANCHORING THE SO DIVERSE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS IN THEIR NATURE, REGIMES AND FORCE TO BRING OUT THE VERY UNITY OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION, MAKING IT COMPREHENSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE 

 

🔹 Compliance Obligation: building a compliance structure that produces credible results withe regard to the Monumentals Goals targeted by the Legislator, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

 

TITLE I.

IDENTIFYING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

 

CHAPTER I: NATURE OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 🔹 Debt, as the basis of the compliance obligation, by 🕴️Bruno Deffains

Section 3 🔹 Compliance Obligation and Human Rights, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine

Section 4 🔹 Compliance Obligation and changes in Sovereignty and Citizenship, by 🕴️René Sève

Section 5 🔹 The definition of the Compliance Obligation in Cybersecurity, by 🕴️Michel Séjean

 

CHAPTER II: SPACES OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Industrial Entities and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Etienne Maclouf

Section 2 🔹 Compliance, Value Chains and Service Economy, by 🕴️Lucien Rapp

Section 3 🔹 Compliance and conflict of laws. International Law of Vigilance-Conformity, based on applications in Europe, by 🕴️Louis d'Avout 

 

TITLE II.

ARTICULATING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF LAW

 

Section 1 🔹 Tax Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Daniel Gutmann

Section 2 🔹 General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 3 🔹 Corporate and Financial Markets Law facing the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Anne-Valérie Le Fur

Section 4 🔹 Transformation of Governance and Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Véronique Magnier

Section 5 🔹 The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Jean-Sébastien Borghetti

Section 6 🔹 Environmental and Climate Compliance, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub

Section 7 🔹 Competition Law and Compliance Law, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda

Section 8 🔹 The Compliance Obligation in Global Law, by 🕴️Benoît Frydman & 🕴️Alice Briegleb

Section 9 🔹 Environmental an Climatic Dimensions of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub

Section 10 🔹 Judge of Insolvency Law and Compliance Obligations, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Barbièri

 

TITLE III.

COMPLIANCE: GIVE AND TAKE THE MEANS TO OBLIGE

 

CHAPTER I: COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: THE CONVERGENCE OF SOURCES

Section 1 🔹 Compliance Obligation upon Obligation works, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 2 🔹 Conformity technologies to meet Compliance Law requirements. Some examples in Digital Law, by 🕴️Emmanuel Netter

Section 3 🔹 Legal Constraint and Company Strategies in Compliance matters, by 🕴️Jean-Philippe Denis & 🕴️Nathalie Fabbe-Coste

Section 4 🔹 Opposition and convergence of American and European legal systems in Compliance Rules and Systems, by 🕴️Raphaël Gauvain & 🕴️Blanche Balian

Section 5 🔹 In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their Commitments and Undertakings, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

 

CHAPTER II: INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 How International Arbitration can reinforce the Compliance Obligation, by  🕴️Laurent Aynès

Section 2 🔹 Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a Sustainable Arbitration Place, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

Section 3 🔹 The Arbitral Tribunal's Award in Kind, in support of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Eduardo Silva Romero

Section 4 🔹 The use of International Arbitration to reinforce the Compliance Obligation: the example of the construction sector, by 🕴️Christophe Lapp 

Section 5 🔹 The Arbitrator, Judge, Supervisor, Support, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine

 

TITLE IV.

VIGILANCE, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Vigilance Obligation, Spearheard and Total Share of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

 

CHAPTER I: INTENSITIES OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM

Section 2 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Financial Operators, by 🕴️Anne-Claire Rouaud

Section 3 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Digital Operators, by 🕴️Grégoire Loiseau

Section 4 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Energy Operators, by 🕴️Marie Lamoureux

 

CHAPTER II: GENERAL EVOLUTION OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Rethinking the Concept of Civil Liability in the light of the Duty of Vigilance, Spearhead of Compliance, by 🕴️Mustapha Mekki

Section 2 🔹 Contracts and clauses, implementation and modalities of the Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Gilles J. Martin

Section 3 🔹 Proof that Vigilance has been properly carried out with regard to the Compliance Evidence System, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda

Section 4 🔹 Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in order and keep the Reason, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

 

Title V.

THE JUDGE AND THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION

Section 1 🔹 Present and Future Challenges of Articulating Principles of Civil and Commercial Procedure with the Logic of Compliance, by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan

Section 2 🔹 The Judge required for an Effective Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________

CONCLUSION

THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: A BURDEN BORNE BY SYSTEMIC COMPANIES GIVING LIFE TO COMPLIANCE LAW  

(conclusion and key points of the books, free access)

 

 

 

🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Conceiving the Compliance Obligation: Using its Position to take part in achieving the Compliance Monumental Goals", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, forthcoming.

____

📝read the article

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on the basis this article has been written, with more developments, technical references and hyperlinks

____

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

____

► Summary of this article: This article explains what companies' Compliance Obligation" is. Delving into the mass of compliance obligations, it uses the method of classification of those that are subject to an obligation of result and those that are subject to an obligation of means. It justifies the choice of this essential criterion, which changes the objects and the burden of proof of companies that are subject to an obligation of result when it comes to setting up "compliance structures" and are subject to an obligation of means when it comes to the effects produced by these compliance structures.

Indeed, rather than getting bogged down in definitional disputes, given that Compliance Law is itself a nascent branch of Law, the idea of this contribution is to take as a starting point the different legal regimes of so many different compliance obligations to which laws and regulations subject large companies: sometimes they have to apply them to the letter and sometimes they are only sanctioned in the event of fault or negligence. This brings us back to the distinction between obligations of result and obligations of means.

Although it would be risky to transpose the expression and regime of contractual obligations to legal obligations put by legislation, starting from this observation in the evidentiary system of compliance of a plurality of obligations of means and of result, depending on whether it is a question of this or that technical compliance obligation, we must first classify them. It would then appear that this plurality will not constitute a definitive obstacle to the constitution of a single definition of the Compliance Obligation. On the contrary, it makes it possible to clarify the situation, to trace the paths through what is so often described as a legal jumble, an unmanageable "mass of regulations".

Indeed, insofar as the company obliged under Compliance Law participates in the achievement of the Monumental Goals on which this is normatively based, a legal obligation which may be relayed by contract or even by Ethics, it can only be an obligation of means, by virtue of this very teleological nature and the scale of the goals targeted, for example the happy outcome of the climate crisis which is beginning or the desired effective equality between human beings. This established principle leaves room for the fact that the behaviour required is marked out by processes put in place by structured tools, most often legally described, for example the establishment of a vigilance plan or regularly organised training courses (effectiveness), are obligations of result, while the positive effects produced by this plan or these training courses (effaciety) are obligations of means. This is even more the case when the Goal is to transform the system as a whole, i.e. to ensure that the system is solidly based, that there is a culture of equality, and that everyone respects everyone else, all of which come under the heading of efficiency.

The Compliance Obligation thus appears unified because, gradually, and whatever the various compliance obligations in question, their intensity or their sector, its structural process prerequisites are first and foremost structures to be established which the Law, through the Judge in particular, will require to be put in place but will not require anything more, whereas striving towards the achievement of the aforementioned Monumental Goals will be an obligation of means, which may seem lighter, but corresponds to an immeasurable ambition, commensurate with these Goals. In addition, because these structures (alert mechanisms, training, audits, contracts and clauses, etc.)  have real meaning if they are to produce effects and behaviours that lead to changes converging towards the Monumental Goals, it is the obligations of means that are most important and not the obligations of result. The judge must also take this into account.

Finally, the Compliance Obligation, which therefore consists of this interweaving of multiple compliance obligations of result and means of using the entreprise's position, ultimately Goals at system efficiency, in Europe at system civilisation, for which companies must show not so much that they have followed the processes correctly (result) but that this has produced effects that converge with the Goals sought by the legislator (effects produced according to a credible trajectory). This is how a crucial company, responsible Ex Ante, should organise itself and behave.

________