Working papers

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses: towards a Contractual Compliance System, Working Paper, September 2026. - 📝 This Working Paper served as the basis for the conference « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance » (Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses) (in French), given on 25 September 2026 in Lyon at the colloquium 🧮La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause, organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, as part of the 🏗️2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. 📘 It is the basis of the article to be published in the book 📘Compliance and Contract, in the 📚Compliance & Regulation series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Summary of the Working Paper: Practitioners insert into a wide variety of contracts clauses that are expressly designated as “Compliance clauses”. We lack a definition, so their legal regime is uncertain. To consolidate this practice and ensure that its development produces satisfactory effects, these clauses must be classified, named and distinguished from one another. In a first stage, a strong unicity of Compliance clauses appears. But this unicity is somewhat misleading. It proceeds from a confusion between contract and statute: whether the clause, as a block, obliges the other contracting party to comply with all the regulations, or borrows its unity from the particular corpus of which it claims to be the tool of application, the clause copies the legislation. This is the unified but rather archaic conception to which the Regulator has itself lent credence, by designating the Compliance clause only as a delegation within a normative power that would remain first and foremost its own. So as not to stop there, in a second stage, the study shows the great diversity of Compliance clauses, a de jure diversity born of the principle of contractual freedom and a de facto diversity resulting from the porosity of the clause to the activities concerned, the country and the persons. To be mastered, this diversity must be channelled by a nomenclature. It must also be preserved in a lasting way, because it stems from the general policy of the company and the project it wishes to develop, for example in the value chains it has chosen to build through regulatory contracts. Nevertheless, and this is the subject of the third stage, there is a deep and programmatic unicity of Compliance clauses, which lies in the systemic goals they serve. In practice, this unicity is built through an interlinked system of clauses, precisely described and specific to each undertaking. At the level of a large company, this can give rise to a Contractual Compliance System, which is articulated and allied with the regulatory system. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Audit Clause, Carousel of the Contractualisation of Compliance, Working Paper, September 2026. - 📝 This Working Paper served as the basis for the conference « La clause d’audit corrélée à l’Obligation de Compliance » (The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation) (in French), given on 25 September 2026 in Lyon at the colloquium 🧮La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause, organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, as part of the 🏗️2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. 📘 It is the basis of the article to be published in the book 📘Compliance and Contract, in the 📚Compliance & Regulation series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Summary of the Working Paper: The audit clause is the most frequently cited and most common Compliance clause: it outsources internal control techniques onto a third party. A distinction must be drawn between the audit clause securing one’s own interests, the audit clause ensuring one’s own conformity and the audit clause carrying out a Compliance project. The audit clause then appears as the “necessary accessory” to the conformity and Compliance clause. It is the “objective reflection” of the legal Compliance Obligation, which requires “detecting” in order to act, and its “subjective reflection”, since the regulated party is in charge of those who, notably in value chains, are “concerned third parties”. In a first part, the Working Paper places itself inside the audit clause. It shows how to draft it in order to obtain the relevant information from the persons who hold it and where it is located: designating in advance the information sought, the persons, documents and places, the event triggering the audit, periodic or linked to an event, who conducts it and its modalities, according to a criterion of proportionality between the extent of the information sought and the objective pursued. It also shows how to integrate from the drafting stage the limits and risks of this audit contractually imposed on others, notably with regard to the rights of the defence and the strategic use of the audit report. In a second part, the Working Paper places itself outside the clause. The audit clause leans on other stipulations, conformity clause or Compliance clause, corporate relationships and governance techniques. Other clauses lean on it, in order to strike (dispute resolution, sanction and termination clauses) or to draw closer (remediation clause). The court will have to interpret it in the light of its purpose, as the “necessary accessory” to the application of Compliance Law. In conclusion, the Compliance audit clause appears as the carousel of the contractualisation of Compliance: where it is knotted, where conformity and Compliance are distinguished, where the judge contributes to the deployment of Compliance Law. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, If King Solomon's probationary strategy hadn't worked, Working Paper, October 2025. - 📝 This Working Paper is the basis of the article published in 2026 in the collective book dedicated to Professor Pierre Crocq. - ► Summary of this Working Paper:  As renowned and significant in biblical scholarship as it is in legal culture and imagination, Solomon’s Judgement is a procedural measure, an evidential stratagem (I). But even a King cannot be certain of the success of an investigative measure that his authority allows him to impose; nothing guarantees the success of the evidential stratagem he has devised, that is to say, the discovery of the truth. The investigative measure he devised presupposes a maternal love that leads the woman – who might prefer to continue disputing – to choose instead not to keep the child and to leave him in a state of death, a mere inert prey to the claim of appropriation made by the plaintiff. It is the woman’s virtue that enables the Judge’s wisdom. The evidence stratagem might not have worked (II). This is scarcely considered, as King Solomon is always portrayed as wise and the mother as preferring the child to herself. But if we step outside the Book of Kings, where virtue reigns – that of the mother as well as that of the judge – to confront the passion of the woman who smothered her newborn in the night and now seeks the force of justice to seize the second, one might reflect, whilst wandering through the lobby of a courthouse, that it is all too often the case that adults put themselves before children. What if the second mother had put herself before the child? What would have happened if the judge’s order, already being carried out, had not been halted by the virtue of the defendant? (III). What would the King then have done to exercise his office as Judge justly, since the truth would not have been accessible to him? (IV). If one changes an element of the narrative, because justice is human, because passions drive the parties, because children are often the silent victims on both sides, is justice still possible?   - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb / Overhang 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, August 2025. - 📝 This bilingual Working Paper is the basis of the article published in French "Droit de la compliance et contentieux systémique" - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Legal systems have changed, and Compliance Law, in its uniqueness, reflects this change and plays a powerful role in it. New sets of compliance rules, particularly at European Union level, covering data protection (GDPR), anti-money laundering (AMLA), climate balance protection (CS3D) and banking and financial system sustainability (Banking Union), have been developed and imposed on large companies, which must implement them: alerts, mapping, assessment, sanctions, etc. These new regulatory frameworks only make sense in relation to their ‘Monumental Goals’: to detect systemic risks ex ante and prevent crises so that the systems in question do not collapse, but ‘last’. All the legal instruments in the corpus are normatively rooted in these monumental goals, which are the core that unifies Compliance Law (I). The judge is the guardian of this new and highly ambitious regulatory framework, which relies on the practical ability of companies to implement it (II). Courts ensure that the legal technical provisions are applied in a teleological manner in each of these compliance blocks and that the regulations support each other, because all compliance regulations serve the same systemic goal: to ensure that the systems (banking, financial, climate, digital, energy, etc.) do not collapse, but sustains, and that present and future human beings are not crushed by them, but rather benefit from them. This unity is still little perceived because so meticulous regulations pulverise this profound unity of Compliance Law into a myriad of changing provisions. Entrusting the ‘regulatory mass’ to algorithms increases this fragmentation, making the whole even more incomprehensible and therefore impossible to handle. On the contrary, recognising the judge's place, i.e. at the centre, makes it possible to master this new branch of law. But the judge's sole function is not to restore clarity to a body of law covered by the dust of its own technicality. There is a transfer to Litigation of the systemic object of Compliance Law. Indeed, the litigation that emerges from the new Compliance Law is itself fundamentally new, by transitivity. Indeed, the purpose of Compliance Law is to make systems sustainable (or resilient, or robust, depending on the terminology used). This results in litigation that is itself ‘Systemic Litigation’ (III), most often brought by an organisation against a systemic operator. The place and role of each party are transformed (IV). - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Taking African legal geography into account to achieve an efficient vigilance system, working paper, August 2025/February 2026 - 🎤This working paper follows on from the closing address at the symposium Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? Regards croisés en droit international, droit comparé et droit OHADA (Vigilance Duty: what are the prospects in Africa? Perspectives from international law, comparative law and OHADA Law, organised by the Faculty of Law of Bordeaux, through its Institut de Recherches en Droit des Affaires et du Patrimoine – IRDAP (Institute for Research in Business and Property Law), held on 15 November 2024.  - 📝This working paper forms the basis of the article "Considérer la géographie juridique africaine pour y réussir l'obligation de vigilance", which concludes the volume edited by Eustache da Allada in 2026 by Éditions Lefebvre-Dalloz, in the “Thèmes & Commentaires” collection,📗Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? Regards croisés en droit international, droit comparé et droit OHADA (Vigilance Duty: what are the African perspectives? Comparative perspectives in international law, comparative law and OHADA Law). To this end, following an initial draft in August 2025, it was revised a second time to better incorporate the written contributions that make up the book, since the article on which it is based sets out a personal approach drawing on external research whilst also needing to synthesise these contributions. - ► Summary of the working paper :  The French “Vigilance” Act of 2017 incorporated the technical provisions and the spirit of the “Sapin 2” Act of 2016. They share a common goal. They have been and remain a common source of controversy and passion. At their heart lies the establishment of a “compliance obligation”, for which vigilance techniques form the “edge ” in serving a grand ambition: to protect systems from risks, both now and in the future, in order to protect the people involved in them. The passion that continues to surround the Vigilance Act, which gave rise to the European CS3D , is misguided, because the law and passion are never allies. Some would passionately want to see vigilance triumph by condemning companies to perform miracles; others would passionately want to see the destruction of all the texts that established the very concept of this Compliance Law, built upon these Humanist Monumental Goals. But let us acknowledge that in these debates on the Vigilance Obligation, which is being legally implemented across value chains, Africa is often cited as an example in a general discussion. It is not often considered as a distinct case with its own legal landscape. No reliance is placed on its strengths or on its own legal mechanisms, even though value chains – particularly industrial ones – so often lead to it, both now and in the future. Through analyses of the Vigilance Obligation, Africa is perceived as a place of retribution or of a new form of paternalism, and when its future is envisaged, prospects seem to be lacking, even though the very essence of compliance—and therefore of Vigilance—is the future.  If we take a less confrontational view and focus instead on the ‘legal geography’ of African countries and their social and inter-state structures, we see that the concern for others, both present and future – which ultimately constitutes the Monumental Goal of Compliance Law and thus of the Vigilance Obligation – is more prevalent in Africa than it is in Europe, which is now built upon legal individualism. This concern for others is reflected in legal mechanisms akin to mediation and various legal structures that our own institutions would do well to heed: our legislators before adopting bills, and our judges who might listen to them as amici curiae before reaching a decision. If we turn our attention to the African continent, which is exploited by certain segments of value chains, and to labour organisations, it becomes clear that here too, legislation and sanctions are not the whole story. Compliance techniques that make use of soft law and the contractual frameworks underpinning the chains themselves can remove the element of abstraction that is, by nature, inherent in general legislation. Moving forward through contracts under the supervision and with the support of the courts is an approach that could prove more fruitful than well-intentioned legislation, which has served as a catalyst, in line with the privileged position of contract law within OHADA. This serves to enhance the judge’s authority. The Compliance Judicialisation is also linked to the growing connection between Compliance and Contracts. However, it appears that not only can European judges specialising in Compliance Law and Vigilance Obligation thus rule on matters concerning Africa, which they can only know from a distance – though it is the lot of every judge to be an outsider – but African and inter-state Courts, notably through OHADA, can address the Vigilance Obligation because value chains are constituted by contracts. By developing it not as a foreign concept to be assimilated, but as that which expresses the very heart of the Law in Africa: concern for others, solidarity, the search for compromises and solutions so that the social and environmental system – that is to say, the human system – may endure into the Future. - 🔓Read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐Subscribe to the newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, The role of Discretionary Jurisdictio in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases, working paper, August 2025.   - 📗This working document was prepared as a contribution to the collective book offered to Professor Dominique d'Ambra, published  in June 2026. - ► Summary of the working document  : Based on the definition of Judicial Office, the procedural principles that derive from it and the consequent powers that judges exercise, the objet of this study is to measure the degree of discretion that exists in the judicial treatment of compliance, without direct consideration for the dispute between litigants. This part is very ignored, when it should be given top priority. Indeed, because Systems are involved in compliance cases brought before civil or commercial judges, we are seeing a development of this discretionary element in judicial fonction. Discretionary matters differ from unilateral discretionary procedures, and this discretionary element relates to what the judge examines, possibly in the context of a dispute. The first part of this contribution therefore aims to describe the natural development of the discretionary power of the judge to deal with compliance cases brought before them. This role stems from the fact that, even when triggered by a dispute, what is submitted to the judge is a situation composed of a system, which cannot defend its interests before the civil or commercial judge in this Systemic Litigation arising from the very nature of Compliance Law and the Compliance Obligations it engenders on systemic entites. Moreover, it is the Future whose interests must be considered and protected, which the judge must do directly. This leads to the second part of the contribution, calling for a rethinking of the procedure and the role of the Compliance Judge, so that ex gratia matters can be dealt with. The judge must therefore verify that there are no conflicts of interest between the litigants, including hidden ones, and must learn about the systems involved. The inquisitorial principle must therefore be strengthened. But at the same time, since the primary aim is not to settle a dispute but to resolve a systemic problematic situation, the judge must facilitate the movements of the parties, and the adversarial principle must also be strengthened. Must be encouraged this activation of a powerful and discretionary approach, not as an exception but as a principle fully articulated with a contentious principle, with the dispute being only a means used by the necessary parties to enable systemic compliance situations to be resolved. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, To master the regulatory mass of Compliance, think of it as a jigsaw puzzle,  Working Paper , May 2025 - 📝 This Working Paper underpins the Newsletter MAFR Law -Compliance – Regulation  of 2 June 2025 :  - ► Summary of this Working Paper:  People are rightly complaining that Europe's regulatory and compliance regulations are too numerous, too complicated and too changeable. As a result, they are said to be unmanageable. Three solutions are proposed: specialise lawyers, regulatory corpus by regulatory corpus; deregulate; entrust everything to algorithms. These are inadequate solutions, because regulations cannot be understood unless they are put into perspective with the rest of the legal rules .; we have entered a new world, and these new regulations reflect the need for a new Law (unless we want to destroy the Law itself, which is what some people are dreaming of doing); algorithms reproduce past solutions and do not produce the new legal conception required. For an appropriate solution, we need to move away from a word-by-word understanding of the regulatory and compliance regulations and understand them as a whole, not only in relation to the purpose that gives them meaning, but also in relation to each other. In the positive sense of the term, they form a European 'jigsaw puzzle'. We need to look at the overall picture in which each regulation fits and makes sense. It finds its simplicity in relation to its purpose. It is always a question of working towards the sustainability of systems by asking companies to contribute so that the systems do not crush human beings but benefit them. Thus, in practice, the Monumental Goals of Compliance Law give clarity to the body of regulations which, when seen as a whole, are manageable and practical. Judges interpret them in this way. - 🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance law as a Royal Road for regulating the Digital Space, Working Paper, May 2025 - 📝 This Working Paper is the English basis for an article written in French "Le Droit de la compliance, voie royale pour réguler l'espace numérique", in 📕 - ► Summary of this Working Paper: In order to describe the role of Compliance Law in regulating the digital space and to conclude that this new branch of Law is the 'royal road' to this end, this study proceeds in 6 stages. Firstly, at first sight and conceptually, there is a gap between the political idea of Regulating and the ideas (freedom and technology as 'law') on which the digital space has been built and is unfolding. Secondly, in practice, there is such a huge gap between the ordinary methods of Regulatory Law, which are backed by a State, and the organisation of the Digital Space by these economic operators, that are both American and global. Thirdly, the political claim to civilise the Digital Space remains and is growing, relying on the very strength of the entities capable of realising this ambition, these entities being the crucial digital operators themselves, seized as Ex Ante. Fourthly, it corresponds to the conception and practice of a new branch of Law, Compliance Law, which should not be confused with "conformity" and which is normatively anchored in its "Monumental Goals". Fifthly, Compliance Law internalises Monumental Goals in the digital operators which disseminate them through structures and behaviours in the digital space. Sixthly, through the interweaving of legislation, court rulings and corporate behaviour, the Monumental Goals are given concrete expression, willingly or by force, in ways that can civilise the digital space without undermining the primacy of freedom. - 🔓read the Working Paper below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Arbitration, a highly appropriate technique for deploying Compliance Law, in particular to satisfy the Vigilance Obligation, Working Paper, March 2025. - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on …  April 2025 : click HERE  - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the Notion category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: If Arbitration has so far not developed much in Compliance Law, it is because this new branch of Law is not well known. Indeed, if it were simply a matter of 'conformity' with mandatory regulations, then Arbitration involving rights that are freely available to the parties and Compliance would be 2 worlds that must ignore each other. But Compliance Law is defined quite differently. Its normativity lies in the Monumental Goals set by the political authorities, which oblige large companies, because these compagnies are in a position to do so, to contribute to achieving these Goals, namely the future preservation of the Systems (banking, digital, climate, energy, etc.) and human beings involved. While the Goal is constrained, the company is free to choose the means, as long as these means  are credible. Arbitration is one of them. From the arbitration clause to the appropriate award. One example is the Duty of Vigilance, the cutting edge of Compliance. In order to effectively find solutions in the value chain that the company governs, Arbitration is a suitable means of achieving the Monumental Goals of environmental protection and human rights, under the control of the Judge.       - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Contract, a Compliance tool: the Obligation for a platform to control content CE, 27 January 2025, B. c/ CNIL, Working Paper, March 2025. - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 29 March 2025 : click HERE (in French) - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: The ruling handed down on 15 January 2025 by the Commercial, Economic and Financial Chamber of the French Judicial Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides a solution to the issue of content control in the digital environment. It resolves what appears to be the aporia so often emphasised, and even claimed, namely the impossibility of developing an effective controlling technology. To do this, the Court disregarded the applicable laws and referred to the electronic payment contract between the bank and the platform, which contained a clause on Vigilance against unlawful content, linked to a termination clause. It held that this clause was fully effective. This solution, so simple and so strong, can make a major contribution to regulating the digital space, if the banks so wish, because what platform can do without reliable electronic payment services?   - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Who is responsible for making the Compliance provision effective? Is it the company or the public authority? Example of data: CE, 27 January 2025, B. c/ CNIL, Working Paper, February 2025.   - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 8 February 2025 : click HERE (in French) - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: In its decision of 27 January 2025, B. v CNIL, the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d'État ) had to provide a solution to a case that the Compliance rules applicable to data had not expressly provided for. Can a person who believes that another person has failed to fulfill their obligations under the GDPR refer the matter to the French Data Protection Regulator (CNIL) and not the data controller? The Conseil d'État considers that the question is clear and that there is no point in referring a preliminary question to the ECJ. Indeed, the texts require the person alleging that his or her right has been infringed to first contact the data controller to have the information deleted before subsequently referring the matter to the CNIL. Furthermore, this case involved personal information inserted by doctors in an expert report submitted to a court. The Conseil d'État agreed with the CNIL that it was not required to review and assess the evidence, which is the role of the court. This shows that, while the right to alert can be used to refer cases directly to the administrative authorities, here the specific takes precedence over the general, with the spirit of the Law entrusting the direct preservation of rights to the data controller, with the CNIL's supervisory and sanctioning role coming only at a later stage. This illustrates the more general nature of Compliance Law, which relies primarily on the operators themselves. Furthermore, as a melting pot of various subjective rights, in this case the right to erasure but also the right to contribute to the debates, the Conseil d'État stresses that it is the role of the judicial judge to ensure the fairness of the debates. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and the time saved: the Areva and Orano CJIP of 2 December 2024, Working Paper, January 2025. - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 25 January 2025 : click HERE (in French) - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: On 2 December 2024, Areva/Orano signed a Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP) with the French National Financial Prosecutor's Office, validated by the order of 9 December 2024 of the President of the Paris Judicial Court. The case concerns the bribery of a foreign public official in Mongolia through the use of an intermediary. This perfectly illustrates the primary advantage of this Compliance Tool, which consists of closing a situation that could deprive a company of the means to act in the future. Even if neither the CJIP nor the validation order constitutes an admission of guilt or a conviction, the acts of bribery of a foreign public official can no longer give rise to prosecution. However, the future has been taken care of, because as soon as Tracfin passed the first information to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the company cooperated and set up a programme to actively fight corruption ("compliance programme"). The CJIP extends this by a compliance programme supervised by the French Anticorruption Agency. One month after the CJIP, the Mongolian government and the company, in the presence of the French government, announced on 17 January 2025 the signing of a contract to operate a uranium mine, the same industrial coopération that had given rise to these reprehensible acts. The CJIP made it possible to move forward in time.       - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Status and Role of the 'trajectory' in Regulatory and Compliance Law​, Working Paper, January 2025.   - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 18 January 2024 : click HERE (in French) - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the Notions category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: The notion of Trajectory is a key concept in Compliance Law. This is shown in 4 steps. – 1. the decisive use of the trajectory in the 3 Grande-Synthe decisions of the French Conseil d'État, – 2. defining the trajectory, – 3. the application of the trajectory in various sectoral Compliances and Compliance tools, – 4. the probationary dimension of the trajectory and the consequences for subjected entities          - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The puzzle of Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law: the example of the European Regulations of 31 May 2024 on AMLA and enterprises compliance obligations​, Working Paper, January 2025.   - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 11 January 2024 :   - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is built on 2 legs, Institutions on the one hand and substantive rules on the other. For example in the United States, the 1934 Act established at the same time the prohibition and prevention of financial market abuse and the SEC. In Europe, in 2013, the Banking Union established institutions to build this Union and increased the obligations on banks. This is perfectly illustrated by the 2 European Regulations of 31 May 2024, one creating the AMLA and the other reinforcing the compliance obligations of crucial economic operators, one text referring to the other. Indeed, Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law are like 2 articulated legs. You have to know both and make them work together. This is part of the "European puzzle", a positive expression which implies that, when assessing and interpreting a text, we should always bear in mind that it is only one element of a general picture, which is coloured by its Monumental Goal: in this case to obtain a European area where money laundering is efficiently prevented thanks to the action of the companies themselves under the supervision and support of a Supervisory Authority which coordinates the actions of the States. If we consider only one element, we find everything 'complicated', whereas the overall picture is simple, because the Goal is simple and in Compliance Law, a branch of Teleological Law, everything is in the Monumental Goal.   - 🔓read the developments below ⤵️ - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Identifying and anticipating the practice of Emerging Systemic Litigation: a necessity for organizing it​ , Working Paper, December 2024. - 🎤This working paper was drawn up to serve as the basis for the speech that opened the colloquium L’expérience des juridictions dans le Contentieux Systémique Émergent, in the cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent," which was held in French on 16 December 2024 at the Paris Court of Appeal.   - 📝It will also constitute the basis of the first contribution to the book to be published in French in 2025, Le contentieux systémique émergent (Emerging Systemic Litigation). - ► Summary of this Working Paper : Systemic Litigation is for the moment a practice that has not been clearly identified. This is a handicap in practice, firstly because it can be confused with other things, such as the "systemic method" that this category of Litigation calls for and to which it cannot be reduced and which this method exceeds, and secondly because if this practice is not conceptualised, secondly, because if this practice is not conceptualised, even if only by a shared definition, it is difficult for the courts to organise themselves and for the potential parties to the dispute and to the proceedings to anticipate the procedural and substantive solutions that will be adopted tomorrow. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that not all emerging disputes are Systemic and not all systemic disputes are emerging. For example, banking regulation litigation and litigation concerning the operation of competitive markets or sectoral regulation are systemic disputes that are not emerging. But it so happens that technological developments have given rise to new systemic litigation, which the courts, judges and parties have had to adapt to because the systems themselves are entering the courthouses. A series of conferences has been organised to report on this practice, focusing on technology, legislation, management, court organisation, procedure and the role of the judge. They have thus made it possible to build up common, cross-disciplinary knowledge so that innovations can be developed and expressed in the organisation of the courts, in procedures, particularly in the relationship between judges and lawyers, and in the openness of proceedings, in the conception of the judge's office, which must be singular when the case, because a systemic is implied, is systemic. This specificity leads to judges who are less hierarchical among themselves and more specialised, leading to procedural forms that place dialogue and adversarial proceedings no longer as a desire and support but as the primary guiding principle.   - 🔓read the developments of this Working Paper below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Monumental Goals, normative anchoring of Compliance, Working Paper, February 2025.   - 🎬This working document has been drawn up to serve as basis to the video Overhang👁 of  the 1st February 2025: click HERE - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the Notions category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this  Working Paper: Compliance, of which conformity is only one instrument (the 2 should not be confused), must be understood through the ‘Monumental Goals’ : political ambitions pursued by the public authorities and internalised in the entities in a position to achieve them, i.e. large companies. These Goals are Monumental in that they concern systems: ensuring that these systems do not collapse in the future = ‘Negative Monumental Goals’ (e.g. fight against corruption, against climate change); more ambitious still, they may aim to improve systems = ‘Positive Monumental Goals’ (e.g. effective equality between women and men). Their systemic nature gives rise to Systemic Litigation. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law  🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Overhang/Surplomb

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, The invention of the 'right to a child'. The consequences of contractual practice as a source of filiation, working document, Sept. 2024 – Oct. 2025. - 🎤This working document forms the basis of a presentation entitled, "Le "droit à l'enfant" est-il concevable, pourquoi et avec quelles conséquences" (Is the 'right to a child' conceivable, why and with what consequences", in Les nouvelles filiations. Diifférentes perspectives (New parentage. Different perspectives." held at the Paris Court of Appeal on 12 September 2024. - 📝Revised, this working document forms the basis of the article published in the dossier "Les nouvelles filiations. Regards croisés" (New parentage. Different perspectives), Act. jur. Dalloz Droit de la famille (in French). - ► Summary of this working document  :  Every legal system is built on concepts that form its pillars. Filiation is one such concept. A cas-law solution, presented as pragmatic and casuistic, can overturn this concept. Whether one agrees with it or not, it must first be acknowledged and assessed. Through a series of rulings on surrogacy, notably a ruling by its First Civil Chamber granting exequatur to a judgment recognising the filiation established by surrogacy between a child and persons with no biological link to the child and without recourse to adoption, the French Cour de Cassation has introduced the possibility of creating parentage by contract. This not only changes the concept of filiation but also changes the very structure of the French legal system, which is based on the distinction between persons and things. One may agree or disagree with this, but it must be said. Since the judge gives force to such a contract establishing filiation, with the foreign judge simply recognising it and the French judge ensuring only that the contract is balanced, the prospect opens up of a society in which individuals will be able to contractually create institutions at their disposal, within the private normative space of the contract, with the State's only function being to give effect to their right to legal recognition of their unique "project". Parentage is only a first example. Thus constructed on what was "inconceivable", i.e. a "right to a child", thanks to the contractual power to which the State should lend its force a posteriori, the judge makes parentage resulting from a contract technically "admissible" and opens up a contractually governed society. - 🔓read the working document below⤵️ - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Antitrust, natural field of Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, July 2024 - 📝This working paper has been prepared as a basis for the article to be published "Antitrust, natural field of Systemic Litigation" in the Review Concurrences in September 2024 - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Systemic Litigation is a specific category of Litigation in which beyond the dispute between the parties the interest of a System is involved, in particular its future. Competition Law is a natural and long-standing field for this category, which is now emerging strongly for information, climate and energy systems.  It should be remembered that a market is not self-regulating and cannot continue to function in the long term unless it has the benefit of a judge, a figure who is specific in that he/she is both external to it and yet apprehends its specific interest. In order to satisfy this double requirement, liberal legal organisations often entrust the competition authority with jurisdiction over this Systemic Litigation. Ordinary courts will also hear such cases, either on appeal or in other proceedings, and it cannot be claimed that courts are excluded, the systemic dimension of the dispute being expressed by the presence of the competition authority in the proceedings. This explains the procedural rules that are hard to justify otherwise. The Authority, the European Commission for example, must be able to develop and express the specific interests of the competition system. This special role of the competition authority in this type of litigation, because it is systemic, has been in place for decades and should serve as a model for Systemic Litigation, which is being developed for other systems whose sustainability is now referred to the courts. - 🔓read the developments below⤵️ - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Systemic Litigation, Working Paper, July 2024. - 📝Ce This Working Paper has been the basis for an article tot be published in French in the Recueil Dalloz. - ► Summary of this Working Paper: We are seeing the Emergence of a category of its own and must be designated by a singular expression: 'Systemic Litigation' (I). This category is composed of concrete cases, "Systemic Cases", in which a system is entirely involved. The interest in these systems, insofar as they are all a system, unifies the category and justifies its own procedural, institutional and jurisdictional treatment. This type of Litigation is Emerging for three reasons, which are recorded in the Systemic Cases (II). Systemic Litigation must be dealt with in a way that is both specific and unified. This is beginning to happen and must be expanded (III). - 🔓read the developments below - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb