Toutes les actualités

► Référence complète : S. Schiller, « A single judge in the event of an international breach of compliance obligations? », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 409-422.  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteure, traduit par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance): Given the very international nature of the topic apprehended, the actors involved and therefore the compliance disputes, it is essential to know if a person can be implicated before several judges, attached to different states or even if he can be condemned by several jurisdictions. The answer is given by the non bis in idem principle, which is the subject of a abondant case law on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol n°7 of the ECHR, clearly inapplicable for jurisdictions emanating from different States. To assess whether breaches of compliance obligations may be subject to multiple sanctions in different states, it will first be necessary to ascertain whether there is a textual basis to be invoked. At European level, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights now allows the principle of ne bis in idem to be invoked. Applicable to all areas of compliance, it provides very strong protection which covers not only sanctions, but also prosecutions. Like its effects, the scope of Article 50 is very broad. The procedures concerned are those which have a repressive nature, beyond those pronounced by criminal courts in the strict sense, which makes it possible to cover the convictions pronounced by one of the many regulatory authorities competent in matters of compliance. Internationally, the situation is less clear. Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be invoked, if several obstacles are overcome, including the decision of 2 November 1987 of the Human Rights Committee which restricted it to the internal framework, requiring a double conviction by the same State. Even if these principles are applicable, two specificities of compliance situations risk hampering their application, the first related to the applicable procedural rules, in particular the rules of jurisdiction, the second related to the specificities of the situation. The application of the non bis in idem rule is only formally accepted with regard to universal jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, that is to say extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is only part of the jurisdiction. . The Cour de cassation (French Judiciary Supreme Court) confirmed this in the famous so-called “Oil for food” judgment of March 14, 2018. The refusal to recognize this principle as universal, regardless of the jurisdiction rule in question, deprives French companies of a defense. Moreover, the repression of breaches of compliance rules is more and more often resolved through transactional mechanisms. The latter will not always fall within the scope of European and international rules laying down the non bis in idem principle, for lack of being sometimes qualified as « final judgment » under the terms of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 14-7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This results from prescriptions the starting point of which is delayed at the last event and a facilitated jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Judicial Convention of Public Interest (CJIP) of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this. Breaches in terms of compliance are often based on multiple acts. This causes delays in the starting point of prescriptions, starting point delayed at the last event, and this facilitates judicial jurisdiction for French courts when only one of the constitutive facts is found in France. In terms of compliance, the non bis in idem principle therefore generally does not protect companies and does not prevent them from being sued before the courts of two different countries for the same case. It nevertheless grants them another protection by obliging them to take into account foreign decisions in determining the amount of the penalty. The sanction against Airbus SE in the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public -CJIP (French Judicial Convention of Public Interest)  of January 29, 2020 is a perfect illustration of this. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète: O. Douvreleur, « Compliance and Judge of the Law », in  M.-A.​ Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 423-431.  - 📘lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : Compliance maintains with the judge complex relations, and even more with the judge ruling only on points of Law  (in France, the Court de Cassation in the judicial order, the one who, in principle, does not know the facts that he leaves to the sovereign appreciation of the judges ruling on the substance of the disputes. At first glance, compliance is a technique internalised in companies and the place occupied by negotiated justice techniques leave little room for intervention by the judge ruling only on points of Law However, his role is intended to develop, in particular with regard to the duty of vigilance or in the articulation between the different branches of Law when compliance meets Labor Law, or even in the adjustment between American Law and the other legal systems, especially French legal system. The way in which the principle of Proportionality will take place in Compliance Law is also a major issue for the judge ruling only on points of Law. -

► Reference complète : E. Wennerström, « Some Reflections on Compliance and the European Court of Human Rights », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 441-451.  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article   - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : The development of the European Court of Human Rights case law, contributing to European integration, has incorporated the substantial concept of ​​"compliance" which goes beyond the idea of ​​legality with respect to which companies remain passive, and promotes legal orders as systems in interaction with one another. The author develops the spirit and scope of Protocol 15 by which both the principle of subsidiarity and the margins of appreciation the signatory States are organized, mechanisms governed by the principle of proportionality. Subsidiarity means that the States are in the best position to design the most adequate application of the Convention, the close links between the States allowing its effective application. In addition, the new opinion procedure which allows a national court to have during a case the non-binding opinion of the ECHR ensures better compliance with the objectives of the Convention. The case-law of the Court takes up this substantial requirement through its doctrine, in particular identified in the Bosphorus case, by stressing that the accession of a State to the European Union presumes its compliance when implementing EU law with the obligations arising from the ECHR, even if this presumption can be refuted if the protection is manifestly lacking, which was admitted in several cases, in particular concerning the right to an impartial tribunal in matters of economic regulation. The different legal orders are thus articulated.  The author concludes that the European Court of Human Rights, like the Court of Justice of the Union, contributes to the construction of Compliance Law in Europe, from an Ex Ante perspective favoring opinions rather than Ex Post sanctions and creating, in particular through the Bosphorus doctrine, elements of security and confidence for European integration around common values. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : B. Sillaman, « Privilege Lessons from the U.S. », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 251-255.  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : The French legal system is evolving, organizing interaction between lawyers with regulators and prosecutors, specially in investigations about corruption or corporate misconduct, adopting U.S. negotiated resolutions such as the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, which encourages « collaboration » between them.  The author describes the evolution of the U.S. DOJ doctrine and askes French to be inspired by the U.S. procedural experience, U.S. where this mechanism came from. Indeed, the DOJ released memoranda about what the « collaboration » means. At the end (2006 Memorandum), the DOJ has considered that the legal privilege must remain intact when the information is not only factual in order to maintain trust between prosecutors, regulators and lawyers. French authorities do not follow this way. The author regrets it and thinks they should adopt the same reasoning as the American authority on the secret professionnel of the avocat, especially when he intervenes in the company internal investigation. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : M. Audit, « The arbitrator's position on compliance », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation,  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 319-333.  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Le résumé ci-dessous décrit un article qui suit une intervention dans le colloque Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). Ce colloque a été conçu par  Marie-Anne Frison-Roche et Jean-Baptiste Racine, co-directeurs scientifiques, et s'est tenu à Paris II le 31 mars 2021.  Dans le livre, l'article sera publié dans le Titre III, consacré à : Compliance and Arbitration. - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : For the arbitrator to intervene in matters of Compliance, a « Compliance Obligation » must exist. The identification of this specific obligation is tricky because it cannot generally be identified per se, if it is grasped only through Criminal Law, which does not enter directly into the field of Arbitration, which has developed an autonomous conception of the facts, in particular facts of corruption, which are also criminally reproachable. But because the obligation of compliance is itself autonomous, since it is a question of detecting and preventing various offenses and breaches, the arbitrators rely on the detection and prevention mechanisms as such, distinct from the possible behaviors that the Law wants they don't happen. But the question of the source of this compliance obligation is central because it must arise from a standard that can lead to Arbitration. This is the case of the contract, for example an intermediary contract which not only prohibits any corrupt practice but also provides for audit or control, or even the case of national laws, in particular the UK Bribery Act or the so-called French « Sapin 2 » law, or even decisions imposing compliance programs or the unconstrained adoption of these by the company. According to its source, the arbitrator will take the Compliance obligation into account. If a Compliance obligation, having a source giving its significance in an Arbitration proceeding, is considered by the arbitrator to be breached, the consequences often depend on this source. The solution is classic if it is the lex contractus, more difficult if it is a Law which has inserted this obligation in the lex societatis, the requirements of compliance being generally considered as mandatory laws. If the arbitrators cannot apply the sanctions attached by the repressive law, they can support their decision in consideration of the breach found to assess the legality of a behavior or the validity of a contract, the ICC Rules for combating corruption being able to serve them as an analysis guide. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche - . 

► Référence complète : E. Silva-Romero & R. Legru, « What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration? », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 305-317.  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Le résumé ci-dessous décrit un article qui suit une intervention dans le colloque Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). Ce colloque a été conçu par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche et Jean-Baptiste Racine, co-directeurs scientifiques, et s'est tenu à Paris II le 31 mars 2021.  Dans le livre, l'article est publié dans le Titre III, consacré à : Compliance and Arbitration. - ► Résumé de l'article : The authors emphasize the new and growing place of Compliance in International Arbitration, particularly in the requirement of respect for ethical values, since arbitrators can implement Ethics, sometimes lacking in international trade, or even must put their power only at the service of investors who respect the Rule of Law. Thus, Compliance is deployed through the classic control by the arbitrators of the legality of the investment, which applies both to the establishment of the treaty itself and to the investor. In a more recent way, the arbitrator can control about an investment project a sort of « social license to operate » of the investor, concept related to the social responsibility of the companies, appeared for the protection of the peoples indigenous. Moreover, Compliance can justify a substantial assessment by the arbitrator of the effective respect of the human rights and the environment protection via an investment treaty, the State party remaining able to act for the effectiveness of these concerns. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, « Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the Nature of things », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 273-286. - 📝lire l'article (en anglais) - 🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes -   📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - Les principaux éléments de cet article ont été présentés en introduction de la manifestation scientifique qui s'est tenue à l'Université Paris-Dauphine le 23 septembre 2021, coorganisée par le  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et l'Institut Droit Dauphine.  Dans l'ouvrage, cet article est situé dans le Chapitre II, relatif à la dimension processuelle du Droit de la Compliance: General Procedural Law in Compliance Law  - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : General Procedural Law is an invention, essentially due to Professor Motulsky, going well beyond the gain that one always has in comparing types of procedures with each other. As he asserted, there is Natural Law in General Procedural Law, in that as soon as there is the Rule of Law Principle there cannot be, whatever the « procedure », even the « process », such and such way of doing things: for example, to decide, to seize the one who decides, to listen before deciding, to contest the one who has decided. General Procedural Law therefore depends on the nature of things. However, Compliance Law organizes things in a new way. Therefore, both the simple and iron principles of General Procedural Law creep in where we do not expect them at first sight, because there is no judge, this character around whom ordinary procedures fit together. The principles of General Procedural Law are essential in companies. Even if the regulations do not breathe a word about it, it is up to the Judges, in particular the Supreme Courts, to recognize this nature of things because on this effect of nature that  General Procedural Law is built: when compliance mechanisms oblige companies to strike, General Procedural law must oblige, even in the silence of the texts, to arm those who can be hit, even stand up against devices that would set aside too much these defenses that are easily considered contrary to efficiency (I). But because it is a question of making room for this nature of the things of which the Rule of Law Principle entrusts the custody to the Judge and the Lawyer, the General Procedural Law must also adjust itself to what the extraordinary new branch of Law Compliance Law is. Indeed, Compliance Law is extraordinary in that it expresses the political pretention to act now so that the future will not be catastrophic, by detecting and preventing the realization of systemic risks, or even that it is better, by building effective equality or real concern for others. Because it is the Monumental Goals that defines this new branch of Law, a disputed systemic issue, possibly disputed by several parties before a judge, the procedural principles used by the court must be broadened considerably: they must then include civil society and the future (II). General Procedural Law thus naturally acquires an even more place than in classic branches of Law since on the one hand it imposes itself outside of trials, particularly in companies, and on the other before the courts it involves people who had hardly any place to speak and thinks themselves, especially the systems entering the « causes » of Compliance now debated before the Judge. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Référence complète : F.-X. Train, « Arbitration and parallel proceedings exercised in Compliance Procedure », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, à paraître.  - ► the summary below describes the article that follows an intervention in the scientific manifestation Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). This conference was designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine, scientific co-directors, and took place in Paris II University on March 31, 2021.  In the book, the article will be published in the Chapter III, devoted to: Compliance et Arbitrage international. - ► Résumé de l'article :  Firstly, the article insists on the principle of the autonomy of the international arbitration procedure, in relation to which parallel procedures remain watertight, whether they are criminal or done under Compliance Law. In the arbitral proceedings taking place independently, the arbitrators before whom the facts also referred to in these parallel proceedings, in particular the facts of corruption, are alleged before them as facts through their unlawful nature: it is at this title that they can and must apprehend them, using the standard of proof which is the bundle of clues. Secondly, the article highlights the limits of the autonomy of international arbitration. These may be de facto limits because in the search for evidence by arbitrators, red flags are often insufficiently consistent evidence to establish a sentence, especially since this sentence may be subject to control by the judge of its conformity to international public order, the annulment by the judge being able to be based on external elements, even after the arbitration procedure. It may then be wise for the arbitrators, who are not forced to do so, to suspend their proceedings to wait the results of the parallel proceedings initiated under Compliance Law, so that the procedures and their results could be harmonious. - 📘 lire la présentation de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié -  

► Référence complète : F. Ancel, « Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial? », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 245-250.   - 📘lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié   - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance) : Through this article, the author formulates a proposal: elevating the principle of compliance to the rank of leading principle of the trial. To support this, the author firstly emphasizes the convergence of the aims of compliance and the purpose of the trial. Indeed, emphasizing that Compliance Law does not oust either the State or the judge, as soon as compliance means that the person must keep their commitments and that the trial is also based on this principle that the parties must conform to the principles and to their own « speech », compliance thus becomes a trial leading principle. In a second part of the article, the author illustrates his point in a very concrete way. First, the protocols of procedure which are drawn up by the courts and the bars are commitments which should justify a form of constraint which, if it should not have the same form and nature as that of the law, must all the same even have consequences when a party fails to do so. Secondly, relying on French case law which sanctions a party which had accepted the principle of an arbitration and then systematically hinders its implementation, the author suggests that under the principle of compliance can be grouped the notions for the instant scattered of loyalty, consistency (estoppel) and efficiency. Thus, this « open practice » echoing the « open way » of a procedural principle of compliance brings out this one. - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, « The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 359-395. - 📝lire l'article (en anglais) - 🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes. - 📘lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The article aims to identify the link that must be established between the company in its relationship with the compliance obligations it assumes and the judges to whom it is accountable in this respect: this link is established by evidence. The evidentiary system of proof has yet to be constructed, and it is the purpose of this long study to lay the groundwork.  To this end, the article begins with a description of what is designated here as the « probatory square » in a « probatory system » that is superimposed on the system of rules of substantive legal system. This is all the more important because Compliance seems to be in frontal collision in its very principles with the general principles of the evidentiary system, in particular because it seems that the company would have to prove the existence of the Law or that it would have to bear in a definitive way the burden of proving the absence of violation, which seems to be contrary not only to the presumption of innocence but also to the principle of the freedom of action and of undertaking. In order to re-articulate Compliance Law, the obligations of compliance which legitimately weigh on the company, it is necessary to return to the probatory system specific to Compliance, so that it remains within the Rule of Law. This presupposes the adoption of a substantial definition of Compliance, which is not only compliance with the rules, which is only a minimal dimension, but implies that Compliance Law should be defined by the Monumental Goals on which the public authorities and the companies are in substantial alliance. The evidentiary system of principle makes play between its four summits that are the burden of proof, the objects of proof this evidentiary square of principle, between the burden of proof, the means of proof and their admissibility. Compliance Law does not fall outside this evidential square, thus marking its full membership of the Rule of Law In order to lay the foundations of the evidential system specific to Compliance Law, the first part of the article identifies the objects of proof which are specific to it, by distinguishing between the structural devices, on the one hand, and the expected behaviours, on the other. The first involves proving that the structures required to achieve the Monumental Goals of Compliance have actually been put in place. The object of proof is then the effectiveness of this implementation, which presents the effectiveness of the system. As far as behavioral obligations are concerned, the object of proof is the efforts made by the company to obtain them, the principle of proportionality governing the establishment of this proof, while the systemic efficiency of the whole reinforces the evidential system. However, the wisdom of evidence lies in the fact that, even though the principle remains that of freedom of evidence, the company must establish the effectiveness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the whole, independently of the burden of proof. The second part of the article concerns those who bear the burden of proof in Compliance Law. The latter places the burden of proof on the company in principle, in view of its legal obligations. This burden comes from the legal origin of the obligations, which blocks the « round of the burden of proof ». But in the interference of the different vertices of the evidentiary square, the question becomes more delicate when it comes to determining the contours of the compliance obligations that the company must perform. Moreover, the burden of proof may itself be the subject of proof, just as the company's performance of its legal obligations may also be the subject of contracts, which brings us back to the evidentiary system ordinarily applicable to contractual obligations. The situation is different when it comes to a « compliance contract » or when it comes to one or more compliance stipulations, concepts that are still not very well developed in Contract Law.  Furthermore, as all branches of Law belong to a legal system governed by the Rule of Law, other branches of law interfere and modify the methods and solutions of proof. This is the case when the fact, which is the object of proof, can give rise to a sanction, the Law of repression imposing its own solutions in the matter of the burden of proof.  In the third part of the article, the relevant means of proof in Compliance Law are examined, used in that Compliance Law is above all a branch of Law whose object is on the one hand information and on the other hand the Future. Open questions remain, such as whether companies could be forced by the Judge to build technologies to invent new means of proof. To show that they are indeed achieving the Monumental Goals they are charged with.  In the fourth part, the vital character of the pre-constitution of evidence is shown, which is the reflection of the Ex-Ante nature of Compliance Law: evidence must be pre-constituted to avoid the very prospect of having to use it, by finding all the means to establish the effectiveness, efficiency and even the effectiveness of the various Compliance Tools.  If companies do all this methodically, the Compliance evidence system will be established, in harmony with the general evidence system, Compliance Law and the Rule of Law. - - 🌐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 🌐s’abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Référence complète : F. Raynaud, "The administrative judge and compliance", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, 2024, pp. 433-439  - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article : -

► Référence complète : S. Merabet, « Vigilance, being a judge and not judge », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 217-228 - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article :  - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : D. Latour, « Internal investigations within companies », in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 183-201 - 📘consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article :  - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Main Aspects of the Book. Compliance Jurisdictionalisation", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. "Compliance & Regulation", 2024, pp. 11-38 - 📝Cet article constitue l'introduction de l'ouvrage ; il est en accès libre ICI. - 📘lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, dans lequel cet article est publié - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : Cet article en accès libre ⤵️explique en premier lieu le propos général de l'ouvrage et en deuxième lieu sa structuration en 4 chapitres. Puis, en troisième lieu, en suivant la table des matières, cet article reprend en quelques lignes chacune des contributions. C'est ainsi qu'apparaissent plus nettement encore les « lignes de force » de l'ouvrage" Compliance Jurisdictionalisation - 🔓Lire l'article en intégralité⤵️ - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, coll. « Compliance & Regulation », 2024, 464 p. - 📕Parallèlement, un ouvrage en français, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, est publié dans la collection coéditée par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz.  - ► Présentation générale de l'ouvrage : There have always been Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law, in particular because this branch of Law is an extension of Regulatory Law in which they have a core place. This results from the fact that the decisions taken in respect of Compliance are contestable in Court, including Arbitration, those issued by the Company, such as those of States or Authorities, the Judge in turn becoming what Compliance Law is effective. The novelty lies more in the phenomenon of « jurisdictionalisation », that is to say that the trial model penetrates all Compliance Law, and not only the Ex Post part that it includes. Moreover, it seems that this jurisdictionalisation influences the non-legal dimension of Compliance. This movement has effects that must be measured and causes that must be understood. Advantages and disadvantages that must be balanced. If only to form an opinion vis-à-vis Companies that have become Prosecutors and Judges of themselves and others… : encourage this « Jurisdictionalisation of Compliance », fight it, perhaps influence it? In any case, understand it! - 🏗️Construction générale de l'ouvrage :The book opens with a double Introduction. The first, which is freely accessible, consists of a summary of the book, while the second, which is substantial, deals with the need to bring the Judge and the Lawyer into line if Compliance Law is to be the hallmark of States governed by the Rule of Law. The first Chapter is devoted to what is specific to Compliance Law: the transformation of companies into Prosecutors and Judges of themselves, and even of others.  The second Chapter examines the interference between General Procedural Law and Compliance techniques.The third Chapter measures the influence of the reasoning and requirements of Compliance Law in methods of dispute resolution where it has not, with a few exceptions, been present, but where it has a great future: arbitration. Because trials and judgements are indissociable, because legal techniques and the Rule of Law must not be dissociated, and because Compliance techniques could paradoxically be the weapon used to dissociate them, because the power to judge and the procedures surrounding it must not be dissociated, because Compliance and the Rule of Law must therefore be conceived and practised together, the rise in power of one being a sign of the rise in power of the other, and not the price of the weakening of the Rule of Law, the fourth Chapter deals with the role of the Judge in Compliance. - TABLE OF CONTENTS DOUBLE INTRODUCTION 🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Main Aspects of the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation 🕴️​M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Reinforce the Judge and the Lawyer to impose Compliance Law as a characteristic of the Rule of Law    I. THE COMPANY ESTABLISHED PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE OF ITSELF BY COMPLIANCE LAW 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The « Judge-Judged ». Articulating Words and Things in the face of Conflicts of Interest 🕴️C. Granier, 📝Reflections on the existence of companies’ jurisprudence through Compliance matters 🕴️L.-M. Augagneur, 📝The jurisdictionalisation of reputation by platforms 🕴️A. Bruneau, 📝The compagny judges itself: the Compliance function in the bank 🕴️J.-M. Coulon, 📝Compliance Law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and. deadlocks that companies face 🕴️Ch. Lapp, 📝Compliance in companies: the statues of process 🕴️J. Heymann, 📝The Legal Nature of the Facebook « Supreme Court » 🕴️D. Latour, 📝Internal investigations within companies 🕴️A. Bavitot, 📝Shaping the company through negotiated Criminal Justice Agreements. French perspective 🕴️S. Merabet, 📝Vigilance, being a judge and not judge   II. PROCEDURAL LAW IN COMPLIANCE LAW 🕴️​N. Cayrol, 📝Procedural Principles in Compliance Law 🕴️F. Ancel, 📝Compliance Law, a new guiding principle for the Trial? 🕴️B. Sillaman, 📝Taking the Compliance U.S. Procedural Experience globally 🕴️A. Linden, 📝Motivation and publicity of the decisions of the Restricted formation of the French Personal Data Protection Authority (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés – CNIL) in a compliance perspective 🕴️S. Scemla, & 🕴️D. Paillot, 📝The difficulty for Compliance Enforcement Authorities to comprehend the Rights of the Defence in compliance matters 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Adjusting General Procedural Law to Compliance Law by the nature of things   III. ARTICULATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE LAW AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 🕴️J.-B. Racine, 📝Compliance and arbitration. An attempt at problematisation 🕴️E. Silva-Romero & 🕴️R. Legru, 📝What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration? 🕴️​M. Audit, 📝The arbitrator's position on compliance 🕴️E. Kleiman, 📝The objectives of compliance confronted with the actors of arbitration   IV. THE JUDGE IN COMPLIANCE LAW 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Judge, the Compliance Obligation and the Company. The Compliance Evidence System 🕴️J. Morel-Maroger, 📝The application of compliance standards by European Union judges  🕴️S. Schiller, 📝A single judge in the event of an international breach of compliance obligations? 🕴️O. Douvreleur, 📝Compliance and Judge of the Law 🕴️F. Raynaud, 📝The Administrative Judge and Compliance 🕴️E. Wennerström, 📝Some Reflections on Compliance and the European Court of Human Rights - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Référence complète : M. Caffin-Moi, « Les femmes dans les instances de direction des sociétés », in J. Houssier & M. Saulier (dir.), Les femmes et le droit. Les discriminations invisibles, Dalloz, coll. « Thèmes & Commentaires », 2024, pp. 111-122 - ► Résumé de l'article :  - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : J. Houssier & M. Saulier (dir.), Les femmes et le droit. Les discriminations invisibles, Dalloz, coll. « Thèmes & Commentaires », 2024, 162 p. - 📗lire la 4ième de couverture - 📗lire la table des matières  - 📝consulter une présentation de l'article de 🕴️Marie Caffin-Moi, « Les femmes dans les instances de direction des sociétés » -

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, audition notamment par Maître Sophie Bonne et Maître Anne-Claire Ancelin, respectivement présidente et rapporteure de la Commission du Conseil Supérieur du Notariat (CSN), élaborant un rapport sur Compliance : un espace à conquérir ?, 22 janvier 2024, CSN, Paris.. - ► Résumé de la présentation :  j'ai eu l'occasion d'étudier et de discuter des relations entre le notaire comme professionnel et le notariat comme structure de régulation d'une part et le Droit de la Compliance, d'autre part.  Je l'ai fait lors des travaux du Conseil Supérieur du Notariat sur la raison d'être, dans une audition avec la Commission du CSN en charge de la réflexion à ce propos et et d'une façon plus générale à propos de l'articulation entre l'office du notariat et les mécanismes juridiques de régulation, car le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation. J'ai d'ailleurs à ce titre fait une masterclass sur le droit de la compliance lors du Congrès annuel de 2022 à ce sujet.  M'appuyant sur ces premières réflexions et discussions, je peux articuler les propos suivants:   0. Observation préalable : l'intitulé semble sous-entendre que la compliance serait un espace nouveau, où le notariat serait étranger et qu'il faudrait « conquérir » cette terra incognita , le point d'interrogation permettant de suggérer que, si nouveau soit le Droit de la Compliance, c'est plutôt dans les professions agissant en Ex Ante qu'il est le moins « étranger » et que l'espace est donc déjà le plus « naturel ». L'enjeu est plutôt dans l'ambition que l'on peut en avoir : soit une ambition faible (« conformité »), soit une ambition forte (« Droit de la Compliance »).   1. Un espace restreint aujourd'hui et plus encore demain si l'on réduit la Compliance à ce qui n'est que son outil : la conformité. Cette réduction équivaut à un grand dommage, car les algorithmes sont aptes à prendre en charge la conformité, et font le faire le plus en plus, tandis que la compliance est maniée par les êtres humains. La conformité est, mais n'est que, un outil de la Compliance.   2. La Compliance se définit par les Buts Monumentaux  Les Buts monumentaux sont fixés par les Autorités politiques et publiques et ne peuvent être fixés que par elles ; le déploiement des moyens peuvent être déploient par d'autres que l'administration   3. Pragmatiquement, les buts monumentaux unifient la « masse réglementaire » 4. Tendre, dans une trajectoire, vers eux nécessite des êtres humains qui se coordonnent et agissent ensemble (ensemble du modèle concurrentiel) 5. Ils constituent la Compliance comme une branche ex ante du Droit 6. Ils placent le Droit de la Compliance en déploiement du Droit de la Régulation 7. Le Notariat est alors tout d'abord un « agent d'effectivité de la conformité », se dotant pour cela notamment des outils algorithmiques 8. Le Notariat est aussi une profession humaniste qui aide l'Etat, les entreprises et les parties intéressées à tendre vers la protection des êtres humains, pour qu'ils ne soient pas broyés par les systèmes devenus plus menaçants (but monumental négatif) et qu'ils en bénéficient (but monumental positif) 9. En cela, le Notariat, comme le Juge et l'Avocat, doit être consolidé dans sa structure, et doit aussi se présenter, au niveau du professionnel, au niveau de l'étude, au niveau de la profession structurée 10. Le Notariat doit aussi conforter sa gouvernance dans ce nouveau système de Compliance qui est en lien avec l'Etat de Droit et la Démocratie.    - ► Voir dans mes travaux ceux qui peuvent présenter un intérêt au regard de cette audition ⤵️ 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🖥️Appliquer la notion de "Raison d'être à la profession du Notariat, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche,🎤La compliance pour les études notariales : aspects théoriques et pratiques, Congrès des notaires , 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche,📝Notariat et régulation font bon ménage, 2015 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 💬La profession investit le Droit de la Compliance et détermine sa Raison d'Etre, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Penser et manier la Vigilance par ses Buts Monumentaux de Compliance, mars 2023. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Contrat de compliance, clauses de compliance, 2022. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧L'invention de la vigilance : un terme nouveau pour une Responsabilité en Ex Ante, 2021.  🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Synthèse : Le rôle du juge dans le déploiement du droit de la régulation par le droit de la compliance, à paraître  🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Le Droit de la compliance, 2016. - 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn 🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Référence complète : A. Oumedjkane, « Le tribunal judiciaire de Paris livre sa première interprétation de la loi relative au devoir de vigilance », JCP A, n° 3, 22 janvier 2024, commentaire 2016, pp. 1-3 - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : "Solution. – Après de longs parcours judiciaires, une première affaire relative au devoir de vigilance d’une société a donné lieu à un jugement au fond. Impact. – C’est l’occasion pour le juge de clarifier tout à la fois ses attendus quant aux mesures qui doivent composer le plan de vigilance et le rôle qu’il entend jouer à travers l’utilisation de ses pouvoirs d’injonction." - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -

► Référence complète : J.-B. Barbièri, « Devoir de vigilance : la fin du début ? », JCP G, n° 3, 22 janvier 2024, note 85, pp. 126-129 - ► Résumé de l'article (fait par l'auteur) : "Solution. – Le juge, en présence d’un plan de vigilance incomplet, peut enjoindre la société défaillante de le compléter, mais ne peut pas s’y substituer pour faire adopter des mesures spécifiques. Il peut en revanche enjoindre à la société « d’élaborer […] des actions complémentaires plus concrètes et efficaces en lien le cas échéant avec un risque identifié ». Impact. – Les plaideurs prendront attention à ne pas solliciter des mesures spécifiques qu’ils souhaiteraient voir adoptées par l’invocation du plan de vigilance. En revanche, en présence d’un « risque identifié », ce qui suppose qu’il le soit, ils pourront demander au juge des « actions complémentaires », dont l’étendue reste à déterminer. Du côté de l’élaboration du plan, il importe que les risques soient correctement identifiés, le standard à suivre étant que le plan « doit permettre au public et aux parties prenantes de connaître l’identification précise des risques », faute de quoi les mesures d’atténuation des risques seraient d’office insuffisantes.". - 🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche -