The recent news

Sept. 23, 2021

Events : JoRC

β–ΊThis scientific event is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Juliette Morel Maroger and Sophie Schiller. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Centre de recherche en Droit (CR2D) of Paris Dauphine-PSL University

This event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle around the general theme of Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.




β–ΊThe interventions will be then transformed into a chapter in the books: contributions in the πŸ“• La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  , to be published the Regulation & Compliance series ries, jointly published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoR)C and Dalloz 

πŸ“˜Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, πŸ“š   to be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and  Bruylant.



This colloquium will take place in Paris Dauphine-PSL University in September 2021.


Presentation of the topic :  

Judges, regulatory and supervisory authorities, or even authorities specially instituted by Compliance Law, such as the Agence Française Anticorruption (French Anticorruption Agency), must implement it.

The colloquium aims initially to identify and discuss the procedural rules that they then specifically implement, in particular when the strong requirements of Compliance Law, efficiency and immediacy, new negotiation techniques and commitment, must be articulated with the traditional procedural requirements that remain.

The question arises in particular as to whether the rules of a fair trial should apply (or can they be similar in transactional procedures and in the context of judicial procedures, and how the control by judges operates during homologation) in transactional procedures, with more or less specific treatment of the evidence used.

Secondly, the colloquium considers the way in which the different judges assess the different constitutive standards of Compliance Law. These are often soft Law and depending on whether the judge is repressive, administrative, or European, his or her assessment will not be legally of the same scope or of the same nature, which together leads to an issue of articulation of method. Due to the breadth of the subject, certain sectors will be particularly examined, in particular the banking sector.

Thirdly, the way in which the judge himself or herself applies Compliance Law will be examined, in what appears to be a balance between pedagogy and sanction. It then appears to play a triple role, in that it ensures compliance with standards but also in that it must find effective solutions in a Law which is more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post and that it must support operators so that they act effectively, by mastering their obligations. The motivation for decisions then appears to be a primary issue.

Because this last phase concerns the even more direct relationship between the judge and the operators and stakeholders, this theme is intended to give rise to a presentation and a round table.



Will speak notably: 





  • Nicolas Cayrol, Professor at Tours Law School and Director of the Institut d'Etudes Judiciaires François Grua









Read a more detailed presentation below: 

Sept. 16, 2021


This colloquium co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) inaugurates the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. It is placed under the scientific direction of Christophe André, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Marie Malaurie and Benoît Petit. 


The works of this colloquium will be integrated into a chapter in the two following books : 

 πŸ“• Les buts monumentaux de la ComplianceπŸ“š forthcoming in the Serie Regulations & Compliance , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

πŸ“˜Compliance Monumental Goals, πŸ“š forthcoming in the Serie Compliance & Regulation , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.


This colloquium will take place on September 16, 2021 at the Maison du Barreau. The manifestation will be opened to public onsite.

It is supported by Paris Place du Droit. 


The manifestation is opened to public on site and is available online. 

πŸ’Ό to registration for the manifestation on 

πŸ’» to registration for the manifestation online


Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.  

These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.


Notably with : 

  • Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris - Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)
  • Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University)
  • Regis Bismuthprofesseur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris)
  • Marie-Emma Boursierdoyen  de l'Université Paris - Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University)
  • Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris - Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante)
  • Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris)
  • Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
  • Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University)
  • Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
  • Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
  • Dominique de La Garanderieavocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 
  • Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris - Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University)
  • Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa)
  • Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority)
  • Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University)
  • Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)
  • Benoît Petitmaître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University) 
  • Jean-François Vaquieri, Secrétaire Général d'Enedis (Secretary General of Enedis)


Read a detailed presentation below:


Sept. 15, 2021

Events : JoRC

This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC).

It constitutes the inaugural colloquium of the cycle of colloquia in 2021 on the general topic Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.



The work will then be incorporated into the two books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance and Compliance Jurisdictionalization which will be published in the Regulations & Compliance series, co-edited by the JoRC with Dalloz for the book in French and with Bruylant for the book in English.

This colloquium will be held in Paris in 2021.


Presentation of the topic: Because Compliance Law is the extension of Regulatory Law, it is experiencing the same movement of Juridictionnalisation. First of all conceived as the goal of protecting systems and people, even if they seem beyond reach, this has led to the establishment of private companies as judges of themselves, to be structurally the judges and judged, those who act and those who observe.  The duty of vigilance has increased this transformation. As in Regulatory Law, which is an Ex Ante branch of Law, the procedure, which is an Ex Post branch of Law, governs the functioning of companies, transfiguring Company Law under the term "governance".

The shock and transformation once received by Administrative Regulatory Authorities has been heightened by the fact that companies have been further seized by the repressive Courts on the one hand and by an American repressive Law on the other hand, two different cultures. There are therefore many technical difficulties that must first be identified and formulated and then resolved. The easiest is in a first step to ask the following questions : Why? Who? How? When? Where? Toward What?








June 23, 2021

Events : JoRC

β–ΊThis scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Centre de Droit de l'Entreprise of Lyon 3 University.  

πŸ“…  It is one of the colloquia of the cycle of colloquia organized in 2021 around the general topic of Jurisdictionalisation of Compliance.




β–ΊThe interventions will be then transformed into a chapter in the books: 

 πŸ“• La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance  ,πŸ“š  to be published in the Regulation & Compliance series, jointly published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoR)C and Dalloz 

πŸ“˜Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, πŸ“š   to be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series , co published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and  Bruylant.


This colloquium will take place in Lyon 3 on 23rd of June 2021 with a limited audience. It will also be broadcasted in live on Zoom

To register: 


β–Ί Presentation of the topic: Initially, it was through Criminal Law, inseparable from the trial, which forced companies to take charge of monitoring within themselves behavior likely to be deviant, the requirement of Ex Ante to be designed by the 'Ex Post of the jurisdictional. From this reversal of things, there has always remained this presence of the judge and the prosecution bodies in a Compliance Law which is nevertheless defined by its concern for the future and the Ex Ante tools within the company.

In doing so, the company becoming on the one hand a judge of itself, on the other hand a prosecutor of itself, it splits up, taking in reverse the most established procedural principles. Moreover, because of the monumental goals which constitute Compliance Law, companies become attorneys and judges of the others, or for the others, the cutting machines and the "supreme courts" being by name instituted to regulate in Ex Ante all different before that it does not become litigation. The Ex Ante of Compliance would then make the Ex Post disappear.

β–Ί Method: 

The colloquium which had to take place initially on 8th of April has been postponed to 23rd of June to enable speakers to meet and talk in face to face, with a limited audience. 

These exchanges will be captured so that third parties can benefit from them, even before the publication of the works, La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance and Compliance Juridictionalization, within which this work constitutes the basis for the development of a specific chapter.

Five practical cases will first be examined in five specific sectors, where this institution of the firm as prosecutor and judge of itself is particularly observable before both specific and more cross-sectoral themes are examined and discussed.


β–Ίspeakers :

🎀 Luc-Marie Augagneur, Attorney before Lyon Court of Appeal, CVS Law Firm

🎀Ale xis Bavitot, Senior lecturer at Lyon 3 University 

🎀 Alain Bruneau, Chief compliance officer at Natixis

🎀 Jean-Marc Coulon, Head of Legal Infrastructure at Bouygues Construction

🎀 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎀 Cécile Granier, Senior lecturer at Lyon 3 University 

🎀 Xavier Hubert, Director of Compliance at Engie

🎀 Jérémie Jourdan-Marques,  Professor at Lyon 2 University

🎀 Jérémy Heymann, Professor at Lyon 3 University

🎀 Daphnée Latour, Attorney, DL Avocats, Paris 

🎀 Christophe Lapp, Founding partner of Altana law firm

🎀 Samir Merabet, Senior lecturer at Lyon 3 University 

🎀 Béatrice Oeuvrard, Public Policy Manager at Facebook France

🎀 Jean du Parc, Bâtonnier 

🎀 Jean-Christophe Roda, Professor at Lyon 3 University and director of the Centre de droit de l'entreprise (Center of Company Law)

🎀 Jean-Baptiste Siproudhis, Director Ethics, Integrity and CSR at Thalès

May 17, 2021

Events : JoRC

This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Pascale Idoux, Antoine Oumedjkane and Adrien Tehrani. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and by the Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique de l'Université de Montpellier (Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes Administratives de Montpellier and Centre du Droit de l'Entreprise).

πŸ“… This manifestation is part of the cycle of colloquia organized in 2021 around the general topic of Compliance Monumental Goals. 




The interventions will give rise to the production of articles which will be part of

 πŸ“•  Les bus monumentaux de la ComplianceπŸ“š   to be published in the Series Regulations & Compliance , co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

πŸ“˜Compliance Monumental Goals, πŸ“š   dans la Série Compliance & Regulation , co-published by par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.


This manifestation took place on Zoom on 17th of May 2021. 


Assistance to this event may be validated as part of the continuing education of lawyers.

In addition, scientific videos will be extracted and disseminated later.


Presentation of the topic: In the overall problematic of "Monumental goals", this conference retains a particular case: that of the crisis and the emergency situation that it generates.

First of all, in general, does the importance of public norms in the emergency context engendered by a crisis situation imply a marginalization of Compliance? Don't private actors also have their place in these circumstances, at the service of the "monumental goals" that the public authorities want to maintain, or even which appear specifically?

Secondly, more concretely, we have been living for many months in a health crisis. By taking it as a framework and, within it from particular cases, how public and private actors react, act, adjust? and how do the courts assess these movements?

Going from the most general to the most specific, this conference aims to identify criteria, limits, of what could be specific rules when the emergency of a crisis meets Compliance, and will examine specific situations.


Working method: The conference is therefore built on a general issue, which was the subject of a "working paper", written by Antoine Oumedjkane, Adrien Tehrani and Pascale Idoux, on which the speakers will have thought in advance and from which they are intended to study the question from their particular perspective.

The conference, which is essentially interactive, therefore begins with an outline of the main lines of this general work. It is followed by the examination of concrete practical cases.

They are as follows:

1️⃣ hydro-alcoholic gel, its manufacture, price, availability,

2️⃣ information and regulation on all media in Covid period

3️⃣ the use of the bicycle during the state of health emergency

A first conclusion, thematically limited, will relate to Revealed by the crisis situation, the place of private initiative in Compliance Law.

A second, more general, undoubtedly open-ended conclusion is drawn from this confrontation between general reflection and concrete cases which must be resolved in a particular crisis.



🎀 Jean-Bernard Auby, Emeritus Professor of Sciences po (Paris)

🎀 Julien Bonnet, Professor at Montpellier University and member of the CERCOP

🎀 Guylain Clamour, Dean of Montpellier Law School

🎀 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, agrégée des Facultés de droit, Professor of Regulation and Compliance Law at Sciences Po (Paris) and Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎀 Pascale Idoux, Professor at Montpellier University 

🎀 Pascale Léglise, adjointe au directeur des libertés publiques et des affaires juridiques (Deputy Director of Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs) of the Ministère de l'intérieur (Home Ministry)

🎀 Michèle Léridon, Member of the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (French Media Regulator), President of the working group Pluralisme, déontologie, supervision des plateformes en ligne (Pluralism, Deontology, Supervision of Online Platforms)

🎀 Antoine Oumedjkane, Researcher of the Centre de recherche et d'études administratives (Research and Administrative Studies Center) of Montpellier University

🎀 Nelly Sudres, Maître de conférences at Montpellier University and member of the Centre de Recherches et d'Etudes Administratives (Research and Administrative Studies Center) of Montpellier University

🎀 Adrien Tehrani, Professor at Montpellier University and member of the Centre du Droit de l'Entreprise (Company Law Center)

🎀Xavier Vallad, Group Legal Director, Intermarché


‡️Read a more detailed presentation of the manifestation below:

Dec. 1, 2020

Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., New SEC Report to Congress about Whistleblower Program: what is common between American and European conceptionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of December 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation


Summary of the news

Like every year since the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and especially its Office of the Whistleblowers (OWB) handed to the Congress of the United-States a report about the success of its program concerning whistleblowers, especially estimated with the amount of financial rewards granted to them during the year. This report especially presents the amount granted to whistleblowers, the quality of the collected information and the efficacy of SEC's whistleblowers' protection process.

If Americans condition the effectiveness of whistleblowing to the remuneration of whistleblowers, Europeans oppose the "ethical whistleblower" who shares information for the love of Law to the "bounty hunter" uniquely motivated by financial reward and favor the former to the later, as it is proven in the French Law Sapin II of 2016 (which do not propose financial reward to whistleblowers) or the British Public Interest Disclosure of 1998 (which just propose a financial compensation of the whistleblower's losses linked to whistleblowing). 

However, American and European conceptions are not so far from each other. As United-States, Europe has a real care for legal effectivity, even if, because of their different legal traditions, Americans favor effectivity of rights while European favor effectivity of Law. If it places effectivity at the center of its preoccupations, Europe should conceive with less aversion the possibility to financially incite whistleblowers. Moreover, United-States and Europe share the same common willingness to protect whistleblowers and if rewarding would enable a better protection, then Europe should not reject it, as shows the recent declarations of the French Defenders of Rights. It is not excluded that both systems converges in a close future. 

Nov. 1, 2020

Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Due process and Personal Data Compliance Law: same rules, one Goal (CJEU, Order, October 29, 2020, Facebook Ireland Ltd v/ E.C.)Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of November 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's interview in Actu-juridiques about this decision (in French)


Summary of the news: 

As part of a procedure initiated for anti-competitive behaviors, the European Commission has three times requested, between the 13th of March and the 11th of November 2019, from Facebook the communication of information, reitarated in a decision in May 2020.  

Facebook contests it alleging that the requested documents would contain sensitive personal information that a transmission to the Commission would make accessible to a too broad number of observers, while "the documents requested under the contested decision were identified on the basis of wideranging search terms, (...) there is strong likelihood that many of those documents will not be necessary for the purposes of the Commission’s investigation". 

The contestation therefore evokes the violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality but also of due process because these probatory elements are collected without any protection and used afterwards. Moreover, Facebook invokes what would be the violation of a right to the respect of personal data of its employees whose the emails are transferred. 

The court reminds that the office of the judge is here constraint by the condition of emergency to adopt a temporary measure, acceptable by the way only if there is an imminent and irreversible damage. It underlines that public authorities benefit of a presumption of legality when they act and can obtain and use personal data since this is necessary to their function of public interest. Many allegations of Facebook are rejected as being hypothetical. 

But the Court analyzes the integrality of the evoked principles with regards with the very concrete case. But, crossing these principles and rights in question, the Court estimates that the European Commission did not respect the principle of necessity and proportionality concerning employees' very sensitive data, these demands broadening the circle of information without necessity and in a disproportionate way, since the information is very sensitive (like employees' health, political opinions of third parties, etc.). 

It is therefore appropriate to distinguish among the mass of required documents, for which the same guarantee must be given in a technique of communication than in a technic of inspection, those which are transferable without additional precaution and those which must be subject to an "alternative procedure" because of their nature of very sensitive personal data. 

This "alternative procedure" will take the shape of an examination of documents considered by Facebook as very sensitive and that it will communicate on a separate electronic support, by European Commission's agents, that we cannot a priori suspect to hijack law. This examination will take place in a "virtual data room" with Facebook's attorneys. In case of disagreement between Facebook and the investigators, the dispute could be solved by the director of information, communication and medias of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission. 


We can draw three lessons from this ordinance: 

  1. This decision shows that Procedural Law and Compliance Law are not opposed. Some often say that Compliance guarantees the efficacy and that Procedure guarantees fundamental rights, the protection of the one must result in the diminution of the guarantee of the other. It is false. As this decision shows it, through the key notion of sensitive personal data protection (heart of Compliance Law) and the care for procedure (equivalence between communication and inspection procedures; contradictory organization of the examination of sensitive personal data), we see once again that two branches of Law express the same care, have the same objective: protecting people. 
  2. The judge is able to immediately find an operational solution, proposing "an alternative procedure" axed around the principle of contradictory and conciliating Commision's and Facebook's interests has shown that it was able to bring alternative solutions to the one it suspends the execution, appropriate solution to the situation and which equilibrate the interest of both parties. 
  3. The best Ex Ante is the one which anticipate the Ex Post by the pre-constitution of evidence. Thus the firm must be able to prove later the concern that it had for human rights, here of employees, to not being exposed to sanctioning pubic authorities. This Ex Ante probatory culture is required not only from firms but also from public authorities which also have to give justification of their action. 





Oct. 27, 2020

Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., From Competition Law to Compliance Law: example of French Competition Authority decision on central purchasing body in Mass DistributionNewsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 27th of October 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance





Summary of the news: Through its decision of 22nd of October 2020, the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) accepted the commitments proposed by retail sector's firms Casino, Auchan, Metro and Schiever so that their agreement by which a common body centralizes purchases from numerous retailers, allowing each to offer these products under private label, is admissible with regard to competitive requirements. 

In this particular case, the Authority had self-sized in July 2018, estimating that such a purchase center could harm competition, opening immediately a large consultation on the terms of the contract. In October 2018, the law Egalim permitted to the Authority to take temporary measures to suspend such a contract, what the Authority did from September. 

The convention parties' firms committed on the one hand to update their contract limiting the power on suppliers, especially small and very small suppliers, excluding totally of the field of the contract some kind of products, especially food products and reducing the share of bought products volume dedicated to their transformation in distributor brand. 

The Autorité de la concurrence accepts this proposal of commitments, congratulates itself of the protection of small suppliers operating like that and observe the similarity with the contract consisting in a purchase center between Carrefour and Tesco, which will be examined soon. 



We can draw three lessons of this innovating decision, which could be a model for after: 

1. The technique of Compliance Law permits to the Autorité de la concurrence to find a reasonable solution for the future. 

  • Indeed, rather than punishing much later by a simple fine or to annihilate the performing mechanism of the purchase center, the Authority obtains contract modifications. 
  • The contract is structured and the obtained modifications are also structural. 
  • The commitments are an Ex Ante technique, imposed to operators, for the future, in an equilibrium between competition, operators and consumers protection and the efficacy of the coordination between powerful operators. 
  • The nomination of a monitor permits to build the future of the sector, thanks to the Ex Ante nature of Compliance Law. 

2. The retail sector finally regulated by Compliance technics.

  • "Distribution law" always struggle to find its place, between Competition law and Contract Law, especially because we cannot consider it as a common "sector". 
  • The Conseil constitutionnel (French constitutional court) refused a structural injunction power to the authority because it was contrary to business freedom and without any doubt ethics of business is not sufficient to the equilibrium of the sector.
  • Through commitments given against a stop of pursuits relying on structuring contracts, it is by Compliance law that a Regulation law free of the condition of existence of a sector could leave.

3. The political nature of Compliance law in the retail sector

  • As for digital space, which is not a sector, Compliance law can directly impose to actors imperatives that are strangers to them. 
  • In the digital space, the care for fighting against Hate and for protecting private life; here the care for small and very small suppliers. 




See in counterpoints the pursuit of a contentious procedure against Sony, whose the proposals of commitments, made after a public consultation, were not found satisfying.

To go further, on the question of Compliance law permitting through indirect way the rewriting by the Conseil of a structuring contract (linking a platform created by the State to centralize health data with an American firm subsidy to manage them).