► Full reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I), Institut de Recherche juridique de la Sorbonne -IRJS (Sorbonne Legal Research Institute),   Compliance et droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), 15 October 2026.

____

🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract.

____

The symposium is under the scientific responsibility of Nicolas Bargue, 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and 🕴️Julia Heinich.

____

To register:

____

🧮The event will take place at Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) on 15 October 2026.

Il will be held in French.

_____

Presentation of the topic:   While Contract Law, in its common rules expressed by the "general theory of contracts", is often considered to be the most developed branch of Law in practice and the most studied at university, at first glance it seems to be given little consideration when it comes to compliance matter. 

This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the company, which is at the heart of the action expected of it—action that is expected to be powerful (since it affects the collective future) and diversified (since it concerns all systems beyond the company's direct activity)—seems above all to have the status of a subject of law. This is exacerbated if, by mistakenly confusing the latter terms, we only talk about "conformity" and assert that it is simply for businesses a matter of "complying with the regulations that apply to them", which then leaves little room for contractual initiative. This would be associated only with Ethics, a normative order that also differs from a contract, which is a binding legal act.

The relationship between Contract and many sorts of documents, standards and ethical acts that are so numerous in compliance techniques, to which we can add the soft law produced by courts, regulators, supervisors and the companies themselves, is therefore an open question. This delicate reconciliation, which the terms "CSR" and "Governance" express without referring to very precise legal definitions, can cause difficulties in relation to general Contract Law: thus, the "commitments" that punctuate the techniques and behaviours that make up the "culture of compliance" have a central place in Compliance Law. However, their place, if not their equivalence with the contract, is not established, and may even be excluded. This too is an open question.

Based on these initial questions, it appears that in order to gain a firmer footing in the analysis of the practices of companies that include compliance clauses into multiple contracts, we must observe that compliance may consist of a comprehensive service that is the very subject of a specific contract, the "compliance contract, or even assist in the conception that judges may, or must, develop in their office when they are seized of "contractual litigation involving Compliance", we must return to common contract law.

Indeed, if we stop viewing Compliance Law solely through the prism of punishment, if we do not limit it to the "detection and prevention" of fraudulent behaviour which, if it occurred, would be punished, the contract does not have the same place in practice. In this initial restrictive conception of Compliance Law based on sanctions, simply by moving from ex post to ex ante, the company remains subject to the regulations that apply to it, and the contract would be just one of the ways in which it fulfils its legal compliance obligation.

However, the obligation of compliance can also be considered to have its legitimate source in the Contract, which in general termes is based on the autonomy of will and all its consequences (contractual freedom, binding force, effect on third parties, etc.), with the Principle of Compliance fitting into it as a second pillar linked to the first pillar, which is the Principle of free Competition.

It is therefore very useful to better understand practices by comparing the technical principles of general Contract Law with Compliance Principles, such as concern for others that contractors may pursue independently of any regulatory requirement (these others who are distant in space and time), preservation of systems, the obligation to provide evidence, etc.

This is the subject of this symposium which, according to the classic dichotomy of contractual formation and contractual execution, revisits the contractual thread based on the founding principles of autonomy and freedoms, binding force and its relativity, the meeting of consents, groups of contracts, and regulatory contracts often drawn up to implement compliance policies. Enforcement and contractual liability under general Contract Law are themselves coloured in a unique way when a compliance concern or goal has been included in the contract or is implied by it.

_____

Speakers include:

🎤 Nicolas Bargue professor at Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 

🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, university professor, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the European School of Regulation and Compliance (EeRC)

🎤 Julia Heinich, professor at Panthéon-Sorbonne University

____

The proceedings of this symposium will form the basis of a specific chapter in the following publications:

📕Compliance and Contracts, forthcoming in the series 📚Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

📘Compliance and Contract, to be published in the 📚Compliance & Regulation  Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

🔻 Read the schedule for the event below ⤵️

► Full reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and University Jean Moulin - Lyon 3, Centre de recherche Louis Josserand : La contractualisation de la compliance : clause après clause (Compliance contractualisation: clause by clause), 25 September 2026

____

🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2023 on the general theme of Compliance and Contracts.

____

The symposium is under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda.

Il will be held in French.

____

To register:

🧮The event will take place at the University of Jean Moulin - Lyon 3.

_____

Presentation of the topic:  There are numerous compliance clauses. Surprisingly little research has been done on them, which hinders the development of this practice. However, the Compliance Obligation that is so often emphasised in relation to civil liability no doubt because Compliance Law is excessively associated with sanctions, can just as easily originate from contracts and multiple clauses, since this is another way of being bound, without it being anything more than a means for the persons thus bound to fulfil their regulatory obligation.

It is therefore practice that has developed compliance clauses, the very existence of which is the subject of this symposium. By highlighting these provisions, their originality can be revealed, as well as the uniqueness conferred on them by Compliance Law and the diversity that may be required depending on criteria related to the purpose of the clauses, but also to the sector of activity or the identity of the contracting parties themselves. 

From this already established practice, it is certainly the Judge who will determine its uniqueness and specificity. This case law is in its infancy because this practice is the result of compliance requirements arising from an emerging branch of Law, which is still under development.

Furthermore, the clauses examined here are not conceived from scratch, but are often adaptations of clauses familiar to lawyers, and as such may be reproduced, regulated, or even restricted or prohibited by rules that fall not only under general Contract Law, but also, clause by clause under Competition Law, Distribution Law, Consumer Law, Judicial and Procedural Law, or Private International law. The logic of Compliance Law, when it takes contractual form, does not always prevail and, in the same way that Compliance Law as a branch of Law is linked to other branches, compliance clauses, if they are to multiply and become more sophisticated, must be subject to this link.

_____

Speakers include:

🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, university professor, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Director of theEuropean School of Regulation and Compliance (EeRC)É

🎤 Julia Heinich, professor at Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I)

🎤 Jacques Mestre, emeritus professor at the University of Aix-Marseille, president of the French Association of Doctors of Law (AFDD)

🎤 Jean-Christophe Roda, professor at the University of Lyon 3, director of the Louis Josserand research centre

🎤 Laura Sautonie-Laguionie, professor at the University of Bordeaux

____

The proceedings of this symposium will form the basis of a specific chapter in the following publications:

📕Compliance et Contrat, to be published in French in the collection 📚Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.

📘Compliance and Contract, to be published in English in the 📚Compliance & Regulation  Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant (Larcier-Intersentia).

🔻 Read the schedule for the event below ⤵️

February 17, 2015, as the previous "Contrat de Régulation Économique" (Economie Regulatory Contract), the firm Aéroport de Paris (ADP)  has made available on its site to all "for consultation" the draft  "Contrat de Régulation Economique ("Economic Regulatory Contract)  for the period 2016 -2020.

Published in the wake of the meeting of the Board of ADP, the text is presented as a tool "for the Paris place", especially for air transport.

This shows that the document is primarily intended for investors and financial markets, the document being placed on the company website in the section for the "investors".

This illustrates the evolution from the traditional "contrats de plan" (plan contracts). But then, who are the parties to these types of contract?

Indeed, the very term "Regulatory contract"  is new in public Law. It appears as a sort of  modernization of "plan contract." The Conseil d'État (French State Council) finally admitted the contractual nature of these planning contracts. In these contracts, are parties were the State and the company in charge of a public service.

Because here the contract is an instrument of "economic regulation" the open public consultation draft rather expresses a global conception of  ADP, the company which manages the Paris airports,  for the future of the development of critical infrastructure that is the airport as the heart of global development of air transport.

The enterprise manager of the airport in the heart of the contract (rather than the State) in setting objectives for the coming four years is the letter and spirit of the French law of 20 April 2005 about Airports, which put the apparatus of this "Contrat de Régulation Economique" in place.

In this, the infrastructure manager is set by law as a "regulator of second degree", as can be a financial market enterprise. The company that manages and develops the Paris airports undoubtedly belongs to the category of " critical firms", as well it manages the future of the sector and helps to keep France a place in the world.

More, A.D.P. behaves like a Regulator, since it is carrying out the "public consultation", the consultation paper prepared by it,  being placed on its site and developing its ambitions for the sector and for France. But A.D.P. also expressed as a financial and economic actor, emphasizing the competitive environment,  demanding in passing more stability and clarity in the regulation in which it moves ...

That is why the consultation mechanism provided by the law must be more complex. Indeed, ADP can not be judge and jury. Therefore if the project raises observations, they must be formuled not to ADP but to the Ministries of Aviation and Economy, within a month. They shall communicate theiir content to ADP . Then the Commission consultative aéroportaire (French Airport Consultative Committee) will be consulted. At the end of this process, the "Contrat de Régulation Economique" will be signed.

Seing the end of the process, it remains in line with the plan contracts, since it remains the Economic Regulatory Contract is signed between the State and the essential infrastructure manager. But the consultation process shows firstly investors are the first recipients of the statements made by a privatized company presenting its draft primarily in terms of competitive context and international development and secondly the airlines that use daily services of the airports are also directly involved by theses questions of tarification.

Airlines protest against the increase in the money that will be asked. This will be imposed, since it is tarification and princing public policy. We are in unilateral rules. But it is indeed a "price" they feel to pay, they also heard a speech referring to competition in what the mechanism is presented as a "contract".

But then, does it take to admit that these "contracts for economic regulation" are not between two parties that are the state and the regulator of second degree that is the infrastructure manager but must be three, the State, the infrastructure manager and "stakeholders" that are mainly airlines?

This practical difficulty is much to the fact that the qualification of "contract" is difficult to justify in proceeding in which prevail unilateral mechanisms.