Search results (926 cards)

Advanced search

Compliance Law, like Regulatory Law, of which it is an extension, is an Ex Ante Law.

It translates into a set of obligations that companies must perform to ensure that harmful behavior does not occur, such as bribery, money laundering, pollution, etc.

This results in "structural" obligations, such as the establishment of a risk map, a third-party vigilance system, internal controls, the adoption of codes.

The practical question that arises is whether to punish a company, it is necessary but it is sufficient that the company has not adopted these structural measures, or if it is also necessary that within it or through the persons whom it must be accountable (through the corporate officers and the employees, but also the suppliers, the sub-contractors, the financed operators, etc.) there were behaviors that Compliance Law prohibits, for example corruption, money laundering, pollution, safety-related accident, etc.

The question is probative. Its practical stake is considerable.

Because to obtain the conviction the prosecuting authority will have to demonstrate not only a failure in the structural device but also a behavioral failure.

Si l'on considère que le Droit de la Compliance est à la fois sur l'Ex Ante et sur l'Ex Post, alors l'autorité de poursuite qui requiert une sanction doit démontrer qu'il y a un comportement reprochable (Ex Post) et qu'à cela correspond une défaillance structurelle (par exemple le compte bancaire anormal n'a pas été signalé) ; si l'on considère que le Droit de la Compliance est purement en Ex Ante, alors même s'il n'y a pas de comportement reprochable en Ex Post, la seule défaillance structurelle suffit pour que l'entreprise qui doit l'organiser en son sein soit sanctionné.

If we consider that Compliance Law is both on the Ex Ante and the Ex Post, then the prosecuting authority that requires a sanction must show that there is a reprehensible behavior (Ex Post ) and that this corresponds to a structural failure (for example the abnormal bank account has not been reported); if we consider that Compliance Law is purely Ex Ante, then even if there is no reprehensible behavior in Ex Post, the only structural failure is enough for the company to be sanctioned, even if it does its best efforts, even if no prohibited behavior will have accured in Ex Post.  

The second system, which is much more repressive and places a considerable burden on companies, even if there is no proven illicit behavior, is that of French Law, probably because of a tendency towards Ex Ante organization. ..

Mais il faut garder mesure. Et cette mesure est probatoire.

But we must keep measure. And this measure is probative.

This is what the Commission des Sanctions of the Agence Française Anticorruption -AFA (French Anti-Corruption Agency's Sanctions Committee) has just said, in its decision of 4 July 2019, SAS S. et Madame C.,(written in French) contradicting the position of its director, who acted as the prosecuting authority. This is yet another general proof of the autonomy of the Sanctions Committee vis-à-vis to the Administrative Authority of which it is a part, and in relation to its director, who nevertheless governs it. But, jurisdictional model obliges, he has here the status of prosecuting authority, is subject to the regime of this one and not to the regime of head of the entity. Demonstration of the "functional autonomy" of the sanctioning bodies within the administrative regulatory and compliance authorities.

Indeed, this important decision expresses with precision and reason the distribution of the "burden of the allegation" and the "burden of proof" on the prosecuting body and on the company pursued, as well as the role of presumption that the recommendations issued by the French Anti-corruption Authority can play.

Read the analysis below.

 

► Full Reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS) of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, La Vigilance, pointe avancée de l'Obligation de Compliance (Vigilance, advanced point of the Compliance Obligation), Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, December 5, 2023, 12 place du Panthéon, salle 6.

____

____

 🏗️ This symposium takes place in the cycle of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner Universities, focusing in 2023 on the general theme of Compliance Obligation.

____

____

► This symposium is organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, through its Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS). 

This symposium is held in French.

the symposium is under the scientific direction of 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 🕴️Mustapha Mekki , and 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda.

____

To register for a physical presence: anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr (as places are limited, you will be asked to confirm 48 hours in advance).
To register for an online presence, via Zoom: Click HERE 

🧮 The event will take place at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 12 place du Panthéon 75005, in Salle 6, on 5 December 2023.

____

► Présentation of the theme : The Vigilance Obligation is difficult to define because of the multiplicity of texts and cases in which it can be understood. This is particularly true of the Vigilance mechanism, which illustrates, and even emphasises, the Vigilance Obligation. Through international texts, French law and European texts that have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted, the constraints of vigilance, but also the structures and actions that companies have put in place and the actions that stakeholders have taken, Vigilance has highlighted aspects of the Compliance Obligation, and even modified it. 

The revelatory effect thus produced and the movement thus unleashed, whose roots run deep and whose systemic effects are very significant, justify a greater focus on mechanisms that are interconnected, whereas they are sometimes perceived in silos, which makes it difficult to understand the whole picture. In the same way, because Vigilance is the advanced point of the Compliance Obligation, we can better distinguish and articulate what is sector-specific, in particular in banking and finance or in digital matters, and articulate them with what Vigilance has, like Compliance, of a more general nature. What's more, the intensity of Vigilance varies according to its ambitions and the position of the company subject to it, which is reflected in the variations in legal qualification, ranging from a duty to a criminally sanctioned obligation. 

The different legal systems reflect these developments in their legislation, case law and the practice of companies and stakeholders in specific ways, because these different techniques express standards of behaviour and accountability, which are directly reflected in evidential requirements, concepts of responsibility and institutional translations through possible regulatory bodies.

As a result, the symposium is divided into three parts. After a general introduction on the systemic relationships between Vigilance and Compliance, the first part will focus on the variation in Vigilance Intensities, the advanced point of Compliance, the second part will look at the Tensions that Vigilance generates or exacerbates, and the third part will look at the Modalities that Vigilance uses in Compliance systems.

____

The proceedings of this colloquium will form the basis of one chapter in the books: 

📕L'obligation de Compliance, in the collection 📚Régulations & Compliance, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz.

📘Compliance Obligation, in the collection 📚Compliance & Regulation, copublished by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.

____

Speakers:  

🎤Laurence Dubin, Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

🎤Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory & Compliance Law, director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC)

🎤Bernard Haftel, Professor at Paris-Nord University

🎤Marie Lamoureux, Professor at Aix-Marseille University

🎤Grégoire Loiseau, Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

🎤Véronique Magnier, Professor at Paris-Saclay University

🎤Gilles J. Martin, Emeritus Professor at Côte d'Azur University, member of the Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Économie, Gestion (GREDEG) of the CNRS

🎤Mustapha Mekki, Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

🎤Jean-Christophe Roda, Professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University

🎤Anne-Claire Rouaud, Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

____

🔻 read a detailed presentation of the manifestation below 🔻

Translated Summaries

 

English

On 4 July 2012, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) issued a rejection decision validating ARCEP’s dismissal to prosecute in an enforcement case initiated by an association of operators, AFORST. This case brings a broad look back on many years of ARCEP’s regulation of the electronic communications sector and more precisely on the pricing obligations imposed on the incumbent France Telecom within wholesale fixed markets. It provides interesting guidance on the enforcement procedure and on other recourses for competitors to ensure effectiveness of regulated prices.

 

French

 

Le 4 Juillet 2012, le Conseil d’Etat a rendu un arrêt validant l'arrêt de la procédure, du fait de la renonciation par l’ARCEP d’engager des poursuites dans une affaire d’exécution engagée par une association d’opérateurs, l’AFORST. Cette affaire apporte un perspective sur de nombreuses années en de régulation de l’ARCEP dans le secteur des communications électroniquesn et plus précisément sur les obligations imposées aux prix fixes de l’opérateur historique, France Télécom, dans les marchés de gros. Elle fournit des indications intéressantes sur la procédure d’exécution et sur d’autres recours pour les concurrents afin d’assurer l’effectivité de la régulation des prix.

Main information

After the publication of the 21 January 2010 Ordinance implementing the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel (ACP - Prudential Control Authority), two decrees published on 3 March 2010 complete this legislation and define the institutional and budgetary workings of the new Authority.

The “Conseil économique, social et environnemental – CESE” (French Economic, Social and Environmental Council) expressed its approval of the “Stratégie nationale de développement durable SNDD” (new French National Strategy for Sustainable Development), on January 27 2010, which has been drawn up by the Government for the period 2009-2013. This national strategy is to become the tool for establishing a new model of economic development.

7, square Max Hymans 75730 Paris Cedex 15 FRANCE Phone number : + 33 (1) 40 47 70 00 Documentation center : Open afternoons by appointment (+33 1 40 47 70 48)