Arbitration analysis: The French Cour de Cassation recently reversed a 2019 Paris Court of Appeal decision which upheld a 2015 Paris-seated International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Additional Facility arbitration award whose setting aside had been sought before French courts. The French Cour de Cassation held that entirely new jurisdictional arguments, which had not been raised during the arbitration proceedings, were admissible at the annulment stage before French Courts. William Kirtley, partner, and Anastasia Tzevelekou, associate, at Aceris Law LLC reflect on the decision’s implications.

Arbitration analysis: The case at hand is a reminder of a well-established principle of independence, or separability, of the arbitration agreement vis-à-vis the main contract, as enshrined in Article 1447 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (‘CCP’). The Cour de cassation ruled that the existence of the arbitration agreement is not dependent on the formation of the main contract. By reference to Article 1443 of the CCP applicable to domestic arbitration, the Cour de cassation also reaffirmed that consent to arbitration must be in writing. Written by Zuzana Vysúdilová, senior associate at Aceris Law LLC.

Arbitration analysis: The case at hand provides useful clarification regarding the coordination between the arbitration clause and the mediation clause in cases where the contract makes it explicit that arbitration is subjected to prior mediation. The Cour de cassation rule that the requirement of initiation of the mediation before arbitration is not a matter of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal but of admissibility of the claim presented to it. Therefore, non-compliance with the preliminary mediation clause does not justify the setting aside of the arbitral award under Article 1492, 1° of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the ‘CCP’), which allows a party to apply to annul a domestic arbitral award before French courts on the ground that the arbitral tribunal wrongfully upheld or declined its jurisdiction. Written by William Kirtley, partner, and Zuzana Vysudilova, senior associate at Aceris Law LLC.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of appeal recently annulled an UNCITRAL partial award upholding jurisdiction over a Ukraine-Russia BIT claim, based on the improper constitution of the tribunal and doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding arbitrator. The court held that the parties’ agreed method for appointing the tribunal president had not been followed by the co-arbitrators. Furthermore, reasonable doubts existed regarding the president’s impartiality arising from his social media activity and a statement by his law firm. However, since the dispute was now pending before a newly reconstituted tribunal, the court declined to examine a third ground challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction, determining that it was for the new tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction based on the principle of compétence-compétence. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu (partner) and Anna Rizzardi (associate) at Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Civil Court has annulled orders enforcing two ICC awards against Iraqi state assets that had been frozen under UN and EU sanctions. The court found that Montana Management Inc., a Panamanian company with ties to the Saddam Hussein regime, constituted an alter ego of the Iraqi State, making its assets subject to enforcement. However, at the time the attachments had been made, the assets were sanctioned and could only be attached with the prior authorization of the French Treasury, as the competent sanctions authority. Since Instrubel had not sought this authorization, the attachments were null and void. The court also held that part of Instrubel’s claim for post-award interest was time barred under French law. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu and Dr Farah Mechbal, Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: The French Court of Cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss the annulment action against an award rendered by a Paris-seated International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral tribunal on 27 December 2018, in a dispute between the French company SA TCM FR S A, formerly Sofregaz (‘TCM FR’) and the Iranian company National Gas Storage Company (‘NGSC’). TCM FR had challenged the award on all the annulment grounds provided for in article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), including because the award was contrary to the French conception of international public policy. In particular, TCM FR alleged that the tribunal had failed to take into account the impact of United States, United Nations (‘UN’) and EU sanctions against Iran on the termination of the contract. The Paris Court of Appeals had dismissed the challenge because it considered, on the one hand, that US sanctions amounted to foreign mandatory rules but were not part of the French conception of international public policy, and, on the other hand, because the contract at issue did not fall within the material and temporal scope of UN and EU sanctions, among other reasons. Consequently, there could be no violation of international public policy. On 9 February 2022, the French Court of Cassation confirmed the Paris court’s decision on the grounds that the violation of international public policy, which had to be effective and concrete, could only be ascertained with regard to the material and temporal scope of the relevant sanctions. Since the Paris Court of Appeals had validly deduced that the award, concerning the execution of a contract concluded in July 2002, did not fall within the scope of the UN and EU sanctions against Iran, the Court of Cassation concluded that the recognition and enforcement of the disputed award was therefore not contrary to international public policy. The interpretation of US sanctions was not at issue before the Court of Cassation. This decision, in line with the Paris Court of Appeals decision in MK Group, provides guidance on the extent to which French courts treat economic sanctions enacted by foreign countries or international organisations as part of the French conception of international public policy. It also sheds light on the issues that may result from the interplay between economic sanctions and international arbitration. Written by Camille Martini, associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

Arbitration analysis: The French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) recently overturned a 2019 decision of the Paris Court of Appeal that refused enforcement of a Swiss arbitral award said to offend public policy, due to strong circumstantial evidence that the award gave effect to the funding of corrupt activities. Applying the principle that a judge may not misrepresent written documents, the Court of Cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal had mischaracterised the terms of some of the evidence from which it had inferred the existence of corruption. The Court of Cassation did not challenge the Court of Appeal’s power, in enforcement or annulment proceedings, to review evidence of corruption, but made it clear that such review must always be rigorous. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu, avocate à la Cour and solicitor-advocate, Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Law360: France's highest court has refused to revive a €452m (US$459m) award issued to French electronic component distributor Sorelec following a dispute with Libya stemming from a school construction contract, counsel for the state said on 9 September 2022.

Arbitration analysis: The French Court of Cassation has rendered a landmark decision (Vidatel v PT Ventures), providing further clarifications and guidance on both the appointment and the duty of disclosure of arbitrators in France-seated multi-party arbitration proceedings. The court held that in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) multi-party arbitration seated in France where the parties disagreed on the method for the tribunal’s constitution, the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC had the power to appoint all arbitrators. The Court of Cassation further confirmed that a relationship between a party and an arbitrator must be sufficiently close and intense to be likely to give rise to a reasonable doubt in the parties’ minds as to the arbitrator’s independence, and thus be subject to the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure. Written by Angélica André, counsel, and Faustine Chapelin, associate, at White & Case LLP, Paris.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of appeal upheld an order for the enforcement (exequatur) of a Cameroonian domestic arbitral award that had been annulled at the seat. A Co-operation Agreement between France and Cameroon governs the recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards issued in the other State and requires the exhaustion of ‘ordinary’ remedies against such awards. The court held this requirement to be inapplicable because under the lex arbitri and the institutional rules governing the arbitration, no recourse other than an annulment action lay against the award, thus confirming its finality. Accordingly, the only grounds on which enforcement could be refused were those listed in Article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code, and none of those arose in the circumstances. Written by Gisèle Stephens-Chu and Anna Rizzardi, Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: In Üstay v. Libya, the French Cour de cassation held that the Paris Court of Appeal erred in upholding ICC tribunal jurisdiction under the 2009 Turkey-Libya BIT (the ‘BIT’) by failing to apply the BIT’s temporal and material limits to claims based on a 2013 settlement tied to a decades-old infrastructure project. Although the Court of Appeal characterised the non-performance of the 2013 settlement as a new, autonomous dispute arising after the BIT entered into force, the financial claims could only be covered by the treaty if they remained connected to a qualifying investment. The Cour de cassation held that the settlement dispute could not be treated as both a new dispute for temporal purposes (ratione temporis) and at the same time as directly arising from the investment for material purposes (ratione materiae) without coherently reconciling those conclusions. Since the Court of Appeal failed to address this inconsistency, the Cour de cassation partially quashed the ruling on this point and remitted the matter for reconsideration under the treaty framework. This decision follows the Cour de cassation’s earlier ruling in Etrak v. Libya on nearly identical facts and the same BIT, reflecting consistent judicial scrutiny of claims based on settlements or restructuring of longstanding disputes [Cour de cassation 1re civ-N° 23-14.368]. For practitioners, Üstay is a clear warning that post-dispute settlements will face rigorous, treaty‑text‑driven scrutiny in Paris-seated arbitrations before triggering treaty arbitration rights, underscoring the need for careful evaluation of the substance and timing of claims against BIT thresholds. Written by Clément Fouchard, partner at Reed Smith LLP, and Adam Calloway, jurist at Reed Smith LLP.

The French Ministry of Justice has launched a public consultation on arbitration law reform, with submissions accepted until 20 January 2026. The consultation, published on 12 December 2025, is issued by the Civil Affairs and Seals Directorate (Direction des affaires civiles et du Sceau, DACS) and seeks stakeholder input on a draft decree that would amend provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to clarify and improve the efficiency of French arbitration law. This represents the first phase of a three-stage reform programme announced in April 2025, following recommendations from a working group chaired by Thomas Clay and François Ancel that assessed the effectiveness of existing domestic and international arbitration provisions. The draft decree incorporates proposals aimed at strengthening the attractiveness of the Paris arbitration centre and modernising French arbitration law. Contributions must be submitted to consultation-arbitrage.dacs@justice.gouv.fr using a specified Word document template.