The French Ministry of Justice has published a working group report on 26 March 2025 containing proposals to reform French arbitration law.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in French Polynesia and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the French Polynesia merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in French Polynesia? French Polynesia is a French overseas territory with increased autonomy from mainland France under a special status. As such, French Polynesia has since 2015 a separate merger control regime, which is set forth in Articles LP 310-1 et seqq. of the Code de la concurrence de la Polynésie française (CCPF) and has been enforced since 2016 by the Autorité Polynésienne de la Concurrence (APC). In 2017, the APC also published its own guidelines on the merger control scope and procedure (APC Guidelines), which were revised in 2019. The two regimes however share many similarities and the two competition authorities

Arbitration analysis: In the decision Libya v Nurol Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim of 12 February 2025, the French Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle according to which a state’s consent to arbitrate arises from the standing offer to arbitrate contained in a BIT, which is itself addressed to a category of investors defined by the BIT for the resolution of disputes related to investments also defined in the BIT. On that basis, the court then considered that the standing offer to arbitrate is autonomous and independent from the validity of the underlying investment operation, meaning that the investor’s acceptance to arbitrate, materialised by the request for arbitration, is sufficient to establish the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the investment. In a parallel decision issued by the court on the same day in a similar case, where Libya sought to annul an arbitral award rendered in favour of another Turkish company, Cengiz Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim under the Libya-Turkey BIT dated 25 November 2009 on similar grounds, the court clarified that the legality of the investment had no bearing on the applicability of the BIT but rather conditioned the benefit of the substantive protections granted by the BIT to the investment. Regarding the temporal scope of the BIT, the court clarified that the BIT applied to any investment, regardless of when the investment was made (before and after its entry into force) but that however, the BIT does not apply to disputes that arose before its entry into force. On that basis, although it considered that all the disputes were related to the same investment, the court distinguished between disputes that arose before a treaty’s entry into force, which fell outside its jurisdiction, and those that crystallized afterward, which are covered by the BIT. Finally, the court dismissed Libya’s attempt to challenge the BIT’s applicability on the basis that the ratification would not have been notified to Libya’s lawful representative. The court dismissed this argument, confirming that the BIT did not specify which national entity or authority was to receive the notification of ratification, emphasizing the state’s prior conduct, including its own acknowledgments of the BIT’s entry into force. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law (with the assistance of Emma Ruby, associate at Le 16 Law).

Arbitration analysis: The French Cour de Cassation has delivered its decision in the long-running case of Tecnimont SPA v J&P Avax. Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall, partner, and Noor Davies, associate, in the international arbitration practice at White & Case in Paris, consider both the issues that have finally been laid to rest and some broader questions that remain unresolved.

Arbitration analysis: The French Supreme Court (the Cour de cassation) held, in the context of set aside proceedings, that a party’s unsuccessful challenge before an arbitral institution of an arbitrator for an alleged lack of independence or impartiality is not a legitimate reason for failing to raise, before the arbitral tribunal, the tribunal’s irregular constitution. The court referred to Article 1466 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (FCCP) which provides that ‘[a] party which, knowingly and without a legitimate reason, fails to object to an irregularity before the arbitral tribunal in a timely manner shall be deemed to have waived its right to avail itself of such irregularity’. It held, on this basis, that a party’s failure to invoke the irregular constitution of the tribunal before the arbitral tribunal constitutes a waiver by that party of the right to avail itself of such irregularity in set aside proceedings in France. Written by Nadia Darwazeh, partner at Clyde & Co and Remi Sassine, associate at Clyde & Co.

Arbitration analysis: Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 (the Decree) introduces several changes to French arbitration law, effective from 1 January 2027. These include inter alia a duty of proportionality, broader powers for the juge d’appui, a statutory framework for multi-contract proceedings, a stand-alone procedure for recognition of arbitral awards and the power for the arbitral tribunal to liquidate astreintes. The Decree also addresses the negative effect of the competence-competence principle and expressly recognises the effectiveness of electronic awards. This article examines the principal changes and their practical implications for arbitration in France. Produced in partnership with Julie Spinelli and Gabriele Ruscalla of Le 16 Law.

This table summarises all completed investigations by the French competition authority (the Autorité de la Concurrence—AdC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU) since 2018 Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article L 420-1 of the French Commercial Code Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Distribution of organic products• Synadis Bio• Greenweez• ITM Entreprises• Les Comptoirs de la Bio Restrictive agreement—brand allocation • Infringement decision announced—16/04/2026; fines totalling €12.7m imposed Electrical cables• Nexans• Sonepar Restrictive agreements—exclusive import rights • Infringement decision announced—02/04/2026; fines totalling €3.5m imposed Ski instruction services• SNMSF Restrictive agreements—exclusivity obligations • Infringement decision announced—17/03/2026; fines totalling €3.4m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article L 420-2 of the French Commercial Code The AdC has not yet issued any decisions under Article 102/Article L 420-2 in 2026. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article L 420-1 of the French Commercial Code Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Supply, sttorage and distribution of road fuel products in Corsica•

MLex: France's €3 minimum shipping fee for book orders under €35 falls under Directive 2006/123, the EU Services Directive, and may be allowed as a cultural measure, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar said in an opinion issued on 3 July 2025. However, the law—which was challenged by Amazon, is not automatically excluded from EU rules just because it promotes cultural aims.

Arbitration analysis: This is yet another decision in the long-running saga between Commisimpex and the Republic of the Congo resulting from an arbitral award rendered in 2013. In its decision of 10 November 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that the enforcement measures taken by Commisimpex in France were to be maintained in spite of the state’s recent allegation that the president of the tribunal had been corrupted. For the court, the fact that the award is currently subject to review proceedings by a newly constituted tribunal (‘revision’), and might subsequently be revoked, does not invalidate the ongoing enforcement measures. Moreover, this appeal might have been one too many. The court considered that the appeal was particularly unfounded (‘injustifié’) and sanctioned the state’s counsel by holding them, together with the state, jointly liable for the procedural costs. The court took the same view regarding three other appeal proceedings in this case, which were brought simultaneously by the atate and were decided by the same court on the same day. Written by Nadia Darwazeh, partner and Maria Mironova, associate at Clyde & Co.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that French courts have jurisdiction over liability claims against arbitrators where the seat of an arbitration was in France, and it is irrelevant if arbitral hearings were held and the arbitrators met in another country. The jurisdiction of the French court is determined pursuant to French national rules of jurisdiction, as, the court held, a liability claim against an arbitrator falls within the arbitration exception of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (Brussels I (recast)). Written by Gilles Cuniberti, professor of law at the University of Luxembourg.

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Congolese company Société Nationale d’Électricité (SNEL)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered against it and the Democratic Republic of Congo, confirming France’s pro-enforcement stance. The Court held that as a matter of principle, the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a non-EU foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy in circumstances where the foreign judgment has first obtained exequatur in France and the irreconcilable decisions result in mutually exclusive consequences. In the present case, because the Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had been denied exequatur for lack of proper notice to the opposing party, no irreconciliability could arise. The Court reaffirmed that the mere disregard of a foreign judgment’s res judicata effect by an arbitral award is not, in and of itself, contrary to international public policy. The Court further clarified that the exequatur judge exercises only limited review, verifying the existence of the arbitral award and the absence of any manifest breach of international public policy, dismissing SNEL’s other arguments based on capacity to arbitrate, arbitrability, and foreign procurement rules, which did not amount to a breach of French international public policy. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.

Arbitration analysis: William Kirtley, founding partner at Aceris Law, discusses the test used by the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside an arbitral award for violations of international public policy in Société MK Group c/ S.A.R.L. Onix et Société Financial Initiative.