[means that the GHG reduction targets and Climate Mitigation Measures of [insert Company name] support the achievement of the three goals set out in Articles 2.1 and 4.1 of the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement[, in particular pursuing efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels]. OR means aligning with the three goals set out in Articles 2.1 and 4.1 of the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement[, in particular pursuing efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels].]

means investments that are aligned with the agreement'>Paris Agreement mitigation goal, that is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, by holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

The main international convention on third party nuclear liability alongside the Brussels Convention. The Paris Convention provides for compensation for injury to or loss of life of any person and for damage to, or loss of, any property caused by a nuclear accident in a nuclear installation or during the transport of nuclear substances to and from installations. It does not cover damage to the nuclear installation itself. The principles of the Paris Convention are implemented into UK law by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

Arbitration analysis: Following a subcontracting dispute over additional payment and defective works, an arbitral tribunal held the contract void under mandatory French subcontracting legislation and awarded RGB compensation. The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed [Z] Construction’s annulment application and granted exequatur. It confirmed that article 1492(3) does not permit disguised merits review: alleged errors of law, fact or evidential assessment do not amount to non-compliance with the tribunal’s mission. The court also relied on [Z] Construction’s procedural conduct when rejecting its time-limit challenge and found no public policy breach arising from RGB’s insolvency proceedings. Practitioners should note both the narrow scope of annulment review and the need to address promptly any insolvency-related stay issues during arbitration. Produced in partnership with Gisèle Stephens-Chu, Avocat à la Cour (Paris Bar) and founder of Stephens Chu Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: The case concerned a conflict between two arbitration clauses contained in different layers of the parties’ contractual documentation: the Paris International Arbitration Chamber (CAIP) clause expressly set out in the broker confirmations, and the Fegra clause appearing in Liprobel 7, an industry-standard document composed of a pro forma contract sheet and a set of general conditions. Only the general conditions (not the contract-type itself) contain the Fegra arbitration provision and these general conditions apply solely in the absence of a contrary express written agreement. The Paris Court of Appeal held that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction because the CAIP arbitration clause printed at the bottom of each broker confirmation constituted the parties’ operative arbitration agreement. The court found that the pre-printed clause referring disputes to the CAIP, set out at the bottom of each broker confirmation, formed part of the conditions particulières (ie, the contractual terms specifically agreed by the parties) and thus constituted an express written agreement between the parties. This clause prevailed over the arbitration provision contained in the industry-standard Liprobel 7 general terms designating Fegra. Applying the parties objectively expressed intention, together with the principles of good-faith interpretation and effet utile, the court held that the parties’ repeated and unconditional acceptance of the broker confirmations demonstrated clear consent to CAIP arbitration. The court therefore confirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The decision provides important guidance on managing conflicting arbitration clauses in layered commodity-trading documentation and underscores the need for close scrutiny of pre-printed broker templates. Written by Anna Guillard Sazhko, international counsel and arbitrator, Paris, France.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of Appeal annulled a partial award rendered under the Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments among Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC Treaty) for irregular constitution of the tribunal. It did so on the ground that the tribunal was constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) acting as appointing authority, as provided under the Libya-Austria Treaty, the application of which had been triggered by claimant via the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause of Article 8 of the OIC Treaty. The court held that the MFN did not allow to import any dispute resolution provisions from other treaties. This procedure was used by claimant to have the PCA designate an appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of Libya, which had defaulted in the appointment, and in circumstances where the appointing authority under the OIC Treaty, namely the Secretary General of the OIC did not make the appointment when solicited. The court held that it was up to the claimant in such circumstances to solicit the juge d’appui to appoint an arbitrator on Libya’s behalf. The court further held that it did not have the power to re-appoint tribunal members upon annulling the partial award. The decision sheds light as to what can and cannot be done when faced with a deadlock in constituting tribunals. Written by Hamid Gharavi, founding partner, and Nada Sader, partner, of Derains & Gharavi.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision dated 18 December 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement which referred to conciliation and arbitration rules that do not exist was ‘manifestly inapplicable’within the meaning of Article 1448(1) of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the ‘FCCP’). On that basis, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the French over the dispute. This case underscores the need for careful drafting of arbitration agreement, including verifying the existence and content of the applicable arbitration rules, to ensure that such agreements can be effectively applied.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision dated 18 December 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement which referred to conciliation and arbitration rules that do not exist was ‘manifestly inapplicable’within the meaning of Article 1448(1) of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the ‘FCCP’). On that basis, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the French over the dispute. This case underscores the need for careful drafting of arbitration agreement, including verifying the existence and content of the applicable arbitration rules, to ensure that such agreements can be effectively applied. Written by Nadia Darwazeh, partner and Rémi Sassine, associate at Vanguard International Dispute Resolution.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that French courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an annulment application against an ICSID award, an ICSID annulment decision or an ICSID revision decision. Rejecting arguments based on the right of access to a court and alleged denial of justice, the court held that the ICSID Convention establishes a self-contained and delocalised system of arbitration that excludes review by national courts. The decision provides a significant reaffirmation of the autonomy of the ICSID system and confirms that the designation of Paris as the place of proceedings does not create any jurisdictional link with the French courts.

Arbitration: In a notable decision, the Paris Court of Appeal decided that a third-party funder was not a co-claimant in arbitral proceedings. Rather, the court decided that the extension of an arbitration clause to a third-party funder requires exceptional circumstances. The existence of the third-party funder, the fact that the funder’s interest was not simply financial, and the fact that the third party only acted as a funder occasionally were not considered to be exceptional circumstances. Written by Mehdi Mellah, senior legal counsel at Deminor Litigation Funding.

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of Appeal has dismissed the Russian Federation’s second attempt to annul a US$1.1bn Crimea-expropriation award in favour of the Ukrainian state bank Oschadbank. On remand from the Cour de cassation, the court held that none of Russia’s annulment grounds: lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis, loci or materiae, excess of mandate, procedural fraud or tribunal bias met the narrow tests in article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Importantly, the judges confirmed that the BIT’s article 12 ‘post-1992 investment’ clause is a merits condition; therefore the only jurisdictional criterion for annulment purposes is whether the dispute arose after the treaty entered into force, which it did (27 January 2000). The decision cements France’s very limited review of investor-state awards and clarifies how Paris courts will treat Russia/Crimea BIT cases. Practitioners should note the court’s refusal to revisit territorial or ‘foreign’ investment objections at the annulment stage, which precludes reconsideration of merits-related objections disguised as jurisdictional. Written by Anna Guillard Sazhko, International Arbitration counsel and arbitrator.

Arbitration analysis: In a didactic decision of 5 December 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) relied on well-established rules of French international arbitration law to dismiss an application to set aside an arbitral award brought on two different grounds of annulment, namely that: recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to (a) substantive international public policy because it would give effect to corruption and (b) procedural international public policy because the arbitral tribunal’s decision was taken on the basis of allegedly forged documents; and the arbitral tribunal had been irregularly constituted because the president of the tribunal had allegedly failed to disclose what the applicant considered an important circumstance likely to raise questions as to his independence and impartiality. Based on the factual circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the applicant failed to establish (i) the existence of serious, precise, and converging indicia of corruption and (ii) that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not ‘surprised’ by fraud but rather taken in a reasoned manner after a thorough assessment of the exact content and the significance of the documents in view of all relevant circumstances. Moreover, the Court found that the applicant’s claim on the irregular constitution of the tribunal was not only baseless, but more importantly inadmissible as it had not been raised during the arbitration. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law (with the assistance of Carl Szymura and Emma Ruby, associates at Le 16 Law).